Creation: Genesis contradictions? - by Don Batten

[HitchSlap]

And you provide no one criterion to determine what makes something historical narrative or mythology. Not one. We can't have a reasonable discussion when you make attempts to push your view like this.

It's not "my" view, but rather, the view of scholars. If you had taken a course on comparative religions, or social anthropology, you would know this.

Can you give me any reason why your creation myth is more prescient than any other? If not, then I'll continue to accept current consensus on the matter. I'm all for reasonable discussions, but it does require a certain amount of understanding from both sides, and so far it appears you've come unprepared.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have erected a straw man fallacy. You have invented what I did not say. You have created your own evidence which I do not support.

What the....?
It was you who was telling ME what my worldview did and did not allow.... it was YOU who engaged in the strawman. I merely corrected you.

My worldview doesn't include things that can't be shown to be real.
That's not a strawman... that's just me telling you about what my worldview does and doesn't include.

You are committing the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule. You have replaced evidence with your mockery.

What the....?

I'm not mocking anything. I'm just giving additional examples to make it clear how I VIEW GODS in MY WORLDVIEW. Can I? Am I allowed to properly address statements that YOU are making about what my worldview does and doesn't include???

In terms of what is and isn't included in my worldview, gods aren't part of it for the exact same reasons that centaurs, unicorns and loch ness monsters aren't part of it.
Because in my worldview all those things are the result of superstition, imagination and just plain old mistakes / misinterpretations.

That's because you refuse to accept the supernatural evidence provided in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Book of Acts.

These are just claims, they are not evidence.

They are claims that have been written down.
When you write a claim down and then repeat it centuries later, the claims didn't magically turn into evidence.......

They are still just claims.

Here we have your imposition of your worldview to try to obliterate the evidence.

A claim written in a book is still just a claim, not evidence.

Fancy 'drumrolls' don't snuff out supernatural evidence.

The bible isn't evidence of the claims in it, just like the quran isn't evidence of mohammed flying to the heavens on a winged horse or splitting the moon in 2.

That is a fallacious claim. I have never asked you to 'just believe' without evidence.

Off course you do.... just like you are doing in this post, by trying to pass off mere claims written in an ancient book as "evidence" of ...the claims in said book.

Claims are claims and they don't support themselves.
Any evidence for the claims in the bible must necessarily be extra-biblical.

The bible is not evidence of the bible.

Christianity is faith founded on fact.

If you say so. You haven't shared any of those facts.

Because of your fallacious reasoning, we have no grounds for further discussion. When you continue to engage in the use of logical fallacies, we see your illogic in action.
Bye, Bye

If you continue to avoid discussion by throwing false accusations of "logical fallacies" around, then there is indeed no grounds for further discussion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have invented more straw man fallacies.

Bye

lol, "strawman"?

All I did was explain why physical evidence trumps testimony any day of the week... always.

Do you even know what a strawman is? Because it sounds like you don't....

 

[PsychoSarah]

And you provide no one criterion to determine what makes something historical narrative or mythology. Not one. We can't have a reasonable discussion when you make attempts to push your view like this.

Well, I can present mine, if you want.

1. Historical narratives will not have characters with names related to their role or personality. Biblical violations: nearly every character in Genesis and Exodus, others sprinkled through the text. Primarily a trait of the Old Testament. Exceptions: names earned from deeds, titles, etc.

2. Historical narratives have events take place in real places. Biblical violations: potentially none; many of the places named in the bible have been confirmed to be real, while others seem likely to exist. However, not every place has left behind definitive evidence, so it is impossible to be sure every place referenced as existing in context actually did. Exceptions: references to places characters do not visit or come from, but have been told about.

