1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.Well, there are some pretty obvious questions at the get-go:
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
- Who wrote this?
- When?
- Why should we believe this particular creation story?
The following I know because wikipedia tells me so:
All that does little to convince me that this is as accurate as, say, an "E! True Hollywood Story."The text of Genesis makes no claim about authorship; the traditional Jewish, and later Christian, belief was that the book was dictated in its entirety by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. For a number of reasons, this view is no longer accepted by biblical scholars, who instead accept the proposal known as the documentary hypothesis which postulates a redactor, possibly Ezra (5th century BC), compiling from earlier sources. Scholarly debate instead addresses the question whether these earlier sources included a post-exilic production (i.e., post-dating 583 BC), or a product of the Kingdom of Judah under Josiah (7th century BC), or whether some elements might even date back to the United Monarchy (10th century BC) (see dating the Bible).
The existence of the full text of Genesis is ascertained for the 3rd century BC when it was translated into Greek (the Septuagint). The oldest known manuscripts of the Masoretic text of Genesis are the Aleppo Codex (dated to ca. 920) and the Westminster Leningrad Codex (dated to 1008). There are also fragments of the (unvocalized) Genesis text preserved in some Dead Sea scrolls (1st century BC or AD).
So, we have it that God started out and created a lot of stuff. I'm not sure if this means he did this as soon as he was born — which makes him quite the prodigy, even for a god — or if this is just the story of Mission: Earth and Heaven, and God had been kicking around the circuit for some time before his attention moved to birthing us and the sky above.
In any case, it was quite a week.
I wonder why there's so much of God seeing that things he made were good. Is His Omnipotence lacking in self-confidence, or does he just groove on himself like Dane Cook basking in some unearned laughter?
I'm a tad confused about verse #7 about sandwiching firmament above and below the waters. Is that overhead water the clouds, or is there a big sea in the sky somewhere?
Verse #16 describes God making two bright lights, the latter presumably being the moon. I suppose one could poetically consider that reflective satellite to be a light, but the whole thing seems awfully Earth-centric. Assuming that the Heaven that God created includes the whole universe, our shiny l'il moon doesn't seem like such a major creation.
Now here comes what seems to be a big problem. All the science I've ever learned suggests a slow crawl of life out of the primordial ooze, so this business with all creatures great and small showing up in the first week seems pretty specious. Talk about a fact-checking snafu! Has anyone cross-checked this with The Origin of the Species or any leading paleontology texts?
Finally, what's up with "I have given every green herb for meat." In the first week, did God invent tofurkey?
76 comments:
I agree about the earth-centrism. The universe is just so much bigger than the imagination of the author of this work was prepared to grasp. Though this might have seemed grand to the contemporary audience, now it comes across as downright provincial.
Genesis gets the creation story over with rather quickly, which is really too bad. It seems that the formation of the universe is much more interesting that the genealogy of a buch of religious nuts, but the Old Testament seems to dwell a great deal on the latter and almost fast-forwards through the former.
And of course there's all the silliness of how there could be water without the sun (wouldn't it freeze?), or even how there could be "days" before the sun was made. Did God have his own Timex digital watch on which to keep time?
The author of Genesis definitely needs to go to science-fiction writing school. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Of course, most myths include all sorts of weirdness that doesn't make sense on closer scrutiny. But if you're going to present Genesis as historical fact, then it must be scrutinized as such.
Of course it's unfair to judge Genesis' author in light of all we now know. I'm sure if "The Redactor" had known what the Hubble Space telescope has shown us, he or shw would have had a grander vision.
Anyone notice how God made light before he made the sun, moon and the stars?
So was this a separate kind of light from the later sun and stars-centric light? What happened to it? If this account is correct, then we should still be in light when the sun is below the horizon.
Maybe this "light" is the missing "dark energy" that scientists posit must exist in order for the universe to be moving the way it seems to be.
The "light" that goes missing in Genesis is central to the story. Not the story that most Christians know, but the story hidden within the story.
Whether you believe the Bible is true or not it is quite an amazing book. A book that seems to say one thing on the surface, but says something very different at it's depth. If you approach it with an open-mind, forgetting everything you have been told it says or means, and ignore rigid doctrines and dogmas, you will start to see the remnants of a story hidden within the text. A story that blows traditional Judeo-Christianity off it's very foundation.
As you go along you are going to realize that, that "light" that goes missing at the very beginning, is missing throughout much of the OT, but it does show up again, in the NT.
VastLeft - great idea!
I'd say that the first part is not a bad rudimentary version of evolution, despite the obvious flaws.
'Days' could mean millennia, as pointed out, without the sun or stars there can be no days.
I also note a rather strong exhortation to vegetarianism which seems to have fallen by the wayside among the biblists.
Hi, VastLeft, great idea! Naomi (^) pointed me your way from GifS.
At least in regards to Genesis Chapter 1, I think authorities agree it was cobbled together from several different accounts by several different authors; a long time ago in Catholic college, I remember being told that a popular theory holds that one of the writers might even have been a woman. The two stories of how humans were created - 1:27 and later 2:7, 21-23 - would seem to point in that direction, although a popular rationalization of the discrepancy is that the second account is an expansion on the first (you know, that subplot development you mentioned).
What I find fascinating and drives many literalists nuts when I point it out is that a Jewish tradition holds that the first creation of man at the same time as woman points to Adam's having a first wife, the notorious Lilith. Eve of his rib then becomes the second wife, not that that resolves the incest problem you point out in later chapters. Since the Jewish interpretation of Genesis is older than the Xian, shouldn't we follow their lead instead of the Xians'? I mean, looking at Chapter 1 literally, man and woman do get created together, at the same time, period.
Some other nitpicks I've always had: * How can the earth be "without form and void" if it's just been created as earth?
* When did god create the "waters" that already seem to exist in verse 2? I mean, how can the earth that has just been described as "void" (empty) contain waters?
* Do we know for sure that the "Spirit of God" in verse 2 is god himself? It could be, I don't know, an advance scout for him or something, moving over the waters...
* Why is the light "good" but not the darkness? Why is day better than night? After all, god created darkness first; why would he create something not good? Isn't he perfect?
* And why is he creating heaven again in verse 8? He just created it, right before earth, in verse 1!
* Oops - he just created earth again (this time with a capital E, but that could just be the KJV) in 10; whoever redacted this didn't do a very good job of retconning the stories...
OK, now I'm being too nitpicky; some other observations: * God seems to have forgotten to create underwater flora, like seaweed, to feed the submarine life he creates in 21.
* Because after all, he's made the fowl of the air and the beasts of the earth all vegetarians, too in verse 30, not just humans.
jayjay, are you referring to the Gnostic version of that pre-sun light? Because the pre-heaven- and -earth-creation waters appear to have come before anything else! Maybe the Greek god Poseidon existed before the abrahamic god did...
^ Not that Poseidon created the ocean either in his myth...
Eve,
Welcome aboard!
As is probably quite obvious by now, my own experience with the Bible is virtually non-existent, so this is a pretty new experience for me.
I've debated a lot of xtianists on the big-picture issues (some of my recent posts on atheism and religion can be found here), but I figured it was time for me to learn the nitty-gritty.
Great to have folks participating who have some deeper background and interesting observations to share!
"Comment on the "green herb for meat" thing: in old English the
word meat was often used to indicate food, in general.
When you get to the Book of Isaiah, you will come across a statement that one day to God is a thousand to us.
God is a rational being and he left behind his laws for us to uncover including physics, condensation, the creation of universe, the evolution of life, etc.
Science is nothing more that the Study of God's laws.
Just reading this from the standpoint of 'onlooker' it sounds like a recipe for a biologist or geneticist. Was God a terra-former who embedded the Earth with life as we do today with cloning? That may explain why he would have to check his own handy work, to make sure that life's gene pools were diverse enough.
Funny that I would comment on a Bible study for Atheists. I am an Atheist in that I don't believe in the god-construct of human thought, but I am a Christian (though not one of "those" Christians).
Now I'll talk about Genesis 1.
This chapter is the first of two different creation stories in the book. You will notice this when you move on to Genesis 2-3.
During the time this was written it was written in response to the Canaanite creation story (anyone heard of Marduk, et al?) that permeated the Jewish faith because of their exile in Babylon.
