Bridging the Gap

[Steve Petersen]

The entire point of the video was to demonstrate all such claims made from the Bible. When one adds them all together, do such claims match with later actual discovery and reality? Or, are such claims instead mythology to a lesser or greater degree? If being intellectually honest with one's self, it would appear the later seems a better fit.



There exists too much to unpack, with such assessments... Furthermore, why (must) the resurrection be the catalyst by which such validation reigns true? Is it because a human says so in a book chapter? (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15:14). Or, is it because characters in the story line claims He is the Messiah; just as many others have also claimed to resurrect prior and sense in documented history?

My form of 'progressive' is as follows. One can somehow either minimize, dismiss, 're-interpret', chalk up as parable, not take literally, or other, many other such claims from the Bible. And yet, somehow, all of a sudden, the resurrection did actually happen, and is to be taken completely literally without question? Seems a bit inconsistent?

Like I stated, too much to unpack...



Except for the fact that such statements are made in the NT (i.e. Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 16:17, John 5:45-47, Luke 11:50-51, Matthew 24:38-39, Luke 17:28-32, etc.....); where such statements seem to suggest the OT as 'validated' or literal in many respects



I take a simpler approach.... I start from the beginning to such a book of claims, and start to assess if each such successive claim could have actually happened or not? So by the time I get to the NT, I see so many prior claims which might require 're-interpretation', 'to not actually take literal', 'to view instead as parable', deem 'mythical', etc, that it makes one wonder how any/all such claims in the NT do not simply follow the exact same line of reasoning for such conclusions.

Mythology provides explanations for things we don't understand. As we understand more about ourselves and the universe, our mythology has to change or it becomes ludicrous. If you haven't I suggest you read Joseph Campbell's Mythos. There are also video interviews with him on Youtube.

 

[devolved]

I feel there appears some false equivalency happening here. Of course it's known about fairy tales humans tell (Robin Hood, The 3 Little Pigs, etc), and the life lessons associated. However, you do not appear to be addressing my points. Please let me elaborate a bit...

I doubt Noah's flood, as expressed from the OT, is viewed as fiction (like the story you mention) . Nor, does Jesus view such a story as fiction, or simply a learning lesson. Noah's flood is not just a story. It makes no sense for it to be only a story; but instead a literal event. Otherwise, we would not have an Ark Encounter in Kentucky, dozens of claimed Ark sightings, etc....

So we now have a dichotomy looming...

1. Was the flood account expressed to be a story of fiction, which did not actually happen? If not, why not? And what else in the Bible is merely only a story, and how do you know?

2. Was the flood account meant to be literal? If so, then why does so much evidence point to the contrary? And how might one reconcile such a conclusion to the contrary?

All I see, moving forward, is good old fashion Christian apologetics to come... Sorry

You have an extremely shallow view of this subject... And you seem to essentially think that there is no other way of looking at these things, especially since these concepts brifged the gap between primitive and animalistic humanity, and socio structures we have today.

You are free to look at these however you want to... But you simply won't understand that narrative through the lens of literalism

 

[cvanwey]

You have an extremely shallow view of this subject... And you seem to essentially think that there is no other way of looking at these things, especially since these concepts brifged the gap between primitive and animalistic humanity, and socio structures we have today.

You are free to look at these however you want to... But you simply won't understand that narrative through the lens of literalism

It's really very simple, and has nothing to do with being 'shallow', or any other applicable adjective you may wish to rubber stamp upon me.

Did Jesus view the flood as literal or metaphorical? It's a presented dichotomy. There exists no other alternative. However, either answer poses conflict.

So which one is it, in your view? Legend or literal? We can then proceed accordingly.

P.S. I do not have time, or the patience quite frankly, to watch a 2:30 minute video at this time. But I appreciate the offer. I may tackle it later down the road though.....

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Christians who tell you the flood wasn't literal love to just end the conversation there. If the conversation were to keep going then they'd have to admit that there is no "moral to the story." Or is the moral of the story that a farmer would take seven bulls and seven cows to mate? I'd think not. I'd think a farmer with any common sense would take one or two bulls and twelve or thirteen cows. Or is the moral of the story that God wants to kill us all, but restrains himself because we slash a goat's throat and burn its guts in a ritualistic sacrifice?

Christians have to draw the line at Jesus. Surely his existence wasn't figurative, right? Surely he was a real, physical person? Luke's genealogy of Christ includes Noah. Is that figurative or literal? Is it literally true and just a coincidence that Noah is in the genealogy? We're supposed to believe that the flood was figurative, but that Noah was absolutely real? And even though he never was the father of a genetic bottleneck he just so happened to squeeze into the genealogy of Christ? Seems legit.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Christians who tell you the flood wasn't literal love to just end the conversation there. If the conversation were to keep going then they'd have to admit that there is no "moral to the story." Or is the moral of the story that a farmer would take seven bulls and seven cows to mate? I'd think not. I'd think a farmer with any common sense would take one or two bulls and twelve or thirteen cows. Or is the moral of the story that God wants to kill us all, but restrains himself because we slash a goat's throat and burn its guts in a ritualistic sacrifice?

Christians have to draw the line at Jesus. Surely his existence wasn't figurative, right? Surely he was a real, physical person? Luke's genealogy of Christ includes Noah. Is that figurative or literal? Is it literally true and just a coincidence that Noah is in the genealogy? We're supposed to believe that the flood was figurative, but that Noah was absolutely real? And even though he never was the father of a genetic bottleneck he just so happened to squeeze into the genealogy of Christ? Seems legit.

We don't all end the conversation there. But some of us do like to say that unless more complex philosophical issues can be recognized, explored and discussed, then there's little need for us to continue. Besides, I can only tell you about the extent of my vacation cruise and what it has meant to me; but it's not up to me to make you apply for a passport and to pay for your cruise ticket so you can go on a similar journey.

