Interesting poll results, Sinai

[lucaspa]

And Lucaspa did say that the Genesis account was fabricated, and if to you that does not deny the validity of the Bible, then I guess you don't know what the consequences are of making such statement.

Care to put the quote, in context, up?

What I actually said doesn't deny the validity of the Bible.

 

[lucaspa]

Here, we will make it easy: Lucaspa, *do* you deny the validity of the Bible?

Karaite, I think it sounds like your position is that anyone who does not believe the Bible must be read literally is not a Bible-believing Christian. Is that where you are coming from?

No. I deny the validity of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8.

Lucaspa clearly stated that he believed that Genesis was a fabrication by the exiled Jews to explain why the Shabbat was instituted in the law.

That's not what I said. Again, put up the quote. I submit that you read what you wanted to see, not what was there.

I said the Genesis 1 creation account structured creation into 6 days to provide an unnecessary justification for the previous command to work 6 days and observer the Sabbath on the 7th.

That does not say Genesis 1 was a "fabrication" or that the Bible is not valid.

Do you know what the word "parse" means? It means "to examine in a minute way : analyze critically ". It also means to break sentences down to their grammatical parts. You didn't parse my sentences well.

Look carefully at what is actually said and please don't make up strawmen like you are making one up about my position.

 

[lucaspa]

The only thing, so far, that I have stated is that a belief in the Scriptures as being the Word of God.

Usually people who say this mean a literal interpretations.

But with that assumption, there are more consequences, because the entire Torah becomes subject to doubt, since the ideas found in Genesis are spread all accross the Scriptures, but specifically in the Law it is stated that the Shabbat was instituted because "in six days did God create" everything.

That is Exodus 20:11. That is the insertion of the redactor to put the justification found in Genesis 1 back in Exodus. Remove Exodus 20:11 and you still have a commandment of God to keep the Sabbath.

If Genesis is a fabrication, and by that, the law is a fabrication. Then the stories of the lineages and geneaologies are also based on fabrications. The Gospels suffer from this as well, since the lineage is an important part of the establishment of Jesus as the Messiah.

Ah, the old slippery slope argument. Vance, please give Karaite your excellent response to this.

1. Matthew 19 and Mark 10 both state that the Torah was written by Moses not God. And that Moses got some of it wrong! If you really want to follow the slippery slope, then it is Jesus himself who destroys the Torah.

2. There are two lineages of Jesus in the gospels -- Matthew and Luke -- and they don't agree. Not only that, they can't establish Jesus as Messiah thru them because the lineages go thru Joseph, and Joseph isn't Jesus' father, is he? So, what you have here is an attempt by Matthew and Luke to retrodict Jesus into the position of traditional Messiah. But Jesus did not fit the traditional picture no matter how much fiddling you do. Jesus is proclaimed Messiah not by the geneologies, but by the Resurrection.

And there is indeed more to add to this, but I believe this should give you a general idea of what the consequences of denying any of those first few books are.

But the consequences of denying a literal Genesis 1-8 are only positive.

I never have stated that a strictly literal interpretation of the Scriptures is needed.

Disingenuous at best. You have made it clear that a non-literal interpretation is not acceptable. So, you may not have said the exact words, but your meaning has been clear.

There are different literary forms. Some write with a lot of symbolism, others write with more plain language. ... However, to be more precise. I believe that literalism is to be based on the overall text, not on a word by word basis. Meaning, you take words within their context, you don't take them out. If within it's context, the word seems to be non-literal, then it is not.

What do you do with Luke 2:1. Within its context, it means the whole world. Do you take it literally? You should, by your criteria.

In reality, to be a literalist is to be someone who will accept the Bible as primarly a book with "actual" meaning to it, and not just "interpreted" meanings.

But to decide to read it literally is an interpretation. This is a convenient change of definition. And inconsistent. When you read non-literal parts, such as the parables, don't you think there is actual meaning to the parables? Or, conversely, aren't you giving the parables interpreted meanings?

So, can't people find "actual" meaning to a non-literal reading of the creation stories? For instance, I think an actual meaning of the use of yom in Genesis 1 is to provide a justification for the Sabbath.

Karaite, even to be a literalist you have to interpret. In Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth ..." You have to interpret what is meant by "beginning", "Elohim", "heavens" and "earth". Does "earth" mean dirt as in the earth in your garden, or does it mean the planet? Even being a literalist you just interpreted.

When the Bible is taken as literal, the parts that are clearly symbolic, are taken as symboic, because that is what the literal reading of it would tell you.

I understand you, but who decides "clearly symbolic" and what do you use for criteria? I bet you decide that Luke 2:1 is limited, but how did you decide that?

 

[Vance]

My response to the slippery slope argument:

If you are at the top of the slope, and it seems likely that the Truth may lie halfway down the slope, do you stay where you are so that you will not be in danger of accidentally slipping past the Truth on down to the bottom?

No, you head toward the Truth. Just make sure you have shoes with good traction.

 

[lucaspa]

My response to the slippery slope argument:

If you are at the top of the slope, and it seems likely that the Truth may lie halfway down the slope, do you stay where you are so that you will not be in danger of accidentally slipping past the Truth on down to the bottom?

No, you head toward the Truth. Just make sure you have shoes with good traction.

Thank you.

 

[Karaite]

I agree with this. The interpretation that makes the most sense to me is one I originally read by Berhard Anderson and Nahum Sarna. Both put Genesis 1 into the historical context of when it was written -- at the end of or shortly after the Babylonican Exile. In this historical context, Genesis 1 is not a literal history but a monograph on monotheism to sustain the Hebrews at a time when they were under considerable pressure to renounce Yahweh. It is structured such that the Babylonian gods are destroyed, in sequence, by having them be created entities of Yahweh. That is, you can't have a god of agriculture (Marduk) if the agricultural plants are created by Yahweh. The sequence of created objects follows the sequence of the appearance of gods in the Enuma Elish.