This is not meant to be taken as a "historical" account. This is not what definitively happened in a factual/literal way. Even the Jews would have recognized this. It is a theological statement. And that is an important point (I'll get back to it.)
In the ancient mindset, chaos is troublesome, and this is often depicted by storms, turbelent waters, darkness, and "the deep" of verse 2. In the Babylonian mindset, the world is just a series of struggles between their gods. When one set of gods wins, winter comes. When another wins its spring. And so on through the four seasons. This was their theological understanding of the world (yes, very primitive).
What the Jewish faith sought to show, was that God, the Father of Abraham is not chaotic! Nor are the seasons happenstance, nor the result of cosmic wars. It is the structure of the plan of their God. Hence the world is created according to their understanding - in 7 days. Contra pop-Christendom this does not mean a literal 7 days. It is merely the function to convey order over chaos.
Also, the way in which it was created (ie. water above and below, v. 6) reflects their then primitive idea of the world. Imagine a snow-globe. There is the earth, and the sky forms a dome around it. The space in between that dome and the earth & sea is the "vault" of verse 7. Above that dome is where God reigns and it is called "the heavens," the same word that can be translated "skies."
Now this might seem very primitive, and so obviously wrong from what we have discovered today. Don't hold this against the Jews of that time. It was still a significant step compared to the Babylonian understanding.
So where does this leave us?
We have to recognize that this is a faith-based creation statement - in other words it speaks about God not about the world. Therefore, to impose a literal 7 day creation is erroneous, because that is not what the text suggests. Yet also, we cannot impose our scientific understandings on the text. Namely, because it is not a science textbook. It is not talking about the world, it is talking about God's relation with the world. We cannot blame a past society for failing to meet our interpretive criteria, because they did not have that criteria available to them. We have to take it for what it is. Otherwise we are imposing ourselves on the text, and not allowing it to speak for itself. (And both Christians and otherwise need to understand this.)
Now this means that one's belief in God does not hinge on your interpretation of Genesis 1. You can believe in evolution and be a faithful believer. You can believe in 7-day creation and be a believer. This is simply because, the text is not about the world-as-it-is-alone, it is about God's relationship with the world.
In otherwords, in the mind of God, our world is "good," and it was created according to a plan. Whether this plan is evolutionary, or otherwise I will leave for the scientists to figure out. God may have started evolution, he may not have. But Genesis is saying that he was involved, and it communicates it in the best way 8-12th century BC Jews knew how.
Whether you believe that part of Genesis is a faith decision, not a scientific one.
Tim,
Thanks for joining in.
Given that millions of people treat the Bible as the ultimate source of Truth in this world (and beyond), I don't agree that its scientific (and other) flaws are meaningless.
It is clearly the product of men (and clearly not the product of women), and its flaws are its flaws.
If the Bible is factually untrue, then faith in it is plainly a mistake.
The day that Judeo-Christian religions proudly say they use the book as a set of insprirational fables is the day they're no longer asking for faith. There's a word for that kind of thinking: "Unitarian." Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Vast Left Wing Conspiracy,
I will respectfully disagree and explain why.
First, I did not mean to say any scientific flaws were meaningless. What I said, was that it is not a scientific textbook, therefore we should not treat it as such.
We do not read poetry like this. Why should we read Scripture like this? If someone writes, "My heart burns ..." we know it is imagery and not literal.
We need to recapture the imagery of the Bible, not approach it scientifically. This is the case for casual readers and faithful readers. Both do a disservice to the text to assume it will answer scientific questions. That is not what it was written to do. It is not a history, it is "an account." (Genesis 2:4)
If Christians see the Bible as "absolute truth" rather than a narrative of faith, then that is an interpretive mistake; Likewise, if one rejects its faith statements based on the inadequacy of some kind of "absolute truth" then this is also an interpretive mistake. The Bible was not written as "absolute truth" but as a faith narrative. And there are current biblical scholars who will confirm this (Hauerwas, Fowl).
As for its patriarchal nature, that is because the text is a product of its time, when women did not write. Yes, this is a significant cultural "flaw," however this alone does not discount it either. It only shows again that the book was written under the cultural context of its time with its linguistic allusions and metaphors. Again, it is a faith narrative about a particular people, not an absolute.
Then you said: If the Bible is factually untrue, then faith in it is plainly a mistake.
Only if it is a product of science and the appropriation of facts.
But even this kind of interpretive framework is a product of modernity (the philosophy of the past 400 years).
Imagine with me for a moment, that 2000 years from now there becomes introduced a new interpretive framework. Something like "interesting" or aesthetically pleasing literature. In other words, let's pretend that 2000 years from now the only literature worth reading is that which is written well. Now imagine, that they are reading something like the U.S. Constitution. And they conclude, this document is Boring! Therefore, not worthy of consideration. We of today, would say - you are imposing your interpretive framework on our modern writing style and that is inappropriate. Because right now, we try to right clearly, concisely and factually. Similarily, 2000 years ago the Bible was not a historical document seeking to convey facts. It was trying to convey faith. Therefore let's not impose our interpretive framework (of the last 4-500 years) on it in order to verify its faith claims. Its faith claims are not scientifically based. They are faith based.
Thanks.
I appreciate a critical reading of Scripture, and I appreciate the concerns of people who have been wronged by uneducated, politically-manipulative users of the Bible. But what I am addressing is not the specific questions being raised, but the methodology of your interpretation. Because what you are doing is precisely what "they" are doing. The only difference is you are taking the opposite stance. I think the problem is not the variant views on Scripture (whether it is or is not factual). The problem is that we tend to approach it as a document that is supposed to be factual.
Thanks.
PS I hope 2000 years from now people don't discount this post because it wasn't written eloquently enough. ;)
Tim,
Re: "What I said, was that it is not a scientific textbook, therefore we should not treat it as such."
I'm not suggesting the Bible needs to be a textbook. But if it is, as powerful religionists like Albert Mohler (sorry to pick on a guy who's recovering from surgery) and Ted Haggard (sorry to pick on a guy who's recovering from an addiction to meth and KY jelly) claim, the literal truth of God, expecting it to be technically accurate and intellectually consistent seems to me to be a reasonable expectation.
The Bible is given tremendously more weight than a good book of poems. Poems may be considered beautiful or moving, but no one is telling their kids that they'll burn in Hell if they don't love baby Keats.
With the Constitution, we have an established procedure by which we bring it up-to-date. Perhaps the Bible would be a better book if there were a similar amendment process.
In any case, my approach here is to read it at face value and react to it as if it were any other piece of text put before me. If it inspires me, I'll say so. If it seems laughable, arbitratry, sexist, and cruel, I'll say so.
Can't wait to have time to post on Genesis 27 later tonight. Contains the best line in the Bible so far.
VLWC,
Re: "I'm not suggesting the Bible needs to be a textbook. But if it is,..."
Since you claim not to be suggesting this, why appease those "powerful religionists" by talking about it on their terms? Why not call them out for abusing the Bible, without abusing it similarily just to take the opposite stance?
It seems to me the best critique is to critique their literary approach rather than their results. Because otherwise you will just continue to butt heads, without getting anywhere as to what kind of literature the Bible really is, and therefore how we should approach it.
Re:"The Bible is given tremendously more weight than a good book of poems..."
True enough, but that given weight is not lessened by poking fun at the Bible. While this might be an enjoyable enterprise, it does not address the problem of the weight given in the first place.
From the commentary posts, it appears to be operating from the same basic premise: A) This is a divinely-spoken and ordained book (even if this is said satirically). B) Therefore it makes certain claims on your life.
Where you differ from the fundamentalists is in the following step:
C) This makes an absolute claim of ... obedience/absurdity.
I contend that the problem is not with the result in Step C, but with the whole enterprise of approaching the text as if it were an absolute (whether this is done seriously or satirically).
As for your comment that the Bible should be amendable. A couple comments: First, this is precisely what happens in the bylaws of churches.
Second, The desire for amendability is again the interpretive framework of modernity, that came to the fore during the Enlightenment era. And what you missed with my Constitution illustration (choose any literature) is that I was preposing another interpretive framework that wouldn't make sense to us if it was imposed on our favorite texts. In the same way, it is not adequate for us to fault an ancient text for failing to meet up to modern critique. In the same way, current writers have no way of knowing how they can write favorably for an audience 500 years in the future. It's impossible, thus we should not expect it of them.