 

[Silmarien]

The entire point of the video was to demonstrate all such claims made from the Bible. When one adds them all together, do such claims match with later actual discovery and reality? Or, are such claims instead mythology to a lesser or greater degree? If being intellectually honest with one's self, it would appear the later seems a better fit.

Intellectual honesty doesn't demand any specific interpretation, and not everyone thinks that mythology is always and obviously false. One approach to the very early Old Testament stories that I find intriguing is that they were theological correctives to Sumerian myths--God's sovereignty and love of righteousness are demonstrated in contrast to the pagan Sumerian gods who would drown the world because humans were too loud.

A literalist approach to Christianity is quite obviously dead to you. There's really no need to continuing kicking its corpse--if you want to abandon religion entirely, then just do it. If you don't, then you're going to need to learn how to leave literalism behind.

There exists too much to unpack, with such assessments... Furthermore, why (must) the resurrection be the catalyst by which such validation reigns true? Is it because a human says so in a book chapter? (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15:14). Or, is it because characters in the story line claims He is the Messiah; just as many others have also claimed to resurrect prior and sense in documented history?

I didn't actually mention the Resurrection. Obviously if it didn't happen, then Christianity is false, so it is in a certain sense the starting point, but historical analysis can only get you so far. I'm more interested in the ways in which Christianity destroyed the pagan world and the manner in which it has influenced history in the millennia since.

My form of 'progressive' is as follows. One can somehow either minimize, dismiss, 're-interpret', chalk up as parable, not take literally, or other, many other such claims from the Bible. And yet, somehow, all of a sudden, the resurrection did actually happen, and is to be taken completely literally without question? Seems a bit inconsistent?

Like I stated, too much to unpack...

I really don't see the problem. The New Testament is the result of a generation of oral history, so while it's unrealistic to assume it to be a perfect historical record, we're not so far removed from events for it to have been the obvious result of later mythologization. I would certainly never suggest that anyone accept the Resurrection without question, but the Pauline epistles do give us a contemporaneous account. That puts it in a different category historically than the Old Testament stories, most of which are lost in the sands of time, so to speak.

Except for the fact that such statements are made in the NT (i.e. Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 16:17, John 5:45-47, Luke 11:50-51, Matthew 24:38-39, Luke 17:28-32, etc.....); where such statements seem to suggest the OT as 'validated' or literal in many respects

I read none of that as demanding a literalist reading of the Old Testament. I'm not sure Christianity makes any sense if there was no special relationship between God and Israel, but that doesn't turn the Old Testament into a science and history book wrapped up in one. An imperfect record of a people's encounter with God, perhaps.

I take a simpler approach.... I start from the beginning to such a book of claims, and start to assess if each such successive claim could have actually happened or not? So by the time I get to the NT, I see so many prior claims which might require 're-interpretation', 'to not actually take literal', 'to view instead as parable', deem 'mythical', etc, that it makes one wonder how any/all such claims in the NT do not simply follow the exact same line of reasoning for such conclusions.

It would never have occurred to me to approach the Bible like this. I started off with the assumption that it was all mythology and then specifically looked into the historicity of the New Testament. I was eventually satisfied that it was not completely unreliable, and if it was true, then the Old Testament had to be inspired in some sense as well. Just not in a way that conflicts with reason.

 

[cvanwey]

A literalist approach to Christianity is quite obviously dead to you. There's really no need to continuing kicking its corpse--if you want to abandon religion entirely, then just do it. If you don't, then you're going to need to learn how to leave literalism behind.

I disagree. As stated elsewhere, it's very simple. Each and every claim and story from the Bible are either literal (or) legendary in some capacity. Either/or.... So we have a giant collection of stories... (66 chapters/40 claimed authors). We also have claims to a book of 'absolute truth'. We also have further people, like Sal/Paul - (apparently writing several of such chapters), whom makes large and bold statements; referring to the Old Testament specifically, making pronouncements such as... (2 Timothy 3:16) for instance.

If I'm to 'leave literalism behind', then I'm just as well to say the 'resurrection' is not literal. Where does one draw the line?

I'm more interested in the ways in which Christianity destroyed the pagan world and the manner in which it has influenced history in the millennia since.

Does a later shift in belief to Christianity make it true, by majority rule? To me, a paradigm shift, to instead harbor beliefs in Christianity, has no bearing on whether the belief is actually true or not. So many are Christians now. Does this somehow validate it's authenticity in any way? My interest lies in the actual evidence to the claims as either true or false, not how Christianity became popular.

I really don't see the problem. The New Testament is the result of a generation of oral history, so while it's unrealistic to assume it to be a perfect historical record, we're not so far removed from events for it to have been the obvious result of later mythologization. I would certainly never suggest that anyone accept the Resurrection without question, but the Pauline epistles do give us a contemporaneous account. That puts it in a different category historically than the Old Testament stories, most of which are lost in the sands of time, so to speak.

We have a giant collection of events. As they are read, one places each supernatural claim into one of two dichotomous categories (fact or fiction), for whatever reason the reader chooses. By the time the New Testament is reached, one seems to need to rationalize too many stories, as far as I'm concerned.

And please remember, the ENTIRE Bible is placed together; comprising of one entire big-book-of-truth. One is not afforded the luxury to dismiss, ignore, or skip some stories, while literally accepting other claims/stories. You do NOT have the New Testament without the Old Testament.

So, to the contrary, I do see a large problem.

I read none of that as demanding a literalist reading of the Old Testament. I'm not sure Christianity makes any sense if there was no special relationship between God and Israel, but that doesn't turn the Old Testament into a science and history book wrapped up in one. An imperfect record of a people's encounter with God, perhaps.