3. Historical narratives won't have animals that definitively are not real, but they can have such creatures if it is plausible that a sighting of them could be attributed to a real creature that shares key traits with the mystical ones. Biblical violations: Wizards and Witches (people with that power would surely use it to save themselves if ever attacked, but the bible treats them as killable by normal people); dragons (even if ancient people found dinosaur bones, too many details of dragons do not fit to excuse it, especially considering the bird and mammal traits more ancient depictions of dragons had). Exceptions: Unicorns (unlikely to be a horse, but could refer to rhinos. On rare occasions, goats and other horned animals that normally have two horns only develop one, so they also could be associated with sightings). Giants: allegorically could refer to dinosaurs, humanoid giants claimed to be seen alive in the bible are presented as lies in context, and older versions of the bible place Goliath much shorter, at a plausible 6' 7", which would be giant relative to most people; Sea Monsters (most are larger, scarier versions of real creatures, and others are associated with unclear glimpses of real creatures).
*I likely do not recall every creature mentioned in the bible that could fall into this category.

4. Historical narratives can have feasible errors, such as exaggerations and misunderstandings of other cultures. However, these cannot be so severe that they compromise the legitimacy of events in the story. Biblical violations: the bible severely botches Egyptian culture to the point that a few key events within it rely upon the wrong culture existing in Egypt. For example, in the bible, one of the Pharaohs states another person as being equal to them. No Egyptian Pharaoh would ever do that, as within the culture, the Pharaohs were living gods, and no human could ever be considered equal to a god, and the only living gods were the Pharaoh and the chosen heir. How slavery and servitude in Egypt additionally is extremely misrepresented, and the bible marks them as weirdly tolerant of people not worshipping the Egyptian gods. Exceptions: foreign peoples treated negatively, but their culture is not elaborated with much detail in the bible (meaning what is said could be based more in rumor).

5. Historical narratives will not reference technology that did not exist. Biblical violations: none that I am aware of.

These are find with you as guidelines, yes?

 

[OzSpen]

Appeal from the rules of this site then: it is explicitly against the rules to state that others that claim to be Christian aren't. Anyone that believes in YHWH and accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior is a Christian as far as this site is concerned.

Protestants definitely fit the bill for that, don't you think?

Try dropping in to your nearest liberal Presbyterian, Methodist or Episcopalian church and ask them if they believe in YHWH and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour? Even go a step further and ask if they believe Acts 4:12 (ESV) about Jesus, 'And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved'.

You will quickly find that to own the name of Protestant does not necessarily equate with being a Christian who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and the only way to obtain eternal salvation.

Oz

 

[freezerman2000]

Straight from the rules..

Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.

Please abide by it.

 

[OzSpen]

It's not "my" view, but rather, the view of scholars. If you had taken a course on comparative religions, or social anthropology, you would know this.

Can you give me any reason why your creation myth is more prescient than any other? If not, then I'll continue to accept current consensus on the matter. I'm all for reasonable discussions, but it does require a certain amount of understanding from both sides, and so far it appears you've come unprepared.

And you quote not one of those scholars, so that makes it your assertion. I've taken coures in comparative religion, so I'm aware of the arguments offered.

There’s a webpage that asks, ‘What is your favorite bible fairy tale?’ On this page, people name their favourite Bible fairy tales as including: ‘An all-powerful perfect being creates the world, but he screws it up so bad, he wipes it out with a flood and starts over’; Noah’s Ark, creation, Daniel & the lions, those who live to be over 600 years old, Jesus lets people kill him, and unbelievers tossed into the Lake of Fire. Another is titled, ‘Fairy tales in the Bible’.

How does one know if the Bible contains fairy tales or is of some other genre?

I've addressed that briefly in my article, 'The Bible: fairy tale or history?'

I have read many scholars who take a contrary view to yours, not the least being historian and exegete Dr Paul Barnett who taught history at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. He has a series of publications affirming the historicity of the Bible.

• Jesus and the Logic of History (Apollos 1997);
• Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity (IVP 1999);
  
• Is the New Testament History? (Aquila Press 2003);
• The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Eerdmans 2005);
• Paul: Missionary of Jesus (Eerdmans 2008);
• Finding the Historical Jesus (Eerdmans 2009).