So what we moderns should do, is allow it to speak for itself as a faith narrative and then decide whether that is an expression of faith we deem worthy of believing. Not whether it is scientifically factual or absolute.
Re:"In any case, my approach here is to read it at face value..."
And what I'm trying to communicate is the "face" you will see will be your own, because of your own imposed modern interpretive framework. This already devalues the Bible no matter what you might say about it afterwards. The same thing happens when absolute-truth-fundamentalists impose themselves on it. They unwittingly devalue it as well. But you knew this, which is why you are pointing it out through humor and satire.
My point of discontent is that neither actually deals with the issues that the Bible is dealing with. Thus making poor Bible Studies for both.
Tim,
My goals for this are humble:
* Help me and other folks work our way though this influential book
* Consider its aptness through modern eyes
* Have some irreverent fun wherever the text is ridiculous, flawed, or otherwise risible
* Shine a light on passages that I find admirable or damnable
* Hear from a few True Believers about how they interpet the text
Thus far, I've found precious little that is inspiring. So far, I don't like this God, and the people in this narrative haven't impressed me much, either.
But this is a long book, and great claims are made for a fellow who shows up in the second half, so I look forward to reading about him, and no doubt there are some very interesting things to be found between here and there.
I sure hope to find some inspirational passages. There are several Bible quotes one hears that have a powerful ring to them, and I hope to encounter more of them, and also to see the full context of ones that are familiar.
There is an army of David and Jesus specialists who research and interpret the Bible from the historical perspective. Good for them, and handy for people who want to approach the Bible that way.
What interests me is how applicable the Bible, as written and in a venerable edition, is to our modern lives.
In today's America, Bible literalists wield tremendous power. We discount their importance at our peril.
And a great many people who are less doctrinaire and less influential then the Mohlers, the Falwells, and the Robertsons hold firm to the belief that this book is, in fact, the most important guide to the galaxy.
You argue that reading it with modern eyes devalues it, but modern eyes are what we have, and modern lives are what we lead.
For better or worse, that's the Biblical path I've chosen to walk, and I do hope you'll continue to mosey along with us.
If the Bible is factually untrue, then faith in it is plainly a mistake.
I don't believe you can rely on the Bible to be factually true on context to the creation. It would have to be a much larger book. Much, much larger. And if everything regarding creation were included, who would understand it? All of it? Whether you believe in God or not, you can't expect Him to be able to explain creation in a book. Any book.
Zoom,
That's an interesting take on this, but it doesn't ring true to me.
For example, it's not possible for me to fully describe baseball in twenty words or less, but I can say "baseball is a sport where a player attempts to hit a thrown ball with a wooden stick."
Now, there are many things I've left out, including the notion of fair vs. foul balls, taking pitches outside the zone, bunting vs. taking a full swing, the notion of running the bases and being thrown out, or flying out or hitting a home run, the use of metal bats in some leagues, etc.
But it was well within a person's -- and surely a God's if there be one -- reach to write factually about it.
Documentary Hypothesis, where it concerns creation:
Genesis 1-2:3 is from the Priestly Source
Genesis 2:4-24 is from the Jahwist
The Jahwist is 200 years earlier than the Priestly Source.
The Priestly Source is a religiopolitically motivated rival to the Jahwist text. The Priestly Source represents the bias of the Aaronids, who believed that only through them alone was communication with God possible, so it strips out any references to face-to-face contact with God (eg Adam + Eve), and makes God more distant.
Note the order of events in the two versions. Man + Women are created AT THE SAME TIME in one, but in the other (the Jahwist), Man is created, then loads of other things, then Woman is created from Man's rib. The problem this causes if the two accounts are read together and taken literally was under realised by even ancient Jewish Rabbis, who co-opted a mesopotamian demon to explain it. They said that Adam had had two wives, the first was named "Lilith", and she abandoned him because he wanted her to be submissive in sex; Lilith is mentioned in the book of Isaiah, but her name ('lilitu' in the Hebrew) is replaced with "screech owl" in many English transations.
In regards to sandwiching firmament, ancient belief in the near east was that the earth was kind of like in a giant bubble, the sky was thought of as a liquid, with a small amount of air between it and earth. Egyptian cosmogenesis mythology is VERY like that.
It doesn't seem to ever have occurred to anyone that people would drown in liquid space.
Tim -
I'm new at this site so what I'm posting may have already been said in a later discussion, but I felt compelled to reply now (before I forget or get sidetracked by future debates), assuming that you are even still "listening" here!
My take on the goal of this project is to address mainly the beliefs of the literalists in the Christian world. Unfortunately, most Christians (that I know) do not take such a liberal and open-minded stance on the Bible as you do. In my opinion, these literalists are the ones causing so much trouble in today’s society - demonizing gays and non-believers and denigrating women – and unfortunately many of them are in very powerful, rulemaking positions.
I think the author is trying to show these people, specifically, what a ridiculous text the Bible is (when taken literally especially) and from there it is one's prerogative to either discard it completely as an outdated and poorly edited rulebook or to approach it as you do, as a "faith narrative” about god’s relationship with the world. But I think that is another discourse entirely.
Besides, as an Atheist tired of getting pushed around for believing in reason and not someone else's Santa Claus - it gives me a certain base pleasure to poke fun at their "sacred text." Beneath us? Maybe. Fun and darkly satisfying? Definitely!
Welcome bossy d.!
I should hire you for my ad manager:
"Fun and darkly satisfying? Definitely!"
Kind of you to say, and I hope you'll stick around!
Hello all,
I've just stumbled onto this site and I'm intrigued. I am a Christian who believes in a literal view of the bible, so I hope to make some interesting counter discussion and hopefully share a different point of view.
As to whether the bible is to be taken literally, from studying the bible I would have to say that it should be read as any other book. The bible is God's Word, that is, it is God's word to us. It was written so that we can know things about Him. God understands how we understand and made a perfect letter to us in many different literary fashions. And just as you would not want your record of things interepreted in any old fashion, it would only make sense to interpret the bible literally, just like any other book, save when a literal understanding doesn't really make sense, just like any other book. For example, Psalm 91:4 says, "under His wings you may seek refuge," Now, this doesn't mean that God literally has wings. Jesus tells us that God is a spirit, He has no physical body, so he couldn't have literal wings. But it would certainly flow with the context of a book like Psalms to understand that we don't need to be physically under God's physical wings for refuge like a hen and her chicks, but that this is poetic and figurative, that those who follow God can consider Him a refuge like being under a hen's wings.
The key to getting the correct answers from the bible is context, which goes for any literary work. If you take a portion out of its context, you can make it mean whatever you like, and that's where the trouble comes in. First, you have the book. Each book is different, written in a different style and for a different purpose. For example the Psalms are poetic verse meant to describe worship and deep emotional feeling which wer often accompanied by music. There is actaully a couple verses in Proverbs that if you take them out of context will show an obvious contridiction (Proverbs 26:4, 26:5, back to back in fact!!). Proverbs is not a historical book but a book of wisdom. It is also not "the law", i.e. there are no commandments in Proverbs. So, like in the Proverbs reference, sometimes it is bad to answer a fool according to his folly, and sometimes it is good, depending on the situation...very good wisdom, no?
There is the context of book, there is also the context of the entire bible (no verse in scripture contridicts another, only bad interpretation does). There is also the context of the type of book, poetry, wisdom, history, doctrine, prophecy. The majority of problems people have with the bible come from taking things out of the context they were meant to be in, and that only because they didn't know that there was such a thing.