It's a claimed 'big-book-of-truth'. If it's in there, it should be validated and backed by later human discovery. If it is not, then questions must arise. When enough claims are exposed, to the contrary of human discovery objectively, one has no choice but to dismiss the entire collection as not trustworthy, as the book claims it IS completely trustworthy

It would never have occurred to me to approach the Bible like this. I started off with the assumption that it was all mythology and then specifically looked into the historicity of the New Testament. I was eventually satisfied that it was not completely unreliable, and if it was true, then the Old Testament had to be inspired in some sense as well. Just not in a way that conflicts with reason.

Of course not. Just like Alexander the Great may have actually lived, died, and conquered nations. But was he really the some of Zeus, as some legend indicates?

It's one thing to accept a man named Jesus, whom lived, was a carpenter, and was crucified. But did he really resurrect from the dead?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I disagree. As stated elsewhere, it's very simple. Each and every claim and story from the Bible are either literal (or) legendary in some capacity. Either/or.... So we have a giant collection of stories... (66 chapters/40 claimed authors). We also have claims to a book of 'absolute truth'. We also have further people, like Sal/Paul - (apparently writing several of such chapters), whom makes large and bold statements; referring to the Old Testament specifically, making pronouncements such as... (2 Timothy 3:16) for instance.

If I'm to 'leave literalism behind', then I'm just as well to say the 'resurrection' is not literal. Where does one draw the line?

Would it be too much for me to say that I think you're asserting a false dichotomy? What if there are additional options to consider about how the nature of the Biblical writing can be conceptualized when we speak about its ontology? And what happens to your dichotomy if the entire letter of 2 Timothy turns out to be fraudulent?

I mean, really, cvanway. I know you're trying to be thoughtful here, but you're being way too presumptuous in your claims, especially for someone who doesn't think the Bible is true in the first place. How are we supposed to know that your exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16 is correct and that your overall hermeneutical praxis is sound? What if all of these issues aren't simple, but complex, so complex in fact that not a single one of us has the full picture of how all of this Christianity stuff "works"?

The thing with you, I notice, is that in each of your threads, your praxis is overly simplistic and you then attempt to play upon various apparent paradoxes, inconsistencies, or tensions that exist within the corpus of biblical literature.

Does a later shift in belief to Christianity make it true, by majority rule? To me, a paradigm shift, to instead harbor beliefs in Christianity, has no bearing on whether the belief is actually true or not. So many are Christians now. Does this somehow validate it's authenticity in any way? My interest lies in the actual evidence to the claims as either true or false, not how Christianity became popular.

We have a giant collection of events. As they are read, one places each supernatural claim into one of two dichotomous categories (fact or fiction), for whatever reason the reader chooses. By the time the New Testament is reached, one seems to need to rationalize too many stories, as far as I'm concerned.

And please remember, the ENTIRE Bible is placed together; comprising of one entire big-book-of-truth. One is not afforded the luxury to dismiss, ignore, or skip some stories, while literally accepting other claims/stories. You do NOT have the New Testament without the Old Testament.

So, to the contrary, I do see a large problem.

Is this all said by your authority, or by someone else's?

It's a claimed 'big-book-of-truth'. If it's in there, it should be validated and backed by later human discovery. If it is not, then questions must arise. When enough claims are exposed, to the contrary of human discovery objectively, one has no choice but to dismiss the entire collection as not trustworthy, as the book claims it IS completely trustworthy

Yeah, that's not how this all works, actually. It would be nice if this were the case, but ... it ain't the case.

Of course not. Just like Alexander the Great may have actually lived, died, and conquered nations. But was he really the some of Zeus, as some legend indicates?

How would we attempt to find out if he was the son of Zeus? What all goes into such an investigative process?

It's one thing to accept a man named Jesus, whom lived, was a carpenter, and was crucified. But did he really resurrect from the dead?

Hard to say, isn't it? This is especially so since neither your nor I can hop a time-machine back to 1st century Jerusalem. Of course, I'm guessing that if we go ahead and glean some possible epistemic insight from the Gospel accounts, we'll consider that even IF we could go back, we'd have a very difficult time trying to figure out if Jesus is the Messiah, just as did many of the Jewish people who actually lived during that time and in that place, and even saw Jesus in person.

 

[Silmarien]

I disagree. As stated elsewhere, it's very simple. Each and every claim and story from the Bible are either literal (or) legendary in some capacity. Either/or.... So we have a giant collection of stories... (66 chapters/40 claimed authors). We also have claims to a book of 'absolute truth'. We also have further people, like Sal/Paul - (apparently writing several of such chapters), whom makes large and bold statements; referring to the Old Testament specifically, making pronouncements such as... (2 Timothy 3:16) for instance.

If I'm to 'leave literalism behind', then I'm just as well to say the 'resurrection' is not literal. Where does one draw the line?

Some people who identify as Christian do say the Resurrection is not literal. Once you go that far, there's nothing recognizably Christian about the religion, nothing interesting or challenging or remotely surprising, nothing you need revelation for at all. I would sooner stick to Plato and Aristotle than adopt that form of Christianity, but it's certainly out there.

The problem is that you're reading everything through a fundamentalist lens. Your contrast between literal and legendary is a false dichotomy, since there are parts of the Old Testament, like the wisdom literature, which are pretty explicitly non-literal. That doesn't mean non-inspired, so we obviously need to approach inspiration differently. Even in 2 Timothy 3:16, there is no claim to literal inerrancy in the modern sense.

Maybe drop the Bible and read Patristics and other pre-modern theology to get a better feel for the various ways this has been handled over the millennia?