The authors also retrodicted the creation of Israel by Yahweh that they had already witnessed back to the beginning of the universe. Thus, they intended yom to be a 24 hour day not because it was history, but to provide a (unnecessary) justification for the Sabbath. When Genesis 1 was written, God had already commanded the Hebrews to work 6 days and rest on the 7th. The authors of Genesis 1 therefore had God create in 6 days (work) and rest on the 7th.

 

[Sinai]

According to your poll (which, admittedly, only has 30 votes so far), only 26% of the Christians responding expressed a belief that the universe/earth is young. The other 74% believe the universe/earth is billions of years old.

Thanks, Vance. A few other observations:

1. None of the Christians voting have said they think the Bible is irrevelant; of course, that should probably be the case for Christians and Jews.

2. Only a third of the Christians voting in the poll say there is not really a conflict between what scientific data says about the age of the universe and what the Bible says about it.

 

[Karaite]

1. None of the Christians voting have said they think the Bible is irrevelant; of course, that should probably be the case for Christians and Jews.

Were they asked? And were they asked to elaborate on what exatly is the Bible?

Admittedly, I don't know what poll you are talking about, that is why I am asking.

2. Only a third of the Christians voting in the poll say there is not really a conflict between what scientific data says about the age of the universe and what the Bible says about it.

Hold on...If only a third see the Bible's account, and the scientific data as compatible...then doesn't that mean that the other two-thirds see them as conflicting? Which would imply that, out of the 74%, there are many who don't actually take the Bible's account [as correct], but instead take the scientific data.

If you see to incompatibles, you can choose only one. And when you choose one, you automatically show your belief in that one, and disbelief in the other. There is no way you can say that, although they are incompatible, that they are 'both believable'. Once you make your choice of one, you are automatically discarding the other as "false".

So much for your first "observation"--that none claims the Bible to be irrelevant. Maybe you meant "absolutely irrelevant", huh? If so, then of course, no one will say that it is absolutely irrelevant, except an atheist, or someone who has a strong dislike for christians.

 

[Vance]

Actually, I think Sinai mispoke, meaning that only a third believed they were incompatible.

 

[Sinai]

Were they asked? And were they asked to elaborate on what exatly is the Bible?

Admittedly, I don't know what poll you are talking about, that is why I am asking.

The poll Vance is referring to in this thread is located here in this same forum. If you read the poll, you will see that persons have ten different options regarding what they believe about the age of the universe (and the primary reasons for that belief). When I posted a similar poll in Christian Forums' Science, Creation & Evolution forum (in which both Christians and non-Christians may participate), 7.84% of those responding said "It is irrelevant what the Bible says about creation," and another 32.45% said "It is irrelevant what the Bible says about anything." Thus, over forty percent of the persons responding--which was the largest response group in the poll--thought what the Bible had to say was irrelevant to a discussion of the age of the universe.

Although it might be a bit comforting that none of the respondents to the poll that was limited to Christians shared that opinion of the Bible, it may speak volumes about how this issue may have revealed a perceived barrier to reaching non-Christians with a biblical message....

 

[Karaite]

Alright, I checked that poll. There are too few responses for one to be making claims about how 'YEC is a minority'. You have to also realize that a lot of the YECs also don't believe in debating over the subject; therefore, they don't even visit this forum. If the poll could somehow be visible in all the forums, then you would probably get more accurate results, than just putting it in an area where 'a few visit'--and those few, in the most part, are not YECs.

 

[Karaite]

BTW, I did not pick any, because none fits my belief.

 

[lucaspa]

And where in there is the words "fabricated" and "not valid"?

Aren't the entities mentioned in Genesis 1 created objects? They are not gods, are they? Didn't God create the Hebrew people and Israel "out of nothing"? Isn't the Creator of Israel also the Creator of the universe?

Thank you so much for making my point that you didn't parse the sentences well and constructed a strawman.

 

[lucaspa]

Alright, I checked that poll. There are too few responses for one to be making claims about how 'YEC is a minority'. You have to also realize that a lot of the YECs also don't believe in debating over the subject; therefore, they don't even visit this forum.

Wider polls of Christians have also shown that YECs are in a minority. Even in the US, where they are concentrated, they are only about 25% of Christians.

If the poll could somehow be visible in all the forums, then you would probably get more accurate results, than just putting it in an area where 'a few visit'--and those few, in the most part, are not YECs.

I don't think you can make these claims. What is your data? Remember, all they have to do is visit, not post. Typically, the ratio of posters to lurkers on a BB is about 9:1.

 

[Sinai]

Alright, I checked that poll. There are too few responses for one to be making claims about how 'YEC is a minority'. You have to also realize that a lot of the YECs also don't believe in debating over the subject; therefore, they don't even visit this forum. If the poll could somehow be visible in all the forums, then you would probably get more accurate results, than just putting it in an area where 'a few visit'--and those few, in the most part, are not YECs.

There are two areas in the Christian Forums for discussions regarding science, creation and evolution--and I put this poll in both places. Since the theology forum is supposed to be limited to Christians (though non-Christians may visit but are not supposed to post), I added the words "I am a Christian" to the choices in this forum. I suspect that if I had attempted to post this poll in any other area, a moderator would probably have moved it back to the area designated for this discussion.

BTW, I did not pick any, because none fits my belief.

And what is your belief?

 

[Sinai]

BTW, I did not pick any, because none fits my belief.

Since we were limited to ten possible options by the parameters of Christian Forums polls, I had to limit the choices to the 10 major options I have seen thus far. It is quite possible that none of them fits your belief. Please make up an "option" that correctly states your belief, and share it with us. Thank you.