A short explaination of the human-nature

[Derf]

They are claims. Claims are not evidence. Any more than an anecdote is evidence.

Your claim that "Claims are not evidence" is merely a claim. Why should I believe you about what evidence is?

In fact, the bible, from which I got most of my evidence, is hardly a "claim", so I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. Maybe you could be more specific.

 

[Larniavc]

Your claim that "Claims are not evidence" is merely a claim. Why should I believe you about what evidence is?

In fact, the bible, from which I got most of my evidence, is hardly a "claim", so I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. Maybe you could be more specific.

The word ‘Claims’ not having the same meaning as ‘Evidence’ is trivially true.

It what way is the ‘evidence’ you see in the Bible different from the ‘evidence’ in the Quran or the four Vedas? Please be specific.

 

[Derf]

The word ‘Claims’ not having the same meaning as ‘Evidence’ is trivially true.

It what way is the ‘evidence’ you see in the Bible different from the ‘evidence’ in the Quran or the four Vedas? Please be specific.

Can you give me an example from one or both of those, in English, that you think compared with what I've cited from the Bible and news sources? I've read the Koran, but it's been awhile. I've only seen excerpts from the Vedas.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, back to my question.

Do you think Jesus believed what Genesis tells us is to be taken literally? Or did He think it was merely a myth (in the non-factual way)?

Don't you mean "Onward to other, additional questions"?

Do I think Jesus believed Genesis was literal ? Yes.

Also, taking into account what little material we find in the Gospels pertaining to Adam, I'm going to suppose that Jesus thought of Adam literally, as likely did the writers of the four Gospels, Jude, along with Paul, of course. Really, I can imagine that all of the writers of the New Testament documents thought Adam was a literal, historical figure.

I mean, the possibility Jesus didn't think Adam was a literal historical figure might depend on which select sects of the 1st century Judaism that Jesus knew or was influenced by. As Matlock (2018) states:

​

Out of the overall pool of Second Temple Jewish interpreters, four larger groups emerged: the Septuagintal (LXX) interpreters, the authors of the works found in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the sectarian Qumran (DSS) writers, and the Hellenistic Jewish interpretive texts by named individuals---the most prominent writers beng Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. Within the interpretive spectrum there is a great variance in how these many interpreters present their relationship to the biblical text they interpret. At one pole are writings from named individuals such as Philo and Josephus, which present manifest points of view at some historical, linguistic, and perspectival distance from the biblical texts. The opposite pole consists of translations, retellings, and even commentaries that efface the authors from clear view" (p. 23).​

Where Jesus is concerned in relations to his understanding of Adam and Eve's historicity, I'm going to lean toward the idea He was at least influenced by the Pharisees who, I think, took Adam literally.

What are the chances, do you think, that Jesus (or Paul for that matter) ever encountered or read Lucretius', "On the Nature of Things"? Highly doubtful, but one never knows about these things for sure as one consideres various historigraphical potentialities.

Reference

Matlock, Michael D. (2018). Interpretations of Genesis 1-2 in Second Temple Jewish literature. In K.R. Greenwood (Ed.), Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 Through the Ages (pp. 23-43). Baker Academic.

Feel free to answer with examples in Jesus' teaching.

Do you mean, examples like the several places where Jesus is reported to have said something along the lines, "..... but it was not so from the beginning"?

While I can go along with the idea that Jesus probably meant to infer to His audience that Adam was meant, nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus actually cite Adam (or Eve) by name. But yeah, Jesus likely thought Adam was a 'real guy.' Only the Lord knows if he was.

Usually at this point, the next sequential question that is thrown out in interlocutions of this sort is something like," Well, if you think Jesus and/or Paul was referring literally to Adam, don't you think, 2PhiloVoid, that your denial is tantamount to calling both Jesus and Paul liars?" ...................... the answer to which, from me, would be a very hearty, "Uh....NO!!!!"

 

[Derf]

Don't you mean "Onward to other, additional questions"?

Do I think Jesus believed Genesis was literal ? Yes.

Also, taking into account what little material we find in the Gospels pertaining to Adam, I'm going to suppose that Jesus thought of Adam literally, as likely did the writers of the four Gospels, Jude, along with Paul, of course. Really, I can imagine that all of the writers of the New Testament documents thought Adam was a literal, historical figure.

