Biblical Innerancy Fallacy

[bananabrain]

The bible wasn't written to be a science textbook because the scientific method as we know it didn't exist at the time.

indeed - it was Written in the style it was so it would be futureproofed against the way humans would develop; i personally find the cleverness with which this was done superhuman; i just don't see how humans could have done it; of course not everyone agrees with my assessment.

But don't you think it was written to answer those "unknowns" about how the universe and mankind began?

yes, but not the *scientific* unknowns about the *scientific* universe and *homo sapiens* - rather, the *conceptual* unknowns about the *moral* universe and humanity - and that's just the surface level.

do you think Genesis was just filler material?

i must admit i have trouble with the "begats"; i have no idea why that is there other than to demonstrate conceptually how we're all part of one family. i suppose, thinking about it, the "begats" could actually be seen as an attempt to give humans a clue that generations (i.e. evolution) might be important and that they ought to look into it when they were ready; however, a hardcore atheist would ridicule such an assertion, unfairly in my view, but there you go.

Like it or not, the bible IS taken as a science textbook by many who believe it to be the literal word of god.

then they are mistaken about both science and "the bible". how can they possibly presume to understand the Divine Word?

If you think modern scientific findings should override the explanations in Genesis, what other parts of the bible do you think should be deemed irrelevant because of modern philosophy/science?

but that's the point - it's like comparing apples to wednesdays.

But I wonder, if you think the age of the earth is irrelevant to what it means to be a human, would you say the same about evolution?

absolutely not. evolution has resulted in a whole shedload of things about humans, some of which are quite inconvenient (the appendix, male genitalia, only having two eyes) but they are how they are and can't be helped, it's just how things have turned out. the point about evolution is that we have evolved to the point of understanding that it exists; that, to me, is like the very special type of consciousness that you need to deduce and worship the Divine. the point is this: having developed this consciousness, what do we then do with it? we have attained moral agency; if we simply reduce everything about us to evolutionary drivers, i can't see us caring so much about things that are frankly very important - a rock guitar solo (or, if you prefer, a physics PhD thesis) may, on one level, nothing but a version of the bird of paradise's tail as a competitive sexual display behaviour, but it has significance beyond mere sexual display that is, i think, rather critical.

Do you think that whether life started as a single-cell organism and we ultimately evolved from a monkey-like creature; or OTOH whether Adam was created from dirt and Eve from his rib (and both in "god's" image); is the answer to that question relevant to what it means to be human?

in that particular case, yes.

Because the age of the earth is very relevant to the issue of evolution, and many folks use the Inerrant Bible as evidence that evolution didn't/doesn't occur...

then they're idiots.

We know from the accounts in Genesis and other places in the Bible that of all the "races" in the world, Adam is definitely the ancestor of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are therefore divine. So that's one group. Because Abraham was a descendant of Adam, all descendants of Abraham are also "divine." The Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael were descendants of Abraham, so therefore Arabs are also divine (and it doesn't really matter if they're Muslim or not -- it isn't about faith).

er, technically, everyone's descended from *noah*, but i don['t see how there's any human who isn't "divine" in that sense.

I don't know if this is a coincidence or not, but I've read how some Hasidic groups see all non-Jews as "subhuman" and Hasidic groups take a mystical approach to Judaism. I think we can all agree with the idea that any part of the human race is "subhuman" is wrong, but it's the weirdness of the mysticism and kabbalah that leads to that concept. What gets me interested in what these Hasidic groups are thinking is whether the mysticism gets them close to a point Genesis might be making, even if they get the crucial aspect wrong -- the status of non-Jews.

no, in hasidic thought it's a late concept, based on a particular position on the structure of the soul and, moreover, it's one which is not subscribed to. the idea is that jews somehow have some extra part of the "Divine sparks" that fell as part of the kabbalistic "breaking of the vessels" and non-jews don't; it is not a popular idea, for obvious reasons and it is not reflected in the halakhah or in prevalent philosophy; unfortunately popular xenophobia is to be expected in the less well-educated.