Does a later shift in belief to Christianity make it true, by majority rule? To me, a paradigm shift, to instead harbor beliefs in Christianity, has no bearing on whether the belief is actually true or not. So many are Christians now. Does this somehow validate it's authenticity in any way? My interest lies in the actual evidence to the claims as either true or false, not how Christianity became popular.

From a Platonic perspective, yes. If we have witnessed a shift towards a more enlightened approach to morality in the last 2000 years, and if that shift can be tied directly to Christianity, then yes, that constitutes evidence.

You were specifically interested in reasons to move from the God of Aristotle to Christianity. This is one of them. If Christianity says we are heading in a specific direction, and we appear to actually be heading in that direction, and I can associate that direction with the Good, then that is is actually infinitely more important to me than the evidence for the Resurrection.

This is why you cannot bridge the gap between philosophical theism and Christianity without functioning within that gap yourself. We are not naturalists. We approach everything differently. Our concerns are not the same.

We have a giant collection of events. As they are read, one places each supernatural claim into one of two dichotomous categories (fact or fiction), for whatever reason the reader chooses. By the time the New Testament is reached, one seems to need to rationalize too many stories, as far as I'm concerned.

And please remember, the ENTIRE Bible is placed together; comprising of one entire big-book-of-truth. One is not afforded the luxury to dismiss, ignore, or skip some stories, while literally accepting other claims/stories. You do NOT have the New Testament without the Old Testament.

So, to the contrary, I do see a large problem.

This doesn't make much sense. Nobody needs to read Job as literal history just because it happens to be in the same book as the Pauline epistles. In any case, the Bible was placed together by the Catholic/Orthodox Church, so if you're going to grant it that sort of authority as a whole, then you need to ask how the Church had the authority to compile it in the first place, and then we're into submitting to the authority of a Church that has no problem resorting to allegory whenever desirable.

Of course not. Just like Alexander the Great may have actually lived, died, and conquered nations. But was he really the some of Zeus, as some legend indicates?

I don't know. I don't pay cult to pagan gods, so the question is of no practical interest to me.

It's one thing to accept a man named Jesus, whom lived, was a carpenter, and was crucified. But did he really resurrect from the dead?

I don't know. If he was merely human, then probably not. But if he is God incarnate, then he almost certainly did.

This is why it is common for philosophical theists who reject Christianity to go after the doctrine of the Incarnation, not the miracles. We have no problem with the possibility of miracles, since we're not naturalists. If your starting point is the God of Aristotle, you need to abandon scientific naturalism. They're two different things.

 

[cvanwey]

Would it be too much for me to say that I think you're asserting a false dichotomy?

In some cases, I guess one could say this. But let me elaborate...

The flood... True or false, yes or no, real or legend, factual or mythical? Is this actually a trichotomy? I cannot think of another option. Can you?

What if there are additional options to consider about how the nature of the Biblical writing can be conceptualized when we speak about its ontology? And what happens to your dichotomy if the entire letter of 2 Timothy turns out to be fraudulent?

My point is that such statements claim the entire book is to be considered truth. Which means one is not allowed to omit certain parts, while accepting other parts; buffet style. Where-as, in a history book, one could read about one event, which checks out, while another event in that very same book may turn out to be false, or less than completely accurate. However, I doubt there exists such a disclaimer in such text books attesting to everything as irrefutable; like the Bible.

I mean, really, cvanway. I know you're trying to be thoughtful here, but you're being way too presumptuous in your claims, especially for someone who doesn't think the Bible is true in the first place. How are we supposed to know that your exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16 is correct and that your overall hermeneutical praxis is sound? What if all of these issues aren't simple, but complex, so complex in fact that not a single one of us has the full picture of how all of this Christianity stuff "works"?

Oh, I don't know....? Let's test my hermeneutic abilities for a moment. When I read Genesis, I feel the author is speaking about Noah's flood as a literal event. You?

The thing with you, I notice, is that in each of your threads, your praxis is overly simplistic and you then attempt to play upon various apparent paradoxes, inconsistencies, or tensions that exist within the corpus of biblical literature?

Thank you for the psychoanalytical analysis.... I'm sure glad you are here to set me straight. So again, maybe you can clear up my misunderstanding a bit....

The flood, according to the author, appears to be a literal event (in my feeble interpretation). Please demonstrate my 'paradoxes, inconsistencies, or tensions that exist within the corpus of biblical literature'? Please explain how I am so misguided to read such passages, investigate such claims against all known discovery, conclude the claimed event as false, which directly contradicts the Bible's claims of truth to such a claimed event? We can then go from there, with you steering and guiding me down a more educated path.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In some cases, I guess one could say this. But let me elaborate...

The flood... True or false, yes or no, real or legend, factual or mythical? Is this actually a trichotomy? I cannot think of another option. Can you?

Tossing questions at a person doesn't quite qualify as an "elaboration," cvanwey. Rather, an elaboration would be more along the lines of you providing to me additional, expanded, more details, more intricate explanations as to exactly why YOU think the Flood story is one of one literary nature or another. But, just for the sake of conversation, I'll try to roll with your present ploy of questioning.

The Flood story is, as you already know, a part of the corpus of ancient Jewish literature. And like you, I think the person or persons who wrote, edited, and compiled what we now know as the Torah likely felt that they were offering writing(s) of a more literal nature. However, for us to think that the ancients conceptualized the world around them in the exact same ontological categories as we do now would be anachronistic on our part, so it's probably best, hermeneutically considered, for us to bring in other concepts that may (or may not) capture the conceptual flavor of the stories in Genesis, particularly those found in the first 11 chapters. Some other concepts we might consider are: poetry, cosmogeny, theology, revelation, etc.