The bible was not originally written in English, but in Hebrew, some Aramaic, and Greek. It is dangerous to not take this into consideration because you can get WILDLY incorrect interpretations. One example of this is from the King James itself. In 1st Corinthians 13, Paul describes what love really is. However in the King James, the word for love is translated as "charity". Now, in our modern times we think of charity as some organization that you give money to for some cause like to help the poor, perhaps kindnesss in action or something, but not the love of the original word it is trying to translate. The original word for love in this context is the Greek work AGAPE. This is an unconditional love, it describes the love that God, and the love that true believers have for Him. In Greek there are many different words that we would translate into love, but to the Greeks had very different meanings. Another word for love is PHILEO, which is where we get the word PHILADELPHIA, or the "city of brotherly love". This is a good translation of this word which infers a neighborly or brotherly love, a horizontal type of love, a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" kind of love. PHILEO love is not AGAPE love, and this chapter makes a clear disctinction, but you have to dig beneath the surface and be studious to understand the need to look up the original texts. I currently use a New American Standard (NAS) Key Hebrew Greek study bible for this purpose (as well as many other great tools like Strong's concordance, lexicons, bible dictionaries, etc.). In my bible it underlines topical words and gives lexical definitions to them, as well as clarification for the Greek context that they are being used in the verses (grammatical context). Context is everything when it comes to bible study. You can't just make a cursory look a scripture and dismiss it or you will be hopelessly lost in the sea of opinions.
If that weren't enough, a big hurdle to good bible study is the fact that, apparently, modern information has "proven" biblical information obsolete, causing people to doubt God and His word, and so leads to my next topic.
The first of 2 of the biggest problems people have in modern times is that they reject the 1st week of Creation in favor of the "scientifically proven" interpretation of origins by way of Evolution (the other is the 1st Commandment). Some have tried to come up with a middle ground saying that each "day" was really an "age" corresponding to the different ages of Evolutionary theory. This proves unfound because they don't correspond, like how flowering plants were created in it's own age without the help of pollinating insects, and so would not have been able to survive an entire "age" awaiting the insects to pollinate them.
So, it's either one or the other, and judging by your readership's comments I would say most side with current science. Well, I can't say that I blame them. I mean, there is empirical evidence and all these scientists say "yeah, yeah, it's true." and "we have evidence," etc., etc. However, and this also goes for bible interpretation, sometimes you just have to dig a little deeper. Sometimes you have to look at the evidence for yourself before you can make a decision. After all, if you take their word for it, then you've turned yourself into a religious person believing blindly in their version of the truth. I often say that it takes more faith to be an atheist because you have to believe what the scientists say, which are really just preachers in labcoats. I tested myself recently with carbon14 dating.
A week ago, I was clueless about what carbon14 dating was, or anything concerning archaelogical dating for that matter. So, I looked it up, spent the better part of an afternoon pouring over Wikipedia pages and such to learn what exactly the process was. And, from all I've read, I can say that my suspicions have been confirmed that carbon14, as well as other methods of dating (dendrochronology, ice core samples, etc.), are not a valid way to date things past a certain period with ANY degree of certainty. I'm not going to bore you with all the details, do yourself a favor and read about it. Nevertheless, there is a lot of problems with dating ancient objects that no dating method can fully guarantee, at least not nearly to the point of accuracy many scientists, including Mr. Dawkins, says.
As a caveat to all the hubub about dating things, I would check out a different source from the bible. Look at the story of Jesus' first miracle, of turning water to wine (John 2:1-11). Pay particular attention to what the headwaiter says in verse 10. Point being here is that wine takes some time to age before it becomes good. I personally don't like wine, but anybody can tell you that if a wine isn't prepared properly and drunk at the right time, it will not be at it's best. Aged wine, correctly aged wine, is the best wine. Now, here in this miracle, Jesus instantly turns the water to wine. And not just any wine, but the best wine this headwaiter might have possible ever tasted (see vs.10). So what does that have to do with Genesis? Well, if Jesus can turn water to wine, and not just any wine but perfectly aged wine, then what makes us think that He couldn't have created he Universe with a bit of "apparent" age as well?
....
...think about that for a second. There is light from stars that we are able to see that, if astronomers are correct, would have taken millions and millions of years to reach Earth. Well, sure that's true, but what if God created the light to be visible from day 1, no matter how far the stars are from us???
This is just the tip of the iceberg, but the main point is, if God is truly all-powerful, then there is really nothing He can't do (at least against His own nature He can't), and the means to create a Universe, earth-centric or not (who cares anyways?), with the appearance of infinite age, attests to it. I'm really thankful He did, because astronomy is cool.
As for verse #7, where God says that he created the waters above the firmament and the waters below the firmament, and the expanse between is called heaven..? To that I can say that it most likely is not the clouds. Many Creation Scientists believe that this water, possibly equal in quantity to the then ocean, was a hollow sphere of water encasing the Earth. This water, frozen in the sky, gave the Earth a greenhouse sort of environment, one where even cold blooded creatures could thrive without fear of the cold (which is postulated for a reason some dinosaurs got so big and could walk above the ground, not neading it's warmth to regulate it's temperature, most reptiles crawl with their belly's on the ground for a reason). And, later during the flood of Noah, God caused the heavens to rain for 40 days and nights, as well as the oceans to splurge up water, covering even the highest mountain. Creation scientists believe that this water source was what God used to flood the earth, which gave birth to our current atmosphere of ozone and clouds and such. It fits the Genesis story very well, but since it is now gone there is now way to prove it. The water then froze at the coldest places on the planet because of the sun, at the poles, allowing us to live on the exposed earth. Ever see Waterworld? Perhaps that will be earth in a few years if we can't get Global Warming under control.
My 2cents.
May God bless this study,
M-P
Tell me, Mr. M-P/2Cents, what makes you so certain that it is the bible that is God's word, or even that there is only one God. Why can't there be four Gods, say A, B, C, and D, with God B having the Bible as his word, and God C using the Zend Avesta?
Why the Bible anyway, why not the Zend Avesta, the Quran, the Illiad, the Code of Hammurabi, the Mahabarata, the Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Songs of Mae West? Why assume one and not the other? What makes you so sure that you'd still pick the Bible if you had happened to be born into a Hindu family?
And in what way is it perfect? The Septuagint isn't the same as the Masoretic, even if you translate them into the same language. The Peshitta is different again. Which one is the perfect one? The Septuagint is older, but the KJV Old Testament is based on the Masoretic.
And it can hardly be perfect with obvious frauds, noticed by no less than Isaac Newton (Newton: "Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture"). One of these frauds is the bit about Jesus helping the prostitute about to be stoned - its called the "pericope adulterae".
Its straying off the topic to discuss Jesus (the topic being Genesis 1), or other books in the Bible. But Proverbs isn't Wisdom. Wisdom is a different book entirely (not all versions of the Bible have it).
Where does Jesus say that God doesn't have a body? It certainly isn't something written in the Bible.
The key to understanding the Psalms is to read the introduction, which some versions of the bible cut out. Some have "to the choir master", for example. And then there is that curious word "Selah". Another one of the psalms is written as an acrostic. Huge chunks of the psalms are direct copies of other chunks of the psalms with the only differences being "Yahweh" (translated "the LORD") replaced by "El" (translated "God").
"sometimes its bad to answer a fool, and sometimes its not" isn't wisdom, its blindingly obvious. "sometimes you breath in, and sometimes you dont".
Ah, Aramaic vs. Hebrew and Greek. Good point, but did you know that one part of Daniel is written in a completely different language to the remainder? Its obviously been added later - obvious unless you read it in translation, of course.
Agape. Agape was used by the greeks in other greek literature to refer to romantic/sexual love; of course, Eros was the word that specifically referred to lust, but Agape was used in place of Eros on many occasions.
Phileo means "like" not "love". And Adelphoi also means "cousin". Jesus had "Adelphoi", according to one of the gospels, but some Christians think it means "cousin" and others think it means "brother".
Context is of course key. But the most important kind of context is not linguistic but historical. The Bible wasn't written in a world of Israel surrounded by absolutely no-one. The Bible was written in a world where Sumeria and then Assyria and the Egyptians, and ultimately the Greeks themselves, had a great deal of trade and involvement in the daily life of Israel; cultural exchange is inevitable in this situation, and you have to realise that many things in the bible are nicked from other cultures.
The thing about science is that it is responsible for lightbulbs and television, and hairgel, and ovens, and piped hot water, and medicine, and transport, and computers, and many other things besides. Religion is responsible for war, ....
Science is based on lots and lots of evidence, piled on top of one another all pointing in the same direction; you disprove one point, take it out of the support structure, and the whole thing barely moves an inch because there is so much further evidence. Belief in the literal truth of the bible falls apart if you concretely disprove just one thing. There is quite a difference between choosing to believe science and choosing to believe religion.