I mean, the possibility Jesus didn't think Adam was a literal historical figure might depend on which select sects of the 1st century Judaism that Jesus knew or was influenced by. As Matlock (2018) states:

​

Out of the overall pool of Second Temple Jewish interpreters, four larger groups emerged: the Septuagintal (LXX) interpreters, the authors of the works found in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the sectarian Qumran (DSS) writers, and the Hellenistic Jewish interpretive texts by named individuals---the most prominent writers beng Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. Within the interpretive spectrum there is a great variance in how these many interpreters present their relationship to the biblical text they interpret. At one pole are writings from named individuals such as Philo and Josephus, which present manifest points of view at some historical, linguistic, and perspectival distance from the biblical texts. The opposite pole consists of translations, retellings, and even commentaries that efface the authors from clear view" (p. 23).​

Where Jesus is concerned in relations to his understanding of Adam and Eve's historicity, I'm going to lean toward the idea He was at least influenced by the Pharisees who, I think, took Adam literally.

What are the chances, do you think, that Jesus (or Paul for that matter) ever encountered or read Lucretius', "On the Nature of Things"? Highly doubtful, but one never knows about these things for sure as one consideres various historigraphical potentialities.

Reference

Matlock, Michael D. (2018). Interpretations of Genesis 1-2 in Second Temple Jewish literature. In K.R. Greenwood (Ed.), Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 Through the Ages (pp. 23-43). Baker Academic.



Do you mean, examples like the several places where Jesus is reported to have said something along the lines, "..... but it was not so from the beginning"?

While I can go along with the idea that Jesus probably meant to infer to His audience that Adam was meant, nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus actually cite Adam (or Eve) by name. But yeah, Jesus likely thought Adam was a 'real guy.' Only the Lord knows if he was.

Usually at this point, the next sequential question that is thrown out in interlocutions of this sort is something like," Well, if you think Jesus and/or Paul was referring literally to Adam, don't you think, 2PhiloVoid, that your denial is tantamount to calling both Jesus and Paul liars?" ...................... the answer to which, from me, would be a very hearty, "Uh....NO!!!!"

Why not?

 

[Larniavc]

Can you give me an example from one or both of those, in English, that you think compared with what I've cited from the Bible and news sources? I've read the Koran, but it's been awhile. I've only seen excerpts from the Vedas.

I’ve no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[Astrid]

Don't you mean "Onward to other, additional questions"?

Do I think Jesus believed Genesis was literal ? Yes.

Also, taking into account what little material we find in the Gospels pertaining to Adam, I'm going to suppose that Jesus thought of Adam literally, as likely did the writers of the four Gospels, Jude, along with Paul, of course. Really, I can imagine that all of the writers of the New Testament documents thought Adam was a literal, historical figure.

I mean, the possibility Jesus didn't think Adam was a literal historical figure might depend on which select sects of the 1st century Judaism that Jesus knew or was influenced by. As Matlock (2018) states:

​

Out of the overall pool of Second Temple Jewish interpreters, four larger groups emerged: the Septuagintal (LXX) interpreters, the authors of the works found in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the sectarian Qumran (DSS) writers, and the Hellenistic Jewish interpretive texts by named individuals---the most prominent writers beng Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. Within the interpretive spectrum there is a great variance in how these many interpreters present their relationship to the biblical text they interpret. At one pole are writings from named individuals such as Philo and Josephus, which present manifest points of view at some historical, linguistic, and perspectival distance from the biblical texts. The opposite pole consists of translations, retellings, and even commentaries that efface the authors from clear view" (p. 23).​

Where Jesus is concerned in relations to his understanding of Adam and Eve's historicity, I'm going to lean toward the idea He was at least influenced by the Pharisees who, I think, took Adam literally.

What are the chances, do you think, that Jesus (or Paul for that matter) ever encountered or read Lucretius', "On the Nature of Things"? Highly doubtful, but one never knows about these things for sure as one consideres various historigraphical potentialities.

Reference

Matlock, Michael D. (2018). Interpretations of Genesis 1-2 in Second Temple Jewish literature. In K.R. Greenwood (Ed.), Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 Through the Ages (pp. 23-43). Baker Academic.