Do you realize that from our modern standpoint today, a number of bible scholars have allocated the materials that we find in the first 11 chapters of Genesis to their own specific field of study? The Flood story is just one more literary motif we find in the biblical contents which lead up to the pivotal introduction of Abraham. So, in this case, it might be good, again with the biblical accounts hermeneutically considered, for us to deliberate more circumspectly over what constitutes the literary nature of the Flood account.

As a part of my own hermeneutical method (or "hermeneutical endeavor," I should probably say since I'm not a super-expert), I tend to NOT merely rely on my own initial judgements about what I think I find in the Bible when I read it, especially not with something like Genesis. No, I'll instead pick up a book, or gather several books together, that allow me to compare and contrast multiple views from various scholars who disagree with one another, such as can be found in the following book (among many others that could be consulted):

Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's earliest chapters (2015). [i.e. the first 11 chapters of Genesis] Charles Halton & Stanley N. Gundry, Editors.

I mean, you really need to open yourself up to the permutations of analysis that various scholars can offer us today. Sure, you can choose to read the Bible on your own terms, in the way that you want to do, and you can even claim, as do many people, that your reading is just as good, just as relevant, just as objective, and/or credible as anyone else's, but if you do so, then there's not much reason for me personally to take you seriously since you ignore the reasoning of all of those who probably have many, many more insights about all of this than either you or I do.

So, with the additional consideration that likely need to be made, we might consider that the Flood account, by today's standards of understanding, is NEITHER literal nor pure fiction.

My point is that such statements claim the entire book is to be considered truth.

Actually, 2 Timothy 3:16, all by itself, is not something we can precisely pin down as to what its fullest meaning entails. You're reading something INTO it that it doesn't really say. All it says is that "all Scripture" (whatever that is), is "inspired" (whatever that is).

Which means one is not allowed to omit certain parts, while accepting other parts; buffet style.

That's funny; I told another atheist on these here CF boards something similar just a few days ago. Hmmmmmmmm............except I pointed out to him that he also needs to consider the importance of the many overlapping context that exist and, whether we recognize them or not, come to bear upon the "meaning" of the passages and verses that makeup the biblical statements. So, while I agree that the idea when reading the Bible is to take it together in a complete way, to do so isn't the same as taking into account the actual complex of contexts, including the paradigms in which all of these were written, that envelop and permeate the entire biblical collection.

Where-as, in a history book, one could read about one event, which checks out, while another event in that very same book may turn out to be false, or less than completely accurate. However, I doubt there exists such a disclaimer in such text books attesting to everything as irrefutable; like the Bible.

I'd like to recommend that you more deeply ponder the conceptual nature of a word like "inspired"? Where do the Biblical writers (even Paul) comprehensively explicate the full nature of the meaning of something like "inspiration"? Can you tell us?

Oh, I don't know....? Let's test my hermeneutic abilities for a moment. When I read Genesis, I feel the author is speaking about Noah's flood as a literal event. You?

The present referent of the term "hermeneutics" is anything BUT a personal reading of any text in any book. No, these days it is considered to be an academic field that is an art and a science, and one that isn't left open to merely the singular reading that any one of us will just blithely undertake by flipping open the Bible, pointing to a page, and reading off what we 'think' we see written therein.

It would be great if it were all that simple, but it ain't, and unfortunately, it's your word against those of the multitudes of academics and many others. You're doing neither biblical exegesis nor are you applying biblical hermeneutics or even philosophical hermeneutics. And I'm not sure why you'd expect me to trade in the insights of others for your own simply because you've decided to show up on CF and interrogate the heck out of the rest of us by way of your own decidely singular understanding of the Bible's texts.

On the other hand, you are your own person..........you do what you think you need to do. Just realize that the rest of us don't have to agree with your being a stickler on what is otherwise a Fundamentalist's approach to the Bible.

Thank you for the psychoanalytical analysis.... I'm sure glad you are here to set me straight. So again, maybe you can clear up my misunderstanding a bit....

It's not a psychoanalysis of you that I've performed here. If you want to interpret it that way and color it over in those words, I can't stop you. But it wouldn't be an accurate interpretation of what I think I've intended to do in countering your many assertions here.

Moreover, I'm not attempting to belittle your intelligence. As I've said elsewhere on another occasion, I do think you're a very smart guy, and I can respect your tenacity in wanting to 'dig' at the truth. It's just that it seems to me that even though you're plugging along here in rapid analytical pace, you're not quite taking the full existential connotations we're all standing in (and the angst that we all feel about it) into account. That is, you and I, along with countless others here, can only wrestle with the Bible from today's socially complex, epistemologically fragmented, ethnically diverse, psychologically individualized, politically tension filled, and historically displaced state of being.

In other words, we're human just like you are, and at some point, all of this becomes not really a discussion about the Bible, or your apparent grief with it, but rather with the tension you feel about having to deal with people like the rest of us who say "we beleive" and who happen to live in the same society that you do. It's not really about God; it's about dealing with interpersonal tensions.

The flood, according to the author, appears to be a literal event (in my feeble interpretation). Please demonstrate my 'paradoxes, inconsistencies, or tensions that exist within the corpus of biblical literature'? Please explain how I am so misguided to read such passages, investigate such claims against all known discovery, conclude the claimed event as false, which directly contradicts the Bible's claims of truth to such a claimed event? We can then go from there, with you steering and guiding me down a more educated path.

.....I think I've already begun to do this, as per all of the above. And if you truly, truly want to interlocute----that is, have a respectful, bilateral discussion where I listen to you and you listen to me----then we can do so. But, it may turn out that you and I are in independent spheres of understanding, working out of contrasting paradigms, and talking past each other because we each have very different praxes which might prevent us from actually talking about the Bible itself because ............we can't even agree on the underlying principles that constitute discussion and analysis.