Carbon14 can date things a hell of a lot more accurately than the bible can. When did Nebuchadnezzar conquer Israel? The bible will only give a vague relative date - to find out something more precise we need to look in Assyrian records. Say you find a wooden table from the Jerusalem temple; carbon14 can tell you to within 10 years, the bible can tell you to within 1000 years.
Water into wine? How do you know. Maybe the book is just lying. Maybe it was a metaphor in the first place and was never meant to be true.
What if god created light to be visible from day 1? That's a theory called Omphalism (which basically means "naval gazing", but is the genuine name for the theory); what if the whole universe was created 10 seconds ago by a squirrel named Dracula? How can you tell apart the two situations - you can't. That's why everyone rejects omphalism as a riduculous argument.
If god is all powerful, then he must be able to create the fact of there being something he can't create. Which is a paradox; the only resolution is that God isn't all powerful. Maybe you should read the writings of Thomas Equinas, the man who first asked "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" [a deeper question than it first appears].
The firmament. Oddly enough, the ancient egyptians, a civilisation predating the bible by a couple of thousand years, had exactly the same idea - that the earth is a bubble surrounded by water. The Priestly Source copied it.
You can't have a greenhouse environment without something different between the water and the sun, and different layers of water. Besides, the water would extinguish the sun.
Oh, and you make a schoolboy error. The bible says that the Noah's flood thing was 150 days not 40 days and nights.
have you considered story truth v.s. factual truth? can Genesis contain truth and not be factual?
how would ppl explain their existence and identity in a world before science?
Humanity is a story driven species. We spend ridiculous amounts of money and time in books, movies, and other mediums for stories. We yearn for good stories to laugh, cry, and ponder over. We do these because the most important thing about stories is that we learn from them.
Story truth is a powerful thing and does not need facts to teach.
one could apply this to the entire bible.. it doesn't bother me.. as it's still truth.
Luke,
Thanks for coming to BS4A.
On the one hand, I agree with you re: story truth. If the stories have narrative and/or moral integrity, they can be valuable. It is that kind of value that I'm seeking here and am so far disappointed (I write this as the Bible Study has reached the early chapters of Leviticus). Sure, the creation story is a time-honored myth (though continuity flaws dog it, even as of Genesis 2), as are tales like the great flood (which suffers from outrageously poor motivation on God's part). I found the story of Moses' early days good drama, but then Exodus went astray with a shaky storytelling hand, especially when YHWH started visiting punishments even on the Egyptian slaves and animals, while he was actually forcing Pharaoh not to let the Israelites go (and went from bad to worse with the bizarre and arbitrary rules and mind-numbing repetition). Unless one wants to take the Gnostics' view that Yahweh was evil, the early story-telling is awfully flawed, though granted iconic in parts (if only by tradition).
On the other hand, "story truth" is a rationalization. All over the world, people's lives are impacted by Bible literalism. If we put a truthy happy face on the inconsistencies, absurdities, dubious lessons, etc. by claiming "story truth," we're helping validate the idea that this frequently disturbing sand epic is some sort of indisputable guide for living, even as what's written on the page is obviously (quite often) no kind of truth at all.
you have some very valid points.. however i wouldn't say it was a rationalization. it has story truth... that doesn't mean the text is without conflict nor should it be an "indisputable guide for living." all i'm saying is it has truth. ppl do go wrong when they take it for concrete fact.
not only is there tention within the field of biblical study but also within the bible itself! that's what happens when you mesh 4 traditions (or more) into one book. it looks really funny to see ppl try to justify these inconsistencies... it is a middle eastern idea to put two opposing ideas next to one another in the same book... really doesn't make any sense here in the west.
as for validation... i just think it's worth reading as do you... it's interesting to see a world viewed through the lens of theology.. esp. a developing theology where you have a god that is conflicted, counterproductive, and abusive. the Bible is at it's core disturbing, confusing and contradictory. so what does this mean for us?
well religion as viewed through this lens would be a lot harder than it currently is. religion calls for a change of person, a chance to get outside ones self and have compassion for another... religion as we have it seems to support the opposite cause and that is why you have very valid concerns... my question is why don't more people have these concerns?!
question dammit! question!
Luke,
Religion is largely about conformity, and conformity doesn't like questions.
I look forward to seeing your comments as we work through this book!
"Religion is largely about conformity, and conformity doesn't like questions."
says who? and society is about conformity as well... and what is religion but a theological society? this argument leads to anarchy and that isn't good...
the Gnostics, Buddhist, Wiccians, and liberal protestants LOVE and encourage questions...even some catholics like matthew fox, gallelo, and the nascerinian monks were before excommunication.. which goes to show ya...
Luke,
That's why I say "largely."
Liberal exceptions notwithstanding, let's own up to the fact that all of the following common attributes of religion are cues to conform:
* Dogma
* Ritual
* Childhood indoctrination
* Uniforms
* Emphasis/insistence on shared "faith"
* Promised rewards for conforming/threatened punishments for not conforming
* Authority figures
* Powerful cultural influence
Luke,
Also, critiquing oppressive conformity is not an express ticket to anarchy.
society does these things as well.. but neither you nor i have the answer for these problems save for cultivating an acceptance of questions.
i think we agree on this right, unless i'm misreading you.
Hi LeftWing & Luke, I agree that highly dogmatic, overly sensational (mega churches), indoctrinating churches and movements do a disservice to humanity. Religion can serve humanity well and we can serve God well (yep, I'm identifying myself as a Christian). When indoctrinated people blow up themselves or others they are not spreading Yahweh's Shalom or Christ's Peace. Look at the Buddhist Monks in Burma, MLK Jr., Jesse Jackson, Sister Theresa, and many Christians who have opposed the War in Iraq, have objected to the School of the Americas (hand-in-hand with anarchists), and contribute their time and money to help people in Africa and New Orleans. I do think that faith-based groups alone is a huge disservice to poeple in New Orleans, that federal, state, and local governing bodies have an important role to play. Some aetheists (not all by far) are absolute bastards (as are many Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc...) who believe that since no great judge in the sky is looking into their business act out on very anti-social impulses, such as Mersault in The Stranger. OK, some aetheists do great work for society unfettered by poisonous ideologies found in many fundamentalist groups. Peace, Jim
You know what I find funny about this Blog? It concentrates on Christianity. It also seems to be drawing the biggest crowd - and it's about Christianity.
Another thing I find funny - all "scientific arguments" aside, you approach the subject with the assumption that God doesn't exist. Of course you're going to find proof in the Bible or external to the Bible that God doesn't exist. It's like me wearing green-tinted glasses, looking at the sky and saying, "The sky is not blue."
Yes, I'm a Christian, and I look at the Bible and say, "That's proof enough for me that God exists." I'm wearing those green-tinted glasses.
That's why there will ALWAYS be a stalemate between informed Christians and non-Christians. We both have "equally" convincing arguments.
The question I have to ask to both sides is: What if you're wrong...?
C.E.B.G.,
In what way does this blog concentrate on Christianity to a "funny" degree?
At the current pace, we'll be burrowing through the O.T. for years. I know almost nothing about the New Testament (yet) and therefore I write very little about it.
Sure, the broad context is that most Americans are Christians, and Christians are the pre-eminent Bible literalists in these parts, so in those senses they loom large over this enterprise.
Unsurprisingly, we get more visitors who post about their Christian beliefs than we do (vocal) adherents of other schools of faith.
Your "green-tinted glasses" argument doesn't hold water.
Does your (presumed) doubt of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster invalidate your ability to evaluate whether it might be a true deity? Should I assume that adherents of the FSM are de-facto equally credible to doubters?
Sorry, we don't equivalate around here.
Don't assume a stalemate in an honest discussion about faith. Sure, if one allows arguments like "Jesus loves me, this I know because the Bible tells me so" to be valid moves, yes, we won't make any progress.
One ought to, methinks, acknowledge the validity of the "Russell's teapot" argument. I.e., he who argues for the truth of invisible and unverifiable things bears the burden of proof, not he who says "I don't think so."
As to "what if I'm wrong." I dunno. God sends me to Hell? Couldn't tell ya.