As for the historical veracity of the OT, this is verified in publications by such OT scholars as:

• Alfred J Hoerth, Archaeology & the Old Testament (Baker Books 1998);
• Walter C Kaiser Jr, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? (IVP 2001);
• K A Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans 2003).

Kenneth Kitchen wrote:

The individual themes of creation and flood (separate from the frame work already discussed) recur in other writings. Thus the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish (called "Babylonian Creation" in most books), completed by circa 1000 from older sources, has been repeatedly compared with Gen. 1-2 [references cited]. But despite the reiterated claims of an older generation of biblical scholars, Enuma Elish and Gen. 1-2 in fact share no direct relationship.... In terms of theme, creation is the massively central concern of Gen. 1-2, but it is a mere tail-piece in Enuma Elish, which is dedicated to portraying the supremacy of the god Marduk of Babylon (Kitchen2003:434).

There are scholars that I have stated who give evidence to support the historicity of OT and NT. I named them. These scholars diverge from you unnamed, anonymous 'view of scholars'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

lol, "strawman"?

All I did was explain why physical evidence trumps testimony any day of the week... always.

Do you even know what a strawman is? Because it sounds like you don't....

Red herring.

 

[OzSpen]

Well, I can present mine, if you want.

1. Historical narratives will not have characters with names related to their role or personality. Biblical violations: nearly every character in Genesis and Exodus, others sprinkled through the text. Primarily a trait of the Old Testament. Exceptions: names earned from deeds, titles, etc.

2. Historical narratives have events take place in real places. Biblical violations: potentially none; many of the places named in the bible have been confirmed to be real, while others seem likely to exist. However, not every place has left behind definitive evidence, so it is impossible to be sure every place referenced as existing in context actually did. Exceptions: references to places characters do not visit or come from, but have been told about.

3. Historical narratives won't have animals that definitively are not real, but they can have such creatures if it is plausible that a sighting of them could be attributed to a real creature that shares key traits with the mystical ones. Biblical violations: Wizards and Witches (people with that power would surely use it to save themselves if ever attacked, but the bible treats them as killable by normal people); dragons (even if ancient people found dinosaur bones, too many details of dragons do not fit to excuse it, especially considering the bird and mammal traits more ancient depictions of dragons had). Exceptions: Unicorns (unlikely to be a horse, but could refer to rhinos. On rare occasions, goats and other horned animals that normally have two horns only develop one, so they also could be associated with sightings). Giants: allegorically could refer to dinosaurs, humanoid giants claimed to be seen alive in the bible are presented as lies in context, and older versions of the bible place Goliath much shorter, at a plausible 6' 7", which would be giant relative to most people; Sea Monsters (most are larger, scarier versions of real creatures, and others are associated with unclear glimpses of real creatures).
*I likely do not recall every creature mentioned in the bible that could fall into this category.

4. Historical narratives can have feasible errors, such as exaggerations and misunderstandings of other cultures. However, these cannot be so severe that they compromise the legitimacy of events in the story. Biblical violations: the bible severely botches Egyptian culture to the point that a few key events within it rely upon the wrong culture existing in Egypt. For example, in the bible, one of the Pharaohs states another person as being equal to them. No Egyptian Pharaoh would ever do that, as within the culture, the Pharaohs were living gods, and no human could ever be considered equal to a god, and the only living gods were the Pharaoh and the chosen heir. How slavery and servitude in Egypt additionally is extremely misrepresented, and the bible marks them as weirdly tolerant of people not worshipping the Egyptian gods. Exceptions: foreign peoples treated negatively, but their culture is not elaborated with much detail in the bible (meaning what is said could be based more in rumor).

5. Historical narratives will not reference technology that did not exist. Biblical violations: none that I am aware of.

These are find with you as guidelines, yes?

These seem to be out of your own mind as you have not documented your sources. I'm not into affirming or disconfirming your assertions.