To some extent, you and I are going in circles here. And if you've noticed, I'm not really saying anything different than I have from that very, very first post or two that I responded with when you first arrived here on CF several months ago.

 

[cvanwey]

Tossing questions at a person doesn't quite qualify as an "elaboration," cvanwey. Rather, an elaboration would be more along the lines of you providing to me additional, expanded, more details, more intricate explanations as to exactly why YOU think the Flood story is one of one literary nature or another. But, just for the sake of conversation, I'll try to roll with your present ploy of questioning.

The Flood story is, as you already know, a part of the corpus of ancient Jewish literature. And like you, I think the person or persons who wrote, edited, and compiled what we now know as the Torah likely felt that they were offering writing(s) of a more literal nature. However, for us to think that the ancients conceptualized the world around them in the exact same ontological categories as we do now would be anachronistic on our part, so it's probably best, hermeneutically considered, for us to bring in other concepts that may (or may not) capture the conceptual flavor of the stories in Genesis, particularly those found in the first 11 chapters. Some other concepts we might consider are: poetry, cosmogeny, theology, revelation, etc.

Do you realize that from our modern standpoint today, a number of bible scholars have allocated the materials that we find in the first 11 chapters of Genesis to their own specific field of study? The Flood story is just one more literary motif we find in the biblical contents which lead up to the pivotal introduction of Abraham. So, in this case, it might be good, again with the biblical accounts hermeneutically considered, for us to deliberate more circumspectly over what constitutes the literary nature of the Flood account.

As a part of my own hermeneutical method (or "hermeneutical endeavor," I should probably say since I'm not a super-expert), I tend to NOT merely rely on my own initial judgements about what I think I find in the Bible when I read it, especially not with something like Genesis. No, I'll instead pick up a book, or gather several books together, that allow me to compare and contrast multiple views from various scholars who disagree with one another, such as can be found in the following book (among many others that could be consulted):

Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's earliest chapters (2015). [i.e. the first 11 chapters of Genesis] Charles Halton & Stanley N. Gundry, Editors.

I mean, you really need to open yourself up to the permutations of analysis that various scholars can offer us today. Sure, you can choose to read the Bible on your own terms, in the way that you want to do, and you can even claim, as do many people, that your reading is just as good, just as relevant, just as objective, and/or credible as anyone else's, but if you do so, then there's not much reason for me personally to take you seriously since you ignore the reasoning of all of those who probably have many, many more insights about all of this than either you or I do.

So, with the additional consideration that likely need to be made, we might consider that the Flood account, by today's standards of understanding, is NEITHER literal nor pure fiction.

You are making this way too difficult sir. No flood, no Bible. It's really that simple. There exists no logical or rational reason such a told and written story was not meant to be anything other than literal. And if there existed no actual flood, the entire book is now suspect, as the entire body of work is claimed to be of truth. I repeat, the entire body is meant to be taken as truth. This is not an assertion, but instead just common sense, by reading the text book.

Actually, 2 Timothy 3:16, all by itself, is not something we can precisely pin down as to what its fullest meaning entails. You're reading something INTO it that it doesn't really say. All it says is that "all Scripture" (whatever that is), is "inspired" (whatever that is).

Well, when Sal wrote his body of works, the OT existed right? So I would assume, again using my uneducated skeptical and uninformed conclusions, that Sal meant the entire Old Testament, or ALL scripture. And wouldn't you know it... The flood account/story/claim is in the OT

*****************

The rest is just side-stepping a very basic and obvious observation; which I honestly find very hard to believe is still in debate today.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You are making this way too difficult sir. No flood, no Bible. It's really that simple. There exists no logical or rational reason such a told and written story was not meant to be anything other than literal. And if there existed no actual flood, the entire book is now suspect, as the entire body of work is claimed to be of truth. I repeat, the entire body is meant to be taken as truth. This is not an assertion, but instead just common sense, by reading the text book.



Well, when Sal wrote his body of works, the OT existed right? So I would assume, again using my uneducated skeptical and uninformed conclusions, that Sal meant the entire Old Testament, or ALL scripture. And wouldn't you know it... The flood account/story/claim is in the OT

*****************

The rest is just side-stepping a very basic and obvious observation; which I honestly find very hard to believe is still in debate today.

So, let me get this straight. You think that the nature of ancient Jewish writing and all it was ever meant to entail during the time that the various books of the Bible were written, was basically identical in intent, structure and concept to all of that which informs the praxes of various modern historians and writers of history today. Is that about right?

ok. great. There goes the neighborhood! Let me begin throwing out all of my books, journal articles, academic web page articles, and other access points by which I've gained any insights while at the university all because you've decided that the Bible must mean exactly and only that which you think it must mean in the way that you think it should have only ever meant it! [Oops! There goes my diploma, too, right into the shredder! ]

I mean-----dude!------If you don't want to 'believe' the Bible, then don't! No one is forcing you to. At least no one here is.

But tell me, and be honest about it, how much have you read from various Jewish Rabbis or even just various Jewish scholars? Anything? And how much History of Historiography and Philosophy of History have you read?

 

[cvanwey]

So, let me get this straight. You think that the nature of ancient Jewish writing and all it was ever meant to entail during the time that the various books of the Bible were written, was basically identical in intent, structure and concept to all of that which informs the praxes of various modern historians and writers of history today. Is that about right?

ok. great. There goes the neighborhood! Let me begin throwing out all of my books, journal articles, academic web page articles, and other access points by which I've gained any insights while at the university all because you've decided that the Bible must mean exactly and only that which you think it must mean in the way that you think it should have only ever meant it! [Oops! There goes my diploma, too, right into the shredder! ]

I mean-----dude!------If you don't want to 'believe' the Bible, then don't! No one is forcing you to. At least no one here is.

