Genesis and Dr. Seuss

huggybear · #11 8th March 2008, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by Split Rock

When it came to recent history, the writers certainly were fairly accurate. I am mainly referring to the early chapters of Genesis.

I am glad to see you do not take the Bible as inerrant. It was, afterall, written by fallible humans, not God. I agree with the rest of your statement as well.

I am not specifically referring to miracles. Christianity is based on a number of miracles such as the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. What I am referring to are what are clearly silly references if taken literally, like Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and then suddenlly realizing they are naked. They then hide and wear fig leaves. Who are they hiding their nudity from? God? Each other? The animals? It is silly if taken as historical.

Rather depressing, but OK.

OK.

OK. I have no problem with that.

thankyou, though i will mention that i do suspect parts of the bible are inspired ,and that god essentially has "spoken" through some events and people in history which are recorded in the bible

thaumaturgy · #12 8th March 2008, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Split Rock

Does this mean that "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" is filled with lies? Does this mean we can find no truths in its pages? No. The book tells a story about what celebrating and spending time together on holidays should be about. It also tells a story about redemption. The Grinch is the meanest, most self-lothing kind of creature imaginable... but in the end he completely redeems himself. The book has plenty of truths to teach, even though it is written with fanciful prose.

Frankly I think the Grinch got the short end of the "story stick" in this particular epic. He was slandered and painted as "bad" when indeed those Whos did make a lot of noise with their Whocardioflux and they were awfully treacly with their "song" they sang.

"Da noo wo ray..." or whatever.

Sheesh.

Now, of course, it didn't mean that the Grinch should go steal everything from them, but he could at least have attempted to get a zoning ordnance or moved. Mt. Crumpet was obviously not far enough away.

thaumaturgy · #13 8th March 2008, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by huggybear

il just remind you that the dates and history the bible mentions such as wars/kings/places/people are accounts of real history ,not fable(in case you didnt know)

Except for some of the historical errors in the Book of Daniel.

A goodly amount of archaeological studies in Israel indicate that likely David and Solomon were little more than highland chieftains whose stories were written at a later date involving cities of importance at that later time.

Stories of David and Solomon, if I recall, bear much more resemblance to a style influenced by later Assyrian inspired court literature tradition.

A couple years ago I read "David and Solomon; In search of the Bible's sacred kings and the roots of the western tradition" by Finkelstein and Silberman. It's worth a read.

Originally Posted by David_and_Solomon

The "Court History" of David thus offers a whole series of historical retrojections in which the founder of the dynasty of Judah in the tenth century is credited with the victories and acquisitions of territory that were in fact accomplished by the ninth-centurie Omrides. ...ibid. page 112, hardcover ed.

It's been a while since I read this, so I am kind of going on memory and a quick scan through the pages. But still a pretty good read.

it is the miracles that are in question ,yes the bible is full of parables and analogies and parts are taken too literally by some people, i believe in the bible but i dont believe it is innerant or that god has majically preserved it in its entirety , i believe the crux of the story and dont worry about the rest,and believe thats all that is intended

That seems to be the most reasonable read on the Bible. It is not a science and may not even be a fully accurate history book, it is a book that can, if parsed correctly, be considered a book on faith and a faith-guide. Albeit, with as often a mixed message as any human endeavor can. Complete with brutal conquests by the "chosen" and justification for excesses by fiat of God. But in and amidst these are some good rules to live by and some good suggestions for how to keep a stable society.

but what you have to realise is that when the bible mentions a miracle ,you say it is a work of fiction, for one reason only,and that is because you have never seen one yourself, and that the way you see the world
is the right way,as no one is ever wrong in their own opinion,

Actually miracles should always be suspect. It's a philosophically dodgy area and if I do witness one, I hope I will be skeptical of it. Skepticism is a very robust survival mechanism.

we are like blind men when it comes to the universe and our own existance, we think we know a lot but in actuality we are severely lacking any real knowledge,

True. We are limited.

if there is a god (which real science allows for)

Careful here, the subtle distinction is not that "science allows for" God, but rather that science doesn't disallow God's existence. Just that invoking the "god hypothesis" is not a reasonable approach in science. Science is silent on those things which have thus far shown no direct evidence for existence.

Like proving a negative, science is never required to disprove God. It is up to those who would have us believe that he exists to positively prove his existence.

i believe that god intentionally did not give us the experimental evidence of his existance,because he didnt intend for this life to be a paradise and has some other mysterious plan in motion,

Again, this is a belief of yours. And, it also bears many of the hallmarks of unfalsifiability as well as an "after-the-fact" justification of why there is no evidence. It is clearly a justification for a belief and not necessarily a factually supported concept.

We all are prone to that. But it is hardly a logically robust stance.

It is, however, the very nature of religious faith. And if it helps some, then yay for them. So long as it doesn't hurt anyone or anything or force itself on those who don't have it or see no need for it.

TheManeki · #14 8th March 2008, 01:54 PM

Another good one is Jonathan Kirsch's King David: The Real Life of the Man who Ruled Israel. His attributions of parts of the story of David to different authors with different objectives is interesting -- some parts appear to be propaganda from around when David sought the throne, some parts were written by people after David's time seeking to show divine support for a monarchy, and some parts appear to be written by a court historian in David's time who sought to record everything accurately. Very good read. And then there's some discussion about David and Jonathan *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*...

Nathan Poe · #15 9th March 2008, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by huggybear

thankyou, though i will mention that i do suspect parts of the bible are inspired ,and that god essentially has "spoken" through some events and people in history which are recorded in the bible

How about the people he spoke through who weren't recorded in the Bible?

ReverendDG · #16 9th March 2008, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

If that's the way you want to look at it, go right ahead; but remember, I eat atheists and agnostics for breakfast with Genesis; so if you want to envision it as me eating atheists and agnostics for breakfast with Dr Seuss instead - be my guest.

you must be joking, right?
you must live in a fantasy world to think you eat anyone for breakfast, unless you call twisting the meanings of words and moving goal posts "eating theists and agnostics for breakfast with genesis"

AV1611VET · #17 9th March 2008, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by ReverendDG

you must be joking, right?
you must live in a fantasy world to think you eat anyone for breakfast, unless you call twisting the meanings of words and moving goal posts "eating theists and agnostics for breakfast with genesis"

I don't twist anything --- I'm a die-hard literalist --- that's why even TE's disagree with me. In fact, that's probably the Number Two reason I'm not liked here:

What I am.
I refuse to twist Scripture.

Nathan Poe · #18 9th March 2008, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

I don't twist anything --- I'm a die-hard literalist --- that's why even TE's disagree with me. In fact, that's probably the Number Two reason I'm not liked here:
What I am.

I refuse to twist Scripture.

Re #1 -- What are you, exactly?

AV1611VET · #19 9th March 2008, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

Re #1 -- What are you, exactly?

A born-again Christian.

I have shown many times that it's not what we say you guys don't like --- it's what we are you don't like.

If you go back over my posts, you'll see that 99% of the time, I agree with you guys; but that 1% makes me (us) a target of ridicule.