Do you mean, examples like the several places where Jesus is reported to have said something along the lines, "..... but it was not so from the beginning"?

While I can go along with the idea that Jesus probably meant to infer to His audience that Adam was meant, nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus actually cite Adam (or Eve) by name. But yeah, Jesus likely thought Adam was a 'real guy.' Only the Lord knows if he was.

Usually at this point, the next sequential question that is thrown out in interlocutions of this sort is something like," Well, if you think Jesus and/or Paul was referring literally to Adam, don't you think, 2PhiloVoid, that your denial is tantamount to calling both Jesus and Paul liars?" ...................... the answer to which, from me, would be a very hearty, "Uh....NO!!!!"

How do you reconcile the clear and thoroughly proven
fact that there was no flood, with Jesus' divinity, if he
believed there had actully been a flood?

It would be going beyond the evidence, imo,
to say what he knew or didn't, or to say whether
he lied about anything ever.

As for Paul, how do you reconcile his assumed
veracity with the patently absurd story about the sbake bite?

Your claim that "Claims are not evidence" is merely a claim. Why should I believe you about what evidence is?

In fact, the bible, from which I got most of my evidence, is hardly a "claim", so I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. Maybe you could be more specific.

With parts are not claims?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How do you reconcile the clear and thoroughly proven
fact that there was no flood, with Jesus' divinity, if he
believed there had actully been a flood?

Those are definitely pertinent questions, Estrid, and you have every right to ask them. Unfortunately, this isn't a Christian Apologetics forum, and I'd hate to begin taking the time to attempt an answer only to have it removed ..........

Let's just say: I don't "reconcile" them. The first thing is to do what you do in science when dealing with the Geologic Column, don't just start with metaphysics. In other words, we start with normal, usual, common sense sort of evalutions, looking at the "bottom" level of things where we find fragments in need of appraisal and interpretation.

And we work up from there in methodological order, not with the 'top down' Evangelical/Fundamentalist assumption of "The bible is a perfect book, so now let's find ways to defend that proposition and simply assume certian presuppositions about what it is we think the bible HAS to be in order to be true."

No, I'm not going to "do it" that way. I'm going to start by not assuming much of anything about the Bible, other than what we can all say about it on a material scale---- i.e. that 'it' is a collection of ancient, diverse, mainly Jewish writings, expressed via a few ancient languages and in which some interesting theological and historicized assertions are made. ... that's it.

Then, just like an archaeologist or paleontologist, we'll assume that each "strata" of the Bible, or each "book/letter," will have to stand or fall on its own under the harsh processes of applying scholarly Historiography and Philosophy of History (which is the purview of professional historians.), along with mass Hermeneutics and Critical Studies.

So, there remains the possibility that where one book waffles on its articulations about the past, another book in the Bible does "less so." The Bible is not a book. It's a collected anthology.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why not?

In short, I don't assume that the central qualities of the biblical communication are what Fundamentalists insists they are. So, this leaves the possibility that if the form and kind of communication we receive in diverse genres through the biblical writings are different than what has typically been assumed they are, then we may still be able to take the Bible, on the whole, as a form of truth. It just won't be "truth" given in the form that the typical Post-Enligtenment, Post-Modern 21st century mind....................................... prefers.

In other words, it'll be "Prophetic Truth," not one that comports only and always with an assumed Correspondence Theory of Truth that all too often creeps into the typical, modern day assumptions about how to read and interpret the Biblical books/letters.

Also, keep in mind I usually do not precisely say, ipso facto, that Adam and Eve never existed. Rather, philosophically speaking, I tend to say "I presently don't believe that Adam and Eve existed as historical personages. But I do not know this with absolute certainty."

And this is because none of us can get into a time-machine and go back in time to verify, confirm their existence or their non-existence. But on a literary level, I can still appreciate their value as prophetic terms of theological definition pertaining to theological essentials about human-nature.

 

[Derf]

With parts are not claims?

Let's settle the first disconnect before we search for others.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It would be going beyond the evidence, imo,
to say what he knew or didn't, or to say whether
he lied about anything ever.

I agree.

As for Paul, how do you reconcile his assumed
veracity with the patently absurd story about the sbake bite?

I think we covered that in another discussion you and I had last year.