But tell me, and be honest about it, how much have you read from various Jewish Rabbis or even just various Jewish scholars? Anything? And how much History of Historiography and Philosophy of History have you read?

Nice over reaction. Very cunning And by this, I mean evasion specifically.

I feel, yet again, you are not addressing, what should be a very simple observation. The book claims complete and total truth. It's not like it is a science book, from 50 years ago, where one specific chapter may later no longer apply, due to later discovery to the contrary; but where various pieces of the science book may still prove relevant. We are instead talking about a book (66 chapters long), all of which claim all objective truth. Meaning, never changing. Meaning, if we find flaws, it is human error or misinterpretation, as opposed to later discovery revealing the prior claim was incorrect all along.

I understand the overreaction, however. It's pretty much in your face now isn't it?

So let me now answer your very specific question of concern:

But tell me, and be honest about it, how much have you read from various Jewish Rabbis or even just various Jewish scholars? Anything? And how much History of Historiography and Philosophy of History have you read?

First and foremost, I find it very peculiar, that you are instead questioning my academic stature? I mean, I made a very very simple connection. Meaning, I state the Bible author believed the flood was a literal event. The Bible states scripture was Yahweh inspired. This leads my simple mind to conclude that the author felt he was receiving holy guidance of truth from the all-mighty creator. In such a case, it stands to reason, that if such a story line is demonstrated false, we have questions.... Such as, what else is false? And wouldn't you know, many other claimed events also appear very suspect.

So instead of asking irrelevant questions, maybe instead address my very simple observation.

And furthermore, your line of questioning is like asking someone, whom does not believe in the Holy Qur'an, 'well, did you read it five times first before you passed judgement?" Meaning, do I really need to go into deep scholarly investigation to research the claims of Noah's flood? If so, please advise accordingly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nice over reaction. Very cunning And by this, I mean evasion specifically.

I feel, yet again, you are not addressing, what should be a very simple observation. The book claims complete and total truth. It's not like it is a science book, from 50 years ago, where one specific chapter may later no longer apply, due to later discovery to the contrary; but where various pieces of the science book may still prove relevant. We are instead talking about a book (66 chapters long), all of which claim all objective truth. Meaning, never changing. Meaning, if we find flaws, it is human error or misinterpretation, as opposed to later discovery revealing the prior claim was incorrect all along.

I understand the overreaction, however. It's pretty much in your face now isn't it?

So let me now answer your very specific question of concern:



First and foremost, I find it very peculiar, that you are instead questioning my pedigree? I mean, I made a very very simple connection. Meaning, I state the Bible author believed the flood was a literal event. The Bible states scripture was Yahweh inspired. This leads my simple mind to conclude that the author felt he was receiving holy guidance of truth from the all-mighty creator. In such a case, it stands to reason, that if such a story line is demonstrated false, we have questions.... Such as, what else is false? And wouldn't you know, many other claimed events also appear very suspect.

So instead of asking irrelevant questions, maybe instead address my very simple observation.

And furthermore, your line of questioning is like asking someone, whom does not believe in the Holy Qur'an, 'well, did you read it five times first before you passed judgement?" Meaning, do I really need to go into deep scholarly investigation to research the claims of Noah's flood? If so, please advise accordingly.

You do realize that nearly every time you resort to a direct dismissal of all and anything that anyone else has to say, and you insist that we defer to your one way monologue and polemic, you effectively close the door in our faces and give us nowhere to humanly go, right?

But here's what we can do, as far as I see it. Since you've apparently decided that the only way the Bible could be true if it were true would be to take the Fundamentalist 'high-road' in your interpretation and application, then I'm going to assume that since the Bible is so easy for you to read and understand, you can play "teacher" and we'll just passively sit here while you teach us what every verse of the Bible is supposed to mean. So, go ahead. The stage is yours---I'm listening! But there is something I want to know: do you even have to answer questions we ask, or is that prohibited in your dialogue rule-book?

 

[cvanwey]

You do realize that nearly every time you resort to a direct dismissal of all and anything that anyone else has to say, and you insist that we defer to your one way monologue and polemic, you effectively close the door in our faces and give us nowhere to humanly go, right?

Again, the flood account is a strict dichotomy. It either happened or it did not. There exists a very simple answer. Is the flood literal? Yes or no? My observation is that it cannot be anything other than 'literal'. It makes no sense, as there exists an Ark Encounter in Kentucky, claimed Ark sightings, countless hermeneutic scholars whom argue that the flood was literal, etc...

You perceiving my responses as a 'polemic', would only result from my frustration to what I perceive as a less than candid answer, to a very very basic observation. Drawing it out, as if there requires extensive study, appears to act as nothing more than a distractor. And I then wonder why?

So if you do not want to answer my very simple, and very direct question, then fine. But I only take such apparent navigation as an omission, or to at least partially concede that, such a simple conclusion raises pause for concern to all whom believe.

But here's what we can do, as far as I see it. Since you've apparently decided that the only way the Bible could be true if it were true would be to take the Fundamentalist 'high-road' in your interpretation and application, then I'm going to assume that since the Bible is so easy for you to read and understand, you can play "teacher" and we'll just passively sit here while you teach us what every verse of the Bible is supposed to mean. So, go ahead. The stage is yours---I'm listening! But there is something I want to know: do you even have to answer questions we ask, or is that prohibited in your dialogue rule-book?

You have, yet again, avoided my question. But since you are 'listening', let me 'teach' you something I've learned over the years in debate. When an opponent feels threatened, or feels their position may not hold water, they resort to three types of tactics (I'm sure I may do it as well from time to time, either knowingly or inadvertently):

1. Ignore it
2. Change the subject
3. Insult

Food for thought

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Again, the flood account is a strict dichotomy. It either happened or it did not. There exists a very simple answer. Is the flood literal? Yes or no? My observation is that it cannot be anything other than 'literal'. It makes no sense, as there exists an Ark Encounter in Kentucky, claimed Ark sightings, countless hermeneutic scholars whom argue that the flood was literal, etc...

