Skeptic's hammer

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
LOL

I hope some other contestant pitches in, or I might have to return by popular demand... 😵

Originally posted by Halitose
I hope some other contestant pitches in, or I might have to return by popular demand... 😵

Wait till the end of the day - someone's bound to take up the baton by then.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Wait till the end of the day - someone's bound to take up the baton by then.

The metaphor is the soul of human communication.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
After putting up a spirited fight, our first contender has bowed out at Genesis 1:8.

Eight verses is not a bad showing, but it's hardly a champion's effort. Bring out KellyJay for the main event.

Originally posted by Palynka
Is it worth deconstructing the literal meaning of the bible?

That's a good question. I think it can be, only because "literalistic" readings seem to have become so normative (witness some of the discussions on here) that anyone who offers allegorical, metaphorical, mythological or symbolic readings is likely to have such an exercise dismissed as "mere apologetics" both by "biblicists" (for trying to make the text fit the world) and non-biblicists (for trying to re-interpret the text in order to "save" it).

Historically, (a) such biblical literalism seems to have become normative only among protestant Christians, and (b) seems to have become so only beginning around the 18th century. The bible also came to be viewed (perhaps earlier), no longer as a collection of writings (books), but as a book—maybe when printing allowed the whole thing to be packed within a single cover—that is "self-interpreting."

As I’ve pointed out before, for example, Jewish exegesis seems to have never viewed a literalistic reading of the Hebrew scriptures as normative—as a matter of fact, no single reading or interpretation can be “absolute” because the Hebrew language admits of (even requires) too many possibilities. Trying to uncover the (one-and-only) meaning of any part of the text is considered to be a pursuit after an idolatry of the “graven word” (remember, Judaism is the religion of the dual Torah: written and oral). I believe it is said in the Talmud that p’shat, the “plain” (literal) understanding of the text is no more than the “cloak” of Torah, concealing as much meaning as it may allude to.

But isn’t that what a good story does? Isn’t that why stories are much more engaging to read than textbooks, for example? Oh well—the point being that I think a deconstruction of the “literal meaning” can be helpful in unseating that usurper from its throne of “normativity.”

Obviously, I now belong on the sidelines with Hal and LH.

Originally posted by vistesd
Historically, (a) such biblical literalism seems to have become normative only among protestant Christians, and (b) seems to have become so only beginning around the 18th century. The bible also came to be viewed (perhaps earlier), no longer as a collection of writings (books), but as a book—maybe when printing allowed the whole thing to be packed within a single cover—that is "self-interpreting."

I'm very interested in finding out more about this history. Can you recommend anything on the subject?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This is an opportunity for people who believe in the Bible to show that skeptics are incorrect. The reference will be the annotated skeptic's bible (www.skepticsannotatedbible.com). I suggest we start at the very beginning...

Gen.1:1 - 2:3
The creation account in Genesis 1 conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, ...[text shortened]... nsects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite.

1. GENESIS 1:3-5 Light was created
2. GENESIS 1:6-8 The Sky was created
3. GENESIS 1:9-13 The Earth
4. GENESIS 1:14-18 The Sun and the Moon
5. GENESIS 1:20-23 The Birds and Sea Creatures
6. GENESIS 1:24-31 The animals and mankind
Have You and and Science, looked at and tried to figure out, why GOD did it in that order. Or have You and Science looked at GENESIS 1:1,2. Where it clearly says," In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
Science makes man the center of all things. the center of attraction. Which is understandible to those that believe that Life is about them(mankind).
You suggest "we start at the very beginning......." Lets compare Science and The BIBLE.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm very interested in finding out more about this history. Can you recommend anything on the subject?

For a “light-minded” introduction to Jewish midrashic exegesis, I’d suggest Burton Visotzky’s Reading the Book. With regard to the Christian history, frankly, I’ve gleaned my stuff from Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, in this case from Vol. 1, covering the period from 100-600 C.E., and Vol. 5, covering from 1700 on (I don’t yet have Vol. 4, covering 1300-1700, and the Reformation). Scribs suggested a book called The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism, which I have not gotten yet.

The question of when the book became a book, and what that may mean for hermeneutics—I’m still working on that one. For one thing, there could be no “book” until there was a settled canon. I suspect that any shift was subtle, since there seems to have always been some reading into one text from another—for example, even prior to the canon, Christians began to read back into the Hebrew scriptures from whatever Gospel(s) and letters that were then recognized by the local churches. But it seems to be pretty well-accepted that one result of modern printing was the allowance of the laity to have access to translations into the vernacular (e.g., Luther’s translation into German), which allowed less reliance (by Protestants, anyway) on “the tradition.”

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I hope that the scientists among us will step up to the plate for that one.

Meanwhile, here's a more literary issue:

The two contradictory creation accounts.

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) (Humans were created before the other animals)

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Gen.1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

Ge ...[text shortened]... Gen.2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

GENESIS 1:1-2:3 Mankind was created after the Animals. Could it not be possible that GOD when created the animals they were allowed to spread throughout the entire earth. GENESIS 2:4-25 Also could it not be possible, that when GOD put man, in the Garden of Eden. That HE then showed man how HE created the animals. And gave man the privlege to name the animals. could it not be that this was apart of that GOD to Man close relationship that man once had with GOD.
Could it not be also possible that there may be another answer, to the question of the Creation?
If you read GENESIS 1:1-2:3 just as it is written. Could that have been the completion of one week. Reason being that the orriginal texts or manuscripts did not have Paragraphs. Could it not be starting at GENESIS 2:4 was the beginning of a new week? Which on the first day of the Second week was when GOD put man into the Garden of Eden. And Adam was given a GOD to man understanding of the Creation.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Have You and and Science, looked at and tried to figure out, why GOD did it in that order. Or have You and Science looked at GENESIS 1:1,2. Where it clearly says," In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

Hello BF, this is one of the questions we are trying to discuss. Your answer is not clear to me--can you explain why these things happened in the order Genesis says they did?

You'll notice that I've posted a few questions, I'd value your feedback on all of them. Your task is to show that science cannot contradict a literal reading of the Bible. If you wish to discuss something else, this is the wrong thread.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What other natural light-producing objects do we know of other than the sun and stars? How else to produce the effect of night & day?

We have no idea what is above the sky or outer space as we know it. Could it not be that when GOD created the heaven(s) and the earth that there is something that separrates the sky or outer space.Which would prevent us from seeing heaven naturally.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Could it not be that when GOD created the heaven(s) and the earth that there is something that separrates the sky or outer space.Which would prevent us from seeing heaven naturally.

OK--like heaven is another dimension? I'll buy that. Proceed to the next question.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Hello BF, this is one of the questions we are trying to discuss. Your answer is not clear to me--can you explain why these things happened in the order Genesis says they did?

You'll notice that I've posted a few questions, I'd value your feedback on all of them. Your task is to show that science cannot contradict a literal reading of the Bible. If you wish to discuss something else, this is the wrong thread.

Just as there are those that believe, that Science is the first and last Word to Life or Reasoning. There are those that believe such as myself, that believe that THE WORD OF GOD, is the First and Last of Life and all Reasonning.
At the moment I have not read yet all the postings that you have made on this thread. Is there anything that I have said that was not in answer to your first post?

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Is there anything that I have said that was not in answer to your first post?

Not at all. Please continue. I'll take a look at the results tomorrow.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
(1:3-5, 14-19) "Let there be light"
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

Could it not be that the day begins for God in the cool of the evening. such as when GOD came to Adam in the evening, which could mean that is when HE ended HIS day of rest. And began the next day.