Adam & Eve

[Hespera]

Exactly right, ire, and of course when the bible actually has a chance to come thru with something that any tale-teller couldnt fake, like noahs flood, well, then the supporting "evidences' aint nowhere. That book cant come up with any more supporting evidence than any other so called sacred book or set of stories.

 

[theFijian]

Exactly right, ire, and of course when the bible actually has a chance to come thru with something that any tale-teller couldnt fake, like noahs flood, well, then the supporting "evidences' aint nowhere. That book cant come up with any more supporting evidence than any other so called sacred book or set of stories.

The problem is that you seem to be going along with dad's idea that the bible is actually trying to provide a 'scientific' account. Obviously it's not. Higher textual criticism has told us a lot about the nature of the bible and similar ancient texts. you should check it out if you have a genuine interest in the literature.

i'm not defending dad's position (who would) but the cultural snobbery doesn't aid discussion. The only reason we are more advanced as a society is because we stand on the shoulders of giants. If we had been born into an ancient society we'd be no different to any of those supposed ignorant primitives.

 

[Hespera]

The problem is that you seem to be going along with dad's idea that the bible is actually trying to provide a 'scientific' account. Obviously it's not. Higher textual criticism has told us a lot about the nature of the bible and similar ancient texts. you should check it out if you have a genuine interest in the literature.

i'm not defending dad's position (who would) but the cultural snobbery doesn't aid discussion. The only reason we are more advanced as a society is because we stand on the shoulders of giants. If we had been born into an ancient society we'd be no different to any of those supposed ignorant primitives.

No fij the problem here is you assuming something and then stating it as fact. Would not occur to me to think the bible is "trying to provide a scientific account". It isnt "trying" to do anything. Its definitely not about science. As ror corroborating evidence, the flood has none.

I am also aware that we enjoy the benefits of the work done by those who came before. We are of course, in my culture taught to respect ancestors in a way that is not characteristic of the west. So I dont need to be told.

"Primitives" is probably not a good word to use, I dont think anthro0polgists use it anymore. Ignorant? I guess that would be a case of ignorant of what. Say things like disease, astronomy, the existence of australia....

As for cultural snobbery, are you saying that about me?

 

[theFijian]

No fij the problem here is you assuming something and then stating it as fact. Would not occur to me to think the bible is "trying to provide a scientific account". It isnt "trying" to do anything.

It isn't trying to do anything is it? Says who? You? or are you assuming something and then stating it as fact?

Its definitely not about science.

Not about our modern understanding of science is, no.

As ror corroborating evidence, the flood has none.

Umm... sounds like you treating it as science again (and I didn't even mention the flood)

"Primitives" is probably not a good word to use, I dont think anthro0polgists use it anymore. Ignorant? I guess that would be a case of ignorant of what. Say things like disease, astronomy, the existence of australia....

I'd agree although maybe a better word to use is 'nescience', it doesn't carry the same connotations as 'ignorance'.

As for cultural snobbery, are you saying that about me?

If the cap fits... (see above quote)

 

[Hespera]

It isn't trying to do anything is it? Says who? You? or are you assuming something and then stating it as fact?

Not about our modern understanding of science is, no. Umm... sounds like you treating it as science again (and I didn't even mention the flood)



I'd agree although maybe a better word to use is 'nescience', it doesn't carry the same connotations as 'ignorance'.


If the cap fits... (see above quote)

It doesnt. You have the courage to say something directly, or just try to sneak it in sideways?

 

[theFijian]

It doesnt. You have the courage to say something directly, or just try to sneak it in sideways?

You said "it (the Bible) isn't tring to do anything". So how is it you know there is no authorial intent in the Bible?

 

[Hespera]

A book cant try to do anything. Its just a book.

Sarcasm and trying to play gotcha are not even the lowest form of debate, its not debate at all. You have an idea, express that

So back to the courage to say something insulting directly?

If you have some problem with me, or with any aspect of Asian / female / educated / atheist, work it out for yourself. Cut out the personal comments.

 

[theFijian]

A book cant try to do anything. Its just a book.

Yes and Beethoven's fifth is just an arrangement of a whole bunch of notes , Citizen Kane is just a load of images on celluloid, and Don Quixote is just a lot of ink on paper.

Sarcasm and trying to play gotcha are not even the lowest form of debate, its not debate at all. You have an idea, express that

And playing the pedant is what? Please tell how you know that the bible has no authorial intent then you will be able to say that the Bible "isn't 'trying' to do anything". (ie. you seem to know better than the authors what they were trying to acheive, which was appartntly nothing) If you were seriously being pedantic and the Bible is 'just a book', well honestly why bother saying anything.

So back to the courage to say something insulting directly?

If you have some problem with me, or with any aspect of Asian / female / educated / atheist, work it out for yourself. Cut out the personal comments.

trying to play the martyr only demeans yourself. ironic that you claim I made it 'personal' when you try to play the 'persecuted minority' card. you seem to think people disagreeing with you equates with a personal attack.