Your stated goals:
* Help me and other folks work our way though this influential book
- CEBG: Glad to be a part, and have my say.
* Consider its aptness through modern eyes
- CEBG: An excellent idea - I am doing the same: http://pblog.bsldownloads.com/index.php
* Have some irreverent fun wherever the text is ridiculous, flawed, or otherwise risible
- CEBG: That's your opinion - not very objective.
* Shine a light on passages that I find admirable or damnable
- CEBG: Again, your opinion, not very objective.
* Hear from a few True Believers about how they interpet the text
- CEBG: I appreciate the opportunity, and welcome your feedback on my site.
I'm a true Believer. Here is a passage that is relevant to your stated goals and my interpretation of the passage:
2 Corinthians 4:3-5 (New International Version)
3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age [CEBG: satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.
Where is this Bible passage relevant?
"* Have some irreverent fun wherever the text is ridiculous, flawed, or otherwise risible"
You proceed from the notion that the Bible is flawed. That said, you are not objectively looking at the Bible. Neither can you arrive at any sort of conclusion after studying ALL the facts (and then there's the argument of "what exactly are the facts" - that's another topic) because you've already made your mind up that the Bible is flawed and not trustworthy.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinions on your blog.
I welcome any feedback to these statements on my blog indicated above.
Have a great evening.
CEBG
CEBG,
I am doing commentary here. It is not robotically objective, but it is also honest (if snarky). If I read something I find admirable or convincing, I'll say so. If I read something that sounds fishy, funny, or disturbing, I'll say so.
As Kurt Vonnegut once related, the key thing an audience wants to know is if you're an honest man.
Should I stray from being honest, or if I miss what you think is an admirable or convincing point, your comments will be heard here, and I'll sincerely consider them. Should you find that I am not reliably honest and/or willing to revisit opinions in light of valuable new evidence, then I'll be disappointing both you and myself, and you'll be well advised to move on to more worthwhile reading.
But I reject the implication that an honest person with a prior opinion cannot be open-minded. If the test of being open-minded is believing a book is magical, then, no I'm not open-minded. Such a claim, IMHO, demands some awfully good evidence.
Also, IMHO, it's not a very charming argument to say that people who don't see things your way fail to agree because Satan has blinded them.
I don't believe those e-mails I get from Nigeria are bona fide business opportunities, and I don't believe that robed figures have special knowledge of the after-life. Do you believe that Muslims have it right? That Zeussians have it right? That FSM and Invisible Pink Unicorn believers have it right? If not, why aren't you properly objective? Is Satan keeping you from understanding the virtues in the Great Truth, which each of those supernatural beliefs lays claim to?
As to the Bible being flawed, numerous lapses of continuity -- let alone the questionable moral value of some of its lessons -- have been documented in the commentary thus far. I didn't particularly start this with the idea that the Bible was flawed; that's been something of a, pardon the expression, revelation.
What I did expect was that believing that an old book contained the inerrant truth of all things, that it was a magical guide to magical beings in the sky, that was rather unlikely to hold up as a sound idea.
You're absolutely right. This is your commentary.
As a Christian, I feel the need to "show the error of your ways". I apologize. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Thanks again for the opportunity, and I welcome any comments on my blog as well.
Cheers,
CEBG
CEBG,
I look forward to hearing your thoughts as we move forward.
Thanks,
VL
This answers the question 'Which came first. Evolution indicates that the egg came first. Something that was not quite a chicken laid an egg with a small mutation that was a chicken.
Genesis 1:21 says the chicken came first and reproduced after his kind.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Herb,
Good point. When you think about it, "chicken or egg" questions are really quite blasphemous, since it's clear that God just went ahead and made the beasts.
Hey Vas,
Is there a spot on your blog where you list all the "flaws", "inconsistencies", and "errors" in the Bible?
It may help others to list everything you've found and also the facts you use to backup each "error".
Cheers,
CEBG
Hello,
I must say, this disscusion is amazing. As I was reading through it a sentance caught my eye.
"The bible is God's Word, that is, it is God's word to us."
That irked me, simply because that is an opinion and therefore should not be stated in the form it is.
What makes you so certain? Did you go and meet with God? If so- then by all means, spout that with utter certainty. I, for onr, do not look to the Bible as a guide book. But, then again, I look to the Quran. I believe in a higher power, Allah SWT, but must look in horror at that statement because, what kind of monster would give humanity such a guide books, as filled with flaws, and the Bible.
-Naya
CEBG,
There are good, comprehensive lists of flaws and inconsistencies on the 'net (such as this one), so I'll defer to them, as I focus primarily on a chapter-by-chapter approach.
Naya,
Welcome to bs4a!
What is your perspective on the Quran? Like the Bible (except the three books I've gone through thus far), I haven't read it, but I am a skeptic about anyone's claims of a book's perfection and divinity.
How do you think it compares with the Bible in terms of violent, angry, and jealous content? Naturally, I can't speak for the Bible's whole content, but mostly I'm quite unimpressed with its value as a moral guide. To be continued, though....
Ah, I was ready for that question! Now, you see, unlike the Bible, the Quran has no major scientific flaws. It does state that "...the world was created in seven days." but it also states that: "God's days are not man's days..." therefore, it is leaving open the fact; which, I conclude is the meaning, that God's days could be a millinea, while time (which is all relative) to man, goes by so quickly.
It also leaves open the idea that evolution happened on it's own- but that God created the right circumstances for life to begin (such as giving first the right conditions for ammino acids to form, then giving the right conditions for single- celled orginisms to form from those.)
Therefore I have to conclude that; given the many obvious flaws in the scientific aspect of the Bible, the Quran is a much more godly theroy, and one that has many meanings that people can figure out.
-Naya
naya,
Thanks for your response. For what it's worth, I have frequently heard stunningly similar arguments made for why the Bible is without flaws.
Do you believe the Quran is divine -- that it's without flaws and it's directly or otherwise the word of God? If so, how did you come to that conclusion?
So basically, because the Quran doesn't state it's position concretely, that makes it a better source of theological teachings?
I don't see the logic in that. Can you explain how watering down a subject makes the source document a better one?
At least the Christian Bible states a fact that one can choose to believe in or not believe in.
I'm not surprised you chose this topic either (ie. evolution vs. creation)...The only point I have on that is that macro evolution takes just as much faith to believe as any other theory of "beginning".
But we're getting off topic - this is a discussion (well, a commentary) on the Bible.
Cheers,
CEBG
I'm not saying it dosen't state concrete fact- it does. I'm simply saying that it leaves room for scientific authenicity; if you care to inturpert it in that way.
I come from a family of mixed rligion- from strong muslims (I have an aunt who is a high member in ISNA) to catholics, to athiest jews, therefore my perception on religion is greatly influenced by many people. However; in reading the New Testament and well as being raised by a mother who has read the Quran to me, I have come to see the many gaping holes in Genesis. If such a document delares that it is, in fact, the word of God, but then has gaping holes which have virtually been proven to be impossible, and then there is another which states a much more clear, scientifically correct version of close views...well, it's not hard to choose one.
When:
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
is shown, yet there could be no water because it could not bind in free space, at the beginning of 'time', and it has been proven, then I see that text as plainly invalid.
However- some phenomeon, such as immaculate conception I do believe in, but simply because I know it to be true. I think it's God's way of showing us that he can do whatever the hell he likes, but that we have to choose what to believe.
-Naya
Naya,
I can't quite see how it's reasonable to be a skeptic about some fantastical claims of religion and then to accept another "simply because I know it to be true."
On experiential and emotional matters, "I simply know it's true" could have some credibility, but for unsupported claims of miracles from two millennia ago? Isn't that just willful suspension of disbelief?
That's the fundamental, as it were, problem with belief. One can be a reasonable person up until the subject is a falsity that it suits you or comforts you or -- mostly -- that you've become accustomed to believing. After that, the "person of faith" is going to keep believing in the false facts and all that comes bundled with them no matter what, because "they're simply true," despite having none of the characteristics of things that are either true or probable.
Okay, yes that sounds odd as I read it. I didn't mean to word it like that.
I meant to say that I think, even though very, very uncommon, is proof of God (existing).
If that makes sense. I'm sorry, it's hard to explain.
--Naya
Naya,
Not sure I follow your most recent comment.