 

[Derf]

I’ve no idea what you are trying to say.

Did you read my post where I listed evidences? You replied to it asking if the 4 Vedas or the Koran were evidences (or something like that). Since I gave specific passages from the Bible, I would like you to do the same from those other sources, so we can discuss them. Otherwise, I won't know what you were talking about when you referenced them.

 

[Larniavc]

Did you read my post where I listed evidences? You replied to it asking if the 4 Vedas or the Koran were evidences (or something like that). Since I gave specific passages from the Bible, I would like you to do the same from those other sources, so we can discuss them. Otherwise, I won't know what you were talking about when you referenced them.

You missed my point. The various holy texts of the various regions do not provide evidence of their own accuracy.

 

[Derf]

You missed my point. The various holy texts of the various regions do not provide evidence of their own accuracy.

Except for the bible.

According to Jewish archeologist Nelson Gluek, “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.” This, even as “scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible."

This comes from this article:

https://breakpoint.org/archeology-continues-to-confirm-biblical-record/

 

[Derf]

You missed my point. The various holy texts of the various regions do not provide evidence of their own accuracy.

Here's another:
In 2005 Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar found King David's palace relying on the Bible as one of her many tools. She says:

“What is amazing about the Bible is that very often we see that it is very accurate and sometimes amazingly accurate.” (fromUsing the Bible As Her Guide)

And another:
Here's part of a letter from the National Geographic

I referred your inquiries to our staff archeologist, Dr. George Stuart. He said that archaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and use it many times for geographical relationships, old names and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible. ~ National Geographic Society, Washington D.C.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I dont think anyone understands what you're trying to do. Seems like you want to syncretize the message of the Bible with the current secular creation myth. Why?

The "out of Africa" idea that is part of evolutionary theory of man's origins. More evidence has come to light recently that suggests mankind came out of the Mesopotamia region, which is more in keeping with the biblical origin story.

I had to go back and see what the original posts that caused this whole mess of a chain were.

To the first: the evidence we have shows that early hominids were found in Africa. That is not a 'creation myth', that's a simple statement of fact. If you think that clashes with your view of the Bible, than that's a solid 'you' problem.

To the second: we have evidence that major civilizations began in Mesopotamia, yes, but we also have evidence that larger civilizations began at roughly the same periods around the Nile river, the Indus valley, the Yellow river and the Supe river across the world. But that's just what those places represent: the start of mass, centralized civilization. That does not mean that mankind literally began at those places in history.

 

[Larniavc]

Here's another:
In 2005 Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar found King David's palace relying on the Bible as one of her many tools. She says:


And another:
Here's part of a letter from the National Geographic

I don't think anyone would deny the Bible takes place on Earth. What archeological evidence is there for the supernatural claims of the Bible? Or the Noachian Flood. Or Exodus?

My son's Harry Potter book references London.

 

[Astrid]

You missed my point. The various holy texts of the various regions do not provide evidence of their own accuracy.

Often enough they provide evidence of
inaccuracies as great as flood, as small as Pi=3

 

[Astrid]

Except for the bible.

According to Jewish archeologist Nelson Gluek, “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.” This, even as “scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible."

This comes from this article:

https://breakpoint.org/archeology-continues-to-confirm-biblical-record/

That's a deceptive claim.


Archaeology deals only with human
history. Like finding arrowheads or
excacavating ancient cities.

It's probably true that no archaeological
discovery disproves any part of the Bible.

It's other areas of science that are involved
in work that has disproved so much of
the Bible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think anyone would deny the Bible takes place on Earth. What archeological evidence is there for the supernatural claims of the Bible? Or the Noachian Flood. Or Exodus?

My son's Harry Potter book references London.

Does your son's Harry Potter book (like my son's Harry Potter books) point to an historic, ongoing social story of ethnic and ideological unrest between wizards taking place outside the text and upon the world stage? Unlike the bible, I don't think the Harry Potter series quite has that kind of ontology built into it. And we probably don't really need a course on Historiography to figure out this distinction between the two literary forms.

The thing is: Israel is real. Jews are real. Jerusalem is real. And we're all just trying to make heads or tails of what it really amounts to. Some of us just deliberate and decide that Jesus makes the most sense out of it all.