 

[sandwiches]

I don't know much about the book. Saw the movie. I don't care much about it.

If something is fact, and supported, we would have the records, and observations, etc. The bible is supported, we had witnesses all over the place, and confirmations, supporting evidences (such as that there really was a certain town, and king, etc).

For the premise of so called science we have nothing at all. Just belief. Just assumption. Better concentrate on proving it, rather than tossing out canards.

You still haven't answered the question:
HOW did you come to the conclusion that the Illiad is false?

 

[Hespera]

Yes and Beethoven's fifth is just an arrangement of a whole bunch of notes , Citizen Kane is just a load of images on celluloid, and Don Quixote is just a lot of ink on paper.

And playing the pedant is what? Please tell how you know that the bible has no authorial intent then you will be able to say that the Bible "isn't 'trying' to do anything". (ie. you seem to know better than the authors what they were trying to acheive, which was appartntly nothing) If you were seriously being pedantic and the Bible is 'just a book', well honestly why bother saying anything.



trying to play the martyr only demeans yourself. ironic that you claim I made it 'personal' when you try to play the 'persecuted minority' card. you seem to think people disagreeing with you equates with a personal attack.

Ok first I am a cultural snob then I am playing the persecuted minority.

Interpreting how I think , why i think it, what my "problem' is, that I am demeaning myself and a snob is making it personal. Even if they are kinda contradictory, and none of them are accurate.

If you dont have a problem with who or what I am, fine, quit making personal comments and talk about something that might be an issue.
If you are going to keep making personal remarks, make them to yourself, i will just ig it.

Pot meet kettle wise, tho..."And playing the pedant is what? Please tell how you know that the bible has no authorial intent then you will be able to say that the Bible "isn't 'trying' to do anything"

Why do you think its worth getting all pedantic about it? So some of the authors did probably intend something. A book still cant try to do anything. Is that agreeable?

 

[Jester4kicks]

Yes and Beethoven's fifth is just an arrangement of a whole bunch of notes , Citizen Kane is just a load of images on celluloid, and Don Quixote is just a lot of ink on paper.

Precisely. The works themselves are simply products of the people who made them. The intention rests with the authors/composers/directors themselves.

And playing the pedant is what? Please tell how you know that the bible has no authorial intent then you will be able to say that the Bible "isn't 'trying' to do anything". (ie. you seem to know better than the authors what they were trying to acheive, which was appartntly nothing) If you were seriously being pedantic and the Bible is 'just a book', well honestly why bother saying anything.

The authority of the bible rests with "god". If you believe it, you are accountable to god, not to the book itself.

Of course... it was written by men... and there's always room for little agendas there... but that's a whole different conversation.

trying to play the martyr only demeans yourself. ironic that you claim I made it 'personal' when you try to play the 'persecuted minority' card. you seem to think people disagreeing with you equates with a personal attack.

You did more than disagree... you personally attacked.

 

[theFijian]

Ok first I am a cultural snob then I am playing the persecuted minority.

Interpreting how I think , why i think it, what my "problem' is, that I am demeaning myself and a snob is making it personal. Even if they are kinda contradictory, and none of them are accurate.

If you dont have a problem with who or what I am, fine, quit making personal comments and talk about something that might be an issue.
If you are going to keep making personal remarks, make them to yourself, i will just ig it.

Pot meet kettle wise, tho..."And playing the pedant is what? Please tell how you know that the bible has no authorial intent then you will be able to say that the Bible "isn't 'trying' to do anything"

Cultural snobbery is when people look down their noses at ancient primitive cultures for their supposed 'ignorance'. this is what came across to me in your posts. Now I see that this was not your intention so I do apologise.

Why do you think its worth getting all pedantic about it? So some of the authors did probably intend something. A book still cant try to do anything. Is that agreeable?

It's not me who's getting pedantic, rather it is you. If we must be pedantic then no, an inanimate object can't drive a car, it can't eat an apple it can't watch TV, it can't take the dog for a walk etc etc. If you want to play the pedant then you bring an end to any meaningful discussion.

 

[dad]

Exactly right, ire, and of course when the bible actually has a chance to come thru with something that any tale-teller couldnt fake, like noahs flood, well, then the supporting "evidences' aint nowhere. That book cant come up with any more supporting evidence than any other so called sacred book or set of stories.

The bible was mostly observed, and the records carefully kept. What you mean is that you don't want to accept the evidence.

Th flood I would say is well evidenced. The spread of languages, and population numbers, and collaboration of worldwide flood legends, etc. The long lifespans of ancient history are also best explained by some sudden event about that time. The fossil record and strata as I see it all agree as well.

What we actually have, is tales of so called science, that have no basis in any actual facts.

 

[dad]

You still haven't answered the question:
HOW did you come to the conclusion that the Illiad is false?