I'm still getting the sense that you're taking on faith that certain things are true, even though they aren't -- in an everyday, objective sense -- logical or even possible, which is pretty much the essence of religious faith. Is that your point, or am I not quite getting you?
naya-papaya,
I can understand your confusion, with that many sources of influence. It's unfortunate, really (that's my opinion, which I'm entitled to, right?).
I can point to many sources of scientific evidence for a literal translation of the six days (like http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook).
FYI..."In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth..." water was not in "free space", it was on/in earth.
Vas, in response to your post on a link to inconsistencies: I'm sure we could both give an equal number of links which backup our positions (atheistic and theistic). We'd be here until the end of time discussing various "points of contention" individuals claim (I say claim because we're all innocent until proven guilty, right?) to see in the Bible.
I thought you had one or two in mind that really trouble you. I'd be willing to do some research on one or two, however, I don't have time (as I'm sure we all don't) to make it my life's work to answer everyone's claims.
Cheers,
CEBG
CEBG,
The book is positively riddled with sloppy redundancies -- including multiple retellings (with different characters) of the same myths -- and inconsistencies. That becomes apparent in chapter 2, which significantly contradicts the creation myth in chapter 1. And absurdities of, literally, epic proportion, like one man putting every living species on one boat.
I'm aware there are some who will parry away, ardently rationalizing each one. But they'll have to do it without me, for time constraints such as you mention.
I'm focused more on whether the story content and espoused/implied philosophy is humane and uplifting, or something else. So far, I'm finding it's mostly something else, but there are miles to go.
Oh, and please call me "Vast," or some such. Makes all the deferens.
Yes, I'm here to make a deferens. Sometimes, I think, like Elmo, people need a test tickle every once in a while.
Redundancies?
Vast, clean your room. Clean your room, Vast! If you don't clean your room, I'll do "blank". Vast! Clean your room. I mean it, I'll do "blank". Vast, clean your room, or I'll do two "blanks"...
Shows immense patience on God's part if you ask me...and I know you're not. I only got one chance when I was a kid - do it, or feel the wrath! (don't get me wrong, I had great parents).
I'd imagine God is trying to make a point, "Kids, this part, right here, is important - so pay attention!"
Contradicting stories? If they were exactly the same, you'd probably say, "Oh, they're exactly the same, somebody just copied them!" We can't win!!!!!
Uplifting Philosophy? Riddled throughout the Bible...it all depends on your approach to the subject matter.
You have an atheistic point of view of the Bible. Your approach seems to be: it's wrong, so I'm going to make fun of it to show others it's wrong.
Your choice, your blog. But what are you really accomplishing?
Entertainment? If so, I find you very entertaining. You seem to have a great sense of humor. I enjoy sarcasm - it's my favorite form of comedy, actually.
Persuasion? I haven't seen a shred of proof of anything. I've only seen opinions (including my own). Hardly persuasive...
Outlet of internal conflict? I'm not qualified to comment on that one, although I've heard writing is a great outlet.
That said, did I ever question the Bible's words? You bet...but I haven't seen one bit of CONCRETE proof against a story in the Bible. There is absence of proof for sure, but no "scientific find" that disproves it outright.
Anyone can make themselves believe anything they want - depending on their mood or circumstances.
Cheers,
CEBG
CEBG,
As to the burden of proof, I'll repeat from above...
One ought to, methinks, acknowledge the validity of the "Russell's teapot" argument. I.e., he who argues for the truth of invisible and unverifiable things bears the burden of proof, not he who says "I don't think so."
The Bible itself, or any edition of it anyway, is visible. But its supposed divine provenance is not at all demonstrable, and its flaws (editorial, logical, moral etc.) are manifold.
As to what's the point of all this, you hit on some of the aspects. Entertainment (I hope so). An outlet (definitely), but not for an internal conflict — I'm quite at peace with my realist/skeptic's point-of-view. It's an outlet for frustration with a world (and particularly, an era in my country) that's cavalier about the truth and which assigns unearned and unquestioned power to those who don the cloak of "faith."
I'm well aware of both my small role in the scheme of things and of the clever social mechanisms and instinctual weaknesses that prevent skepticism from being the norm in anything like my lifetime. I'm just dragging on the Overton Window, using irony and honest observation to weave a narrative in cyberspace that might embolden a few others to agree that it's foolhardy to turn off our brains whenever the topic turns to religion.
My esteemed blogmate at Corrente nicely (and bluntly) explained the purpose of, as the Brits say, taking the piss out of literalists.
Finally, I should also note that I do hope to find some admirable poetry and philosophy in the Bible, and I don't at all rule out the possibility/likelihood of finding passages I'm impressed and moved by. I would hate to think that such an influential and revered book has none of that.
So if I understand you correctly, you're two main reasons for this blog are:
1) Entertaining yourself, and others with similar beliefs.
2) Outlet of frustration of those in power who profess a faith in God.
I can understand the first one...but why waste your time doing it because of #2?
There are more atheists in power throughout the world than there are theists.
I read the wiki article on the teapot, and I have to agree with the guy. If I'm going to claim something exists, I better have some proof it actually does.
I have proof: The words contained in the Bible.
Noah and the flood - there is evidence all over the world that show the results of the flood. Atheists explain each away as "this phenomenon", or "that one". All can be explained with the flood...
Dinosaurs: Job 40:15-17. Do you really believe that's an alligator or elephant? I'd like to see either of those animals with a tail that sways like a cedar...
Babylon: Mentioned several times in the Bible, also mentioned that it will be rebuilt near the end of time - which is being done as we speak.
Red bull: (Not the drink) Near the end of time a red bull will be born, two have been born in the past few years.
200,000,000 million man army: In the end of time, there will exist an army of this size: see China.
There are many more examples like these. Are they all lucky guesses by someone who wrote on a scroll thousands of years ago?
Oh, I know, the Bible is false...so it can't be used as proof. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse...or the egg before the chicken?
For the record, what is your definition of atheism? It would help to know where you are coming from...
Cheers,
CEBG
CEBG,
Please tell me you're kidding.
VL
CEBG,
As to your direct questions....
Is this a waste of time? That's in the eye of the beholder. Will it influence anyone? That's up to the Fates.
What kind of atheist am I? As I mention in the welcome page, I'm an agnostic++. I can't pretend to know that there is no form of "supernatural" entity anywhere in the universe.
But I've seen absolutely nothing that lends credence to anyone's claims of knowledge of same. So, I choose the label "atheist" to convey that I don't buy any of the god-products on the market.
But I've seen absolutely nothing that lends credence to anyone's claims of knowledge of same. So, I choose the label "atheist" to convey that I don't buy any of the god-products on the market.
So investigation of archaelogic finds which backup stories from the Bible, scientific evidence for world-wide flood theory, and fulfillment of end-time prophecies doesn't count as proof? A bunch of coincidences? Maybe...
I'm an agnostic++. I can't pretend to know that there is no form of "supernatural" entity anywhere in the universe.
Very carefully chosen words...I won't get into it, but have you ever read The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom by Robert A. Morey?
An interesting read for all those open-minded enough to read it.
Merry Christmas.
CEBG
CEBG,
I have better things to do with my time than get in a lather because perhaps there was a large flood at one time.
Let's say there was. How does that prove that a magical sky being got one guy to round up every type of creature in the world and put them on a homemade boat so they could incestuously repopulate the earth?
Feel free to post away with more such compelling proof of divine intervention and divine prose, but please forgive me if I don't take the bait in discussing each one.
VL
It was not my intention to bait you.
Remember, I'm not arguing for God because of one story. My argument stems from the fact that several stories in the Bible have been substantiated by scientific evidence.
Historically, skeptics and scoffers have tended to explain away various evidences for the Bible. But after while, when the evidence mounts, I think an honest review of the facts is in order.
I feel That CEBG does hold some valid points, but maybe he is presenting them in too vauge a manor. I realize I am joining this arguement a tad late on in the game but maybe i can throw a scrap of evidence onto the pile that hasnt already been said. Seeing as I like any other normal person am have other responsibilities, i havent had the time to read every comment so i apologize if i discuss something already finished.