You perceiving my responses as a 'polemic', would only result from my frustration to what I perceive as a less than candid answer, to a very very basic observation. Drawing it out, as if there requires extensive study, appears to act as nothing more than a distractor. And I then wonder why?

So if you do not want to answer my very simple, and very direct question, then fine. But I only take such apparent navigation as an omission, or to at least partially concede that, such a simple conclusion raises pause for concern to all whom believe.



You have, yet again, avoided my question. But since you are 'listening', let me 'teach' you something I've learned over the years in debate. When an opponent feels threatened, or feels their position may not hold water, they resort to three types of tactics (I'm sure I may do it as well from time to time, either knowingly or inadvertently):

1. Ignore it
2. Change the subject
3. Insult

Food for thought

And books like, How To Win Every Argument: An Introduction to Critical Thinking by Nicholas Capaldi are also food for thought, aren't they? The thing is, I'm not here to 'win' an argument.

But, just to keep our heads reeling and rolling: here's a contextual factor that also may be 'food for thought.' The Flood story obviously was not conceived of by the writer(s) as a watery grave that encircled and covered a huge 'globe.' So, even if the story was meant to be literal, we have to question just what kind of paradigm the writers thought they were writing within, especially if we keep in mind that other ancient cultures also had various 'flood' themed stories in their mythologies by which the writers could have borrowed, adapted, or refuted.

 

[devolved]

Some people who identify as Christian do say the Resurrection is not literal. Once you go that far, there's nothing recognizably Christian about the religion

This is why it is common for philosophical theists who reject Christianity to go after the doctrine of the Incarnation, not the miracles. We have no problem with the possibility of miracles, since we're not naturalists. If your starting point is the God of Aristotle, you need to abandon scientific naturalism. They're two different things.

I'm not sure that it's entirely accurate. Withing Christianity itself there's an "axiomatic range" of directions one could take, with plentiful being a viable path, including the allegorical one, which isn't new at all. Docetism has been around for a while, and I liken Christianity to an "open source" software that has been occasionally picked up, funded, and developed by corporate institutions for profit. It doesn't however mean that these are the only viable version of that software around.

For example, you could just chop off Biblical commentary, like Paul and the crew and get a rather free-running narrative of Jesus that isn't constrained by any orthodoxy other than Judaism platform. You'd get a vastly different concept of Christianity than a typical Catholico-protestant version of it.

And you are correct, in context of literal Jesus, resurrection wouldn't be that surprising, but nether would be YEC then. So, why would you dispose with YEC, which has been a large part of institutional Christianity, and none of the church leadership historically taught even millions of years.

I understand that these are in different categories and answer different questions, but these all link to the main question about religious narrative and its nature... and whether we should read it as some collection of facts about reality.

 

[cvanwey]

And books like, How To Win Every Argument: An Introduction to Critical Thinking by Nicholas Capaldi are also food for thought, aren't they? The thing is, I'm not here to 'win' an argument.

But, just to keep our heads reeling and rolling: here's a contextual factor that also may be 'food for thought.' The Flood story obviously was not conceived of by the writer(s) as a watery grave that encircled and covered a huge 'globe.' So, even if the story was meant to be literal, we have to question just what kind of paradigm the writers thought they were writing within, especially if we keep in mind that other ancient cultures also had various 'flood' themed stories in their mythologies by which the writers could have borrowed, adapted, or refuted.

The point of the flood was to wipe every human off the planet, except one chosen family. The 'flood' would imply that water was in place to kill every other human - (death by drowning). Regardless of what shape the author thought the globe was, at the time of this writing, one can explore evidence to such an event, which was said to kill all humans on earth. If evidence demonstrates to the contrary, we have a problem. So yes, a 'watery grave' seems sure to be the intent of the story portrayed in the Bible. And if the writer also thought the world was actually a flat disc, this even further adds to question, from a claimed book of never-changing truth...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The point of the flood was to wipe every human off the planet, except one chosen family. The 'flood' would imply that water was in place to kill every other human - (death by drowning). Regardless of what shape the author thought the globe was, at the time of this writing, one can explore evidence to such an event, which was said to kill all humans on earth. If evidence demonstrates to the contrary, we have a problem. So yes, a 'watery grave' seems sure to be the intent of the story portrayed in the Bible. And if the writer also thought the world was actually a flat disc, this even further adds to question, from a claimed book of never-changing truth...

But could the writer of Genesis "explore" evidence of such an event? Ah, see? That's the key here. The answer is basically, "no." He could not. And all the grasping you're doing at some amorphous, ethereal sense of inspiration, one that isn't specifically and comprehensively defined by the biblical writers anyway, can't undo this fact that I'm pointing out. So, that basically yanks the rug right out from your feet, doesn't it?

Furthermore, there is also no reason to think that INSPIRATION means, has to mean, and can only mean, that God magically deposited massive insights about some Flood from the past into Moses' skull. That kind of assumed definition is contrived and ill-begotten and forced fit into the passage of 2 Timothy 3:16 by nothing short of your own whimsy. No, it's best for us to say---no, to admit---that none of us knows exactly what inspiration from God really amounts to. That would be the honest thing for each of us to do.

So much for your reliance upon a forced-fit definition of inspiration that supposedly buttresses your not so well thought out ideas about just what 'literalness' in reading the Bible has to amount to! Better luck next time. Or, maybe its time for you to start doing a little bit of reading outside the Bible.