 

[HitchSlap]

And you quote not one of those scholars, so that makes it your assertion. I've taken coures in comparative religion, so I'm aware of the arguments offered.

There’s a webpage that asks, ‘What is your favorite bible fairy tale?’ On this page, people name their favourite Bible fairy tales as including: ‘An all-powerful perfect being creates the world, but he screws it up so bad, he wipes it out with a flood and starts over’; Noah’s Ark, creation, Daniel & the lions, those who live to be over 600 years old, Jesus lets people kill him, and unbelievers tossed into the Lake of Fire. Another is titled, ‘Fairy tales in the Bible’.

How does one know if the Bible contains fairy tales or is of some other genre?

I've addressed that briefly in my article, 'The Bible: fairy tale or history?'

I have read many scholars who take a contrary view to yours, not the least being historian and exegete Dr Paul Barnett who taught history at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. He has a series of publications affirming the historicity of the Bible.

• Jesus and the Logic of History (Apollos 1997);
• Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity (IVP 1999);
  
• Is the New Testament History? (Aquila Press 2003);
• The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Eerdmans 2005);
• Paul: Missionary of Jesus (Eerdmans 2008);
• Finding the Historical Jesus (Eerdmans 2009).

As for the historical veracity of the OT, this is verified in publications by such OT scholars as:

• Alfred J Hoerth, Archaeology & the Old Testament (Baker Books 1998);
• Walter C Kaiser Jr, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? (IVP 2001);
• K A Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans 2003).

Kenneth Kitchen wrote:


There are scholars that I have stated who give evidence to support the historicity of OT and NT. I named them. These scholars diverge from you unnamed, anonymous 'view of scholars'.

Oz

Yes, I'm aware there are scholars who believe Jesus was a literal human being, and that the bible is accurate history.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Red herring.

You should brush up on your fallacies...
You seem to have trouble correctly identifying them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

These seem to be out of your own mind as you have not documented your sources. I'm not into affirming or disconfirming your assertions.

Try applying some of that standard to other written assertions.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, I'm aware there are scholars who believe Jesus was a literal human being, and that the bible is accurate history.

But you don't seem to want to pursue that evidence. A deliberate blind spot?

 

[OzSpen]

You should brush up on your fallacies...
You seem to have trouble correctly identifying them.

I have and I know when you use a red herring fallacy. You do it, but won't admit it.

 

[OzSpen]

Try applying some of that standard to other written assertions.

Another red herring logical fallacy!

 

[HitchSlap]

But you don't seem to want to pursue that evidence. A deliberate blind spot?

There is no evidence...

 

[Gene2memE]

As for the historical veracity of the OT, this is verified in publications by such OT scholars as:

• Alfred J Hoerth, Archaeology & the Old Testament (Baker Books 1998);
• Walter C Kaiser Jr, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? (IVP 2001);
• K A Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans 2003).

Interesting that you should provide links to three scholars that have both evangelical beliefs and are biblical maximalists, and reject the prevailing documentary hypothesis.

Yet despite this, none of them consider the creation account literal or factual, and generally see the pre-united monarchy period as "history turned to mythology" to use Kitchen's words.

 

[Cimorene]

How come it's treated like it is a huge deal if there are inconsistencies in the Bible considering that it's been transcribed into so many different languages over the yrs by error prone men? Do people have this mentality that if some things are wrong does that means everything must be wrong? I'm genuinely confused about this.

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf

 

[freezerman2000]

How come it's treated like it is a huge deal if there are inconsistencies in the Bible considering that it's been transcribed into so many different languages over the yrs by error prone men? Do people have this mentality that if some things are wrong does that means everything must be wrong? I'm genuinely confused about this.

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf

Some do,some don't...I'm in the latter camp,but I would like a Bible with litte to NO errors in it...any ideas?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another red herring logical fallacy!

No, he was correct in his statement. It was a stand alone statement that only suggest that you do your homework a bit better. It was not meant to support or oppose any point so it was not a red herring. Again, you failed in using logical fallacies correctly.