I look for what something ic claimed to be. As a story, I don't see the Iliad as 'false' persay. It may be a glimpse into attitudes, and ways of an ancient people, as well as as nice bloody story.

It does not claim to be a creation account! This happens to be a creation debate, if you missed that?

So called sciencd DOES claim to deal in the creation of the universe, and life! Therefore on may look at the roots and basis of those claims here. I have, and they have been found wanting.
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, (indue time) UPHARSIN So called science


The bible was also weighed in the balances, and found good as gold over time.

 

[dad]

Charles Dickens and William Shakespeare wrote fiction but their books are full of people who existed and places that still exist, does that mean their books are true? the bible mentions a few places that existed but there is no proof whatsoever that the people mentioned in the bible ever existed, (apart from the odd king, etc) just because you were told they existed or believe that they did means absolutely nothing, there are no records that a man named Robin Hood ever existed but we all like to think that he did, but as it stands just like the people in the bible Robin Hood is just another fictitious character, without corroborating evidence they are just figments of peoples imaginations, it's very sad but it's also very true.

The bible deals largely with the lands of Israel. It IS the record. You don't seem to be talking from a standpoint of knowledge. Bible archeology had uncovered many things that verify the truth and accuracy of the bible. There is no reason to doubt!! None. Got any???

 

[WilliamduBois]

The bible deals largely with the lands of Israel. It IS the record. You don't seem to be talking from a standpoint of knowledge. Bible archeology had uncovered many things that verify the truth and accuracy of the bible. There is no reason to doubt!! None. Got any???

Robert Schlieman found the foundations of various Troys. Including one that seems to have been burned down to the ground in a war.

I guess that means the Illiad is a true story. Literally true, even! Hail Zeus, huh, dad?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I look for what something ic claimed to be. As a story, I don't see the Iliad as 'false' persay. It may be a glimpse into attitudes, and ways of an ancient people, as well as as nice bloody story.

Amd billions of people say the same thing about the Bible -- more so than those who think it's real.

It does not claim to be a creation account! This happens to be a creation debate, if you missed that?

Actually, there are Christians -- more knowledgable than yourself* -- who claim that Adam and Eve isn't strictly speaking, a "Creation account" -- that would be Genesis 1. Gen. 2 is more of a marriage story.

*(Who would've thought I'd wish AV1611VET were here right about now?)

So called sciencd DOES claim to deal in the creation of the universe, and life! Therefore on may look at the roots and basis of those claims here. I have, and they have been found wanting.

Because they refute your fables, or for some legitimate reasons?

The bible was also weighed in the balances, and found good as gold over time.

Not by the majority of the planet -- including those who believe The Iliad.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The bible deals largely with the lands of Israel. It IS the record.

The Iliad deals largely with the lands of Turkey. It IS the record.

You don't seem to be talking from a standpoint of knowledge.

You've admitted to that yourself -- why listen to you?

Bible archeology had uncovered many things that verify the truth and accuracy of the bible. There is no reason to doubt!! None. Got any???

Secular archeology (as in, acheology with no ulterior motive) has uncovered many things that verify the truth and accuracy of the Iliad -- that is, when they weren't busy finding the things that refute the accuracy of the Bible*.

*Never forget, Mr. Enjay, the Romans were meticulous record-keepers.

How many reasons for doubt would you like?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Amd billions of people say the same thing about the Bible -- more so than those who think it's real.

Cameras at the scene of an accident prove that some people get it right and most do not.

Actually, there are Christians -- more knowledgable than yourself* -- who claim that Adam and Eve isn't strictly speaking, a "Creation account" -- that would be Genesis 1. Gen. 2 is more of a marriage story.

The creation account in that opinion is that man attained the point of being able to realize God.

*(Who would've thought I'd wish AV1611VET were here right about now?)

Because they refute your fables, or for some legitimate reasons?

The Biblical account is holding its own even with scientists:

Many people assume that Darwin’s theory must have shaken the foundation of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of six-day creation. In truth, the literalist six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin’s theory.

- The Questions | The BioLogos Foundation

Not by the majority of the planet -- including those who believe The Iliad.

Scientific discoveries have always arrived on the shoulders of a minority opinion at first. Evidently as does becoming children of God.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Cameras at the scene of an accident prove that some people get it right and most do not.

Be that as it may, there were no "cameras" present at any of the scenes of the Bible -- certainly no more than were present at the Trojan War.

The creation account in that opinion is that man attained the point of being able to realize God.

Opinions are nice. So are cupcakes.

The Biblical account is holding its own even with scientists:

You mean the part that says: "In truth, the literalist six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin’s theory."

So it's not the Bible that's wrong, just the literalist interpretation of it -- I'm fine with that; there's almost always a glimmer of truth in any mythology.

Scientific discoveries have always arrived on the shoulders of a minority opinion at first. Evidently as does becoming children of God.

And sometimes opinions are just plain mistaken. (Don't tell "dad": he thinks it's true because of a majority opinion)