Subject:
|
Re: Bible as a literal source?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:47:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4778 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
The point I was making is not whether it is possible to twist the vague
words in Genesis to support an argument. It was that it is possible to be
inspired to see a truth, even from a fictional source. After all, you’ve
been using the fictional 1984 as the foundation of your arguments. That
(in itself) doesn’t invalidate your arguments, does it?
|
And I agreed with that point. I also gave an example of how it was possible
to twist them to NOT match with a fictional source. If both can be achieved
then it’s really not a strong argument for either view, just a strong
argument that humans can twist what they want to fit what they want.
|
Then perhaps we are more closely in agreement than I had realized.
| |
| |
| |
| |
Whether you view these writings as literal truths or as fairy tales, there
is much in the old books that corresponds precisely with the little that
is known about the course of human history. I don’t believe in The Big
Bad Wolf, but I still see how that tale could be rooted in actual events.
And I can still draw useful lessons from those stories, even if I don’t
take them literally.
|
You weren’t asking me to take a lesson from Genesis, you were quoting it as
a “historical record from the early days of mankind” while allowing
disbelief (thanks for the option, I’ll happily take you up on it).
|
Given that Genesis was written down by humans who presumably had no access
to satellite imagery, seismic sensors, or many other tools of modern
science, I think it’s pretty darn amazing that it is even remotely
plausible. Especially when you also consider that it was most likely passed
down for generations as a verbal (not written) account, and that it has gone
through countless translations over time.
|
I don’t think it’s particularly amazing at all. The only reason you think
it’s amazing is because you a) believe it and b) have interpreted it in such
a way as to make it seem amazing.
|
Well now you are assuming that I literally believe the Genesis account of
creation, which would be a stretch. Given that Western cultures still believed
that the Earth was flat well into the 15th century, it is quite amazing to me
that writings from thousands of years earlier could be even close about such an
abstract concept as the Big Bang. YMMV.
But it’s my fault for the facetious way that I brought Genesis into the
discussion. I seriously meant for you to consider the story in your quest to
understand why some people are offended by certain words. Unfortunately, I
phrased it in somewhat sarcastic terms. Clearly the passage describes some
events which would be difficult to explain with science. You would have to be
willing to consider the possibility of some sudden mass onset of neurological
disorder, or the possibility that the story was speaking figuratively about the
loss of communication, or simply that it is a work of fiction which nonetheless
contains some real-life moral.
| |
Let’s take as an example the
Hindu creation myth as opposed to the Christian one you quote:
“Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between.”
Very accurate description. Even includes a reference to general relativistic
time dilation.
“A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges
of night.”
An analogy for the potential for creation by the Big Bang.
“A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the
Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so
peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion.”
Stable anisotropy.
“From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread,
filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy.”
According to cosmological creation theories energy did come before matter.
Shall I now conclude that Hindus seem to have an even better understanding of
creation than Christians and begin referring to Hindu scriptures?
|
This is an interesting version of the creation story, and giant cobras
notwithstanding, has as much in common with Genesis as it has apart. By all
means, quote Hindu scripture or the Koran if it helps to communicate your point.
| |
| |
I would happily defer to any alternative historical record from that time
period. You got nothing? Yeah, I suspected as much.
|
Is this the type of critical thinking you were taught? It is not a valid
argument to say that in the absence of alternative evidence your evidence is
correct by default.
|
Well again, I didn’t mean to imply that Genesis is 100% literally accurate, but
I can see how that could have come across. My point is that many of the
cultures and individuals mentioned in the Bible are known to have actually
existed, and many of the stories do correspond with the archeological record.
The Bible may simply be a work of fiction, it could be fiction based on real
events, or it could be non-fiction of real events as filtered through the
limited understanding of the people who witnessed those events. Most of what we
think we know about those very early times comes from biblical accounts, but
clearly that doesn’t mean that it is completely accurate.
It was a minor point to begin with, so I respectfully withdraw the suggestion
that you have anything to learn from reading Genesis.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Bible as a literal source?
|
| (...) You obviously miss my point. I'm not arguing that my interpretation is the correct interpretation, merely that I can construct an interpretation of Genesis that disagrees with the facts as we know (insofar as we know anything) them. (...) If (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