Darwin's theories, even when given time, under close scruity utterly colapse and fall flat on their face from what i have been able to gather. There are supposedly well over 200 some (the exact number escapes me) "missing link" organisms that would show the half way mark between the animals that supposedly lived millions of years ago and the animals we know today. None have yet been found, and those that have have been found to either be hoaxes or simply too little evidence. (call me a skeptic, but i find it insanely hard to believe, harder in fact than creationism, that we could accurately recreate an animal and its child, all from a broken tooth...)
i will direct anyone interested in the scientific evidence that CEBG is talking about to this site
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_TOC.htm
Most of the sceince in it is sound from what outside research i could gather, though it does come off a tad cocky at times.
to try to answer some of Eve's "nitpicking"
1)the water is also described as Formless wastes earlier on in the verse, (amplified bible).
The word water here is Mayim it is a palindrome in hebrew
(to grasp the full shades of how this word would have been interpreted in greek, see this site. "http://www.mayyimhayyim.org/pdfs/2006/EDMayimPamMacArthur.pdf"
Eve's second point, about the "spirit of God" is refering to the modern doctrine of the Trinity, where God is made of three parts, God the father (the all powerful God) God the spirit (the guider, comforter, etc) God the Flesh, (Jesus, come as a perfect offering to banish sin) Albeit i will concede this does sound like a tad bit of an abstract concept.
To Answer your question of the Light being "good" compared to the dark being "evil"
1st point: It never says God created dark before Light. It simply says that light wasn't created. At this point i highly doubt (though this is purely opinion) that the universe as we know it existed in the way we recognize it.
When he is refering to Heaven in Verse 8, he is refering to the Heavens, not so much the "heavenly realms" such as the place where God Resides, outside of the universe, not being of this material realm. More likely, they are refering to the heavens, the night sky as we know it, the vast void of space.
Yes the Light Created in verse 3 is held to be different from that of the light in the verse where he creates the sun, which was set as a "guardian of the day" and the moon a "gaurdian of the night" the light refered to there is more likely discussing light, as would be given off by God, not literally of couse, and if it dissappeared it would have more likely disappeared at the fall of adam and eve later on.
The reason that vegetarianism has since fallen by the wayside is that in the garden, death did not exist because God is "life" and sin is "seperation from God" or "death" so when sin entered death entered. but notice that Man still did not eat meat until after Noah when God told Noah (paraphrasing) "i gave you the fruit of the vine, now i give you the meat of the animals as well."
The "Earth" in the verse 10 refers to the Dry land we know as ground. just like we say "he picked up a clump of earth" or "he picked up a clump of dirt" interchangeably.
I hope this wasn't all repeat stuff, please feel free to ask any questions you have....
Mizusaka,
Thanks for visiting the Bible Study!
One thing that has always struck me - God didn't create any angels or demons. Many xians believe they exist but where did they come from? Are they part of God?
Great idea for a site, btw. Glad I found it before you hit the New Testament.
Also don't forget that biblical Hebrew didn't have capital letters so any of the translation that is capitalized (except for conventions like the first word in a sentence or obvious proper nouns) -- such as Spirit in verse 2 -- is an interpretation of the translator and not in the original text.
-Frank
Hey, I am an atheist who was raised as an Orthodox Jew, and this is a pretty cool site.
The Jews have this awesome tradition where the early rabbis got to say whatever the hell they wanted, and if they disagreed with each other, then the Jews have another tradition that they are all correct, even if there are inherent contradictions, and we will discover how this is possible when the Messiah comes.
This is a great cop-out for any answers that don't make sense. They have a whole collection of possible answers to these questions, and if one answer doesn't work, you move onto the next rabbi, who is equally right. So there are a variety of answers, some more right than others, but obviously, none of them could have known what we know today about the universe.
Of course, the modern-day rabbis are not given this privilege of just making shit up and calling it holy. ;)
I never get over how people can simply switch off their brains when it comes to the Bible. Who cares how long a "day" is in Genesis, when you have fruit trees growing before the sun is created? Anyone who claims that the creation in Genesis can be reconciled with science is simply showing how completely irrational religious people can be.
I especially enjoyed the post from one "logical" person, who went on at length about how important it is to carefully study the Bible in its original languages, and then cheerfully announced that he had concluded that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate, based on his afternoon of reading about it in Wikipedia.
This is so funny: "Bible study for atheists"
But you guys are doing a great job of trying to learn something good for a chance!
I used to be an atheist but God changed my heart and open my eyes to the TRUTH.
Genesis is very simple though. God created everything that is around; from the planet that we live in to the fish in the ocean. He knew exactly what we needed to know about the creation. If you want to know all the details wait 'till you meet Him face to face.
For now let's keep reading because this studies get better and better.
I'm an agnostic/atheist. I would remain quiet and to myself, but:
1) I don't like creationism beliefs held as scientifically and factually verifiable.
2) I don't believe morals are based in religion.
Creationism is not science or fact. I'm not aware of any evidence of creationism in peer-reviewed scientific journal. Creationism is not flexible like a theory because the answer is always "God did it." Creationism only use; it seems to me, is to be an excuse not to explore the origin of life scientifically because the scientific facts don't fit the bible.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a fact that has been constantly observed in nature and in the lab, repeatably. Evolution is derived empirically not theological. The theory of evolution by natural selection and genetic drift is a explanation of Evolution;furthermore, the theory can be changed and adjusted as we collect and learn more information. We can actually use the information from our studies of Evolution and have. Evolution is a fact; natural selection and genetic drift are our best explanation of why evolution occurs.
Why do I need religion to be moral? I don't understand that one at all. Especially with all the killing and violence in the bible.
Peace out,
AVS
You are all deceiving yourselves by saying you are athiests. By saying you are an athiest you are claiming that you know there is no God. By saying that you are saying that you know exactly how the universe came into being. If you don't know how exactly the universe began, then there is a possibility that a Creator created the universe. But since you claim to know how everything came be, please enlighten the world or your brilliance!!!
Hi Tim,
Just responding to your post. I don't claim to know how the universe was created. I just don't believe there is a God, and since I don't believe in a God; I don't believe in creation.
To be even more precise, I don't believe in bible and god because the bible doesn't conform to biological history of the earth. So quite frankly, since there is no evidence supporting the bible or god and plenty of evidence contrary to them; why should I believe in the bible or god?
So you see Tim, I do include god as a possibility; it just been exclude because of no evidence and contrary evidence. I wouldn't say I'm deceived just well informed.
lates,
AVS
Interesting site, i just pity yáll, we are clueless about the world around us yet we think we can explain the beginning of the world. Please stop deceiving yourselves and open your eyes( yep i said it, open your eyes! ) Praying for yáll just made me realise that we christians are on comfort zone, just watching our brothers die living a lie. Love yáll. Stay blessed
Do you see the wind, or how do you know there is wind unless there was a physical reaction to the winds force(like trees bending, flags moving)? You deny God and you say you have no proof of his existence, yet you refuse to look at the millions of people that claim to have been touched or influenced personally in a very similar way through out our known existence. You count these believers as weak or delusional. I believe it is only because you have not allowed yourself to be enacted on. Every atheists I have met are very prideful/arrogant, or angry. Where is the atheist or agnostic who is sincere in searching for the truth without the hostility towards a possibility of a Divine Creator? I believe the sincere person searching for truth in the end finds God. Our knowledge is very limited in science and religion. I think the two explains the other. There have been more books that describe God that date back like the Bible. The bible is not the only book in regard to God. I am a Christian and do not need to apologize to you for the one set of scripture you know we have today regarding God. You act like this book was a compiled work those many years ago when the author/s wrote Genesis. Get your head out of your rears and wake up. Search for truth and I bet you will find God. If you are bitter, hateful, angry, proud, and are unteachable-you will never find him. Its okay not to know or even not believe, but look for the truth with out all the heavy reliance of former human thought/pride. Are you not capable of making your own honest, non biased conclusions?
You know, funny thing is some of the classic rabinical commnetators from the middle ages looked upon these texts as allegory from the get go and progressive Judaism as well as the non fundamentalist xians are of the same opinion. Yet it begs the question, someone made this crap up knowing it was crap and teaching that it was true.
If the inspiration was from a divine source wouldn't it find a way to be a little more honest. I mean even the hindhus have a more sophisticated origins cosmology.
Post a Comment