The reason why we can't regard one segment of the human race as "lower life-forms" (apart from the wrongness of considering some people subhuman) is because now that the Divine and Biological Humans have mingled and intermarried over so many generations, we're all more or less in the same boat now. Most of us now have a divine soul.

well, quite - there's an early talmudic statement that supports this that would tend to overrule the zoharic statements of later provenance.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[IowaGuy]

How do you define 'many'? They're mostly American Fundamentalists ...

Many = enough to constitute a majority in some school boards.

Kansas State Board votes to teach intelligent design

Atlanta school board votes to allow creationism in class

PN school board OK's teaching of creationism

Yes, American fundamentalists

 

[IowaGuy]

then they are mistaken about both science and "the bible". how can they possibly presume to understand the Divine Word?

BB - do you think there is one correct understanding of the bible, or do you think there are multiple correct understandings of the bible?

i.e. if you & another person read the same biblical passage, and have very different interpretations of the meaning and significance of the passage, can you both be correct? Or is there one "true" understanding?

 

[bob x]

the "begats" could actually be seen as an attempt to give humans a clue that generations (i.e. evolution) might be important

The Torah is relentlessly Darwinian (which makes "creationism" very ironic). There is no talk of rewards or punishments in any afterworld: instead the reward for being good is that your descendants will be greatly multiplied, while the punishment for wickedness is that your line will go extinct. You did not have to teach those people anything about "differential reproductive success": they lived and breathed it, and never imagined that anyone would think life worked any other way.

 

[bananabrain]

well, yes, but i'm not going to get any understanding from the gnus for saying so, they'll just take it as an opportunity to be even more smug and dismissive rather than understanding.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Saltmeister]

er, technically, everyone's descended from *noah*, but i don['t see how there's any human who isn't "divine" in that sense.

I was hoping you'd give a clear "yes" or "no" to my theory because I'm really curious as to what you think of it.

I've heard that scientists and archaeologists did find evidence for a "Noah's flood," but that it couldn't possibly have covered the entire world.

If the flood had wiped out the entire human population in the world, then we would all have to be descendants of Noah. That's the conventional interpretation.

But if the flood didn't wipe out the entire human population on the planet but only in the Middle East, then two things could have happened: 1) Some of Adam's descendants managed to spread to other parts of the world before the flood or 2) All of Adam's descendants were wiped out except for Noah and his family; after the flood, Noah's descendants spread to other parts of the world.

In order for the theory to be consistent with scientific findings and evidence, we have to accept that 1) the "human race" (as an evolved species) didn't begin with Adam and 2) Noah's flood didn't cover the entire world. We must also knowledge that 1) the Bible describes a very short genealogy and lineage from Adam to Abraham/David and therefore the lifetime of the Adamite race (created and divine humans) is relatively short compared to that of evolved humans or "homo sapiens."

To make the story of Genesis work, we must therefore assume the following.

1) Adam is indeed the ancestor of an entire race, but not the race of "evolved humans."
2) Noah's flood completely wiped out that entire race except for one family
3) The descendants of Noah (the Adamites) and the descendants of the apes (homo sapiens) mingled and intermarried to produce hybrids
4) The descendants of Noah spread throughout the entire world, mating and copulating with all "homo sapiens."
5) We are all hybrids now and therefore all have the "divine sparks."

no, in hasidic thought it's a late concept, based on a particular position on the structure of the soul and, moreover, it's one which is not subscribed to. the idea is that jews somehow have some extra part of the "Divine sparks" that fell as part of the kabbalistic "breaking of the vessels" and non-jews don't; it is not a popular idea, for obvious reasons and it is not reflected in the halakhah or in prevalent philosophy; unfortunately popular xenophobia is to be expected in the less well-educated.

I think there is one Hasidic group that definitely has that ideology: Chabad-Lubavitchers!!!!

 

[wil]

I believe Adam, Noah and the Flood are ideas, not actual people or events. Now BB may believe in Noah and the Flood, I don't know, but I don't believe he believes in a physical Adam as one individual with a rib removed...but I look forward to hearing.

 

[Saltmeister]

I believe Adam, Noah and the Flood are ideas, not actual people or events. Now BB may believe in Noah and the Flood, I don't know, but I don't believe he believes in a physical Adam as one individual with a rib removed...but I look forward to hearing.

But how can the genealogies listed in Genesis, 1 Chronicles, the opening passage of Matthew and Luke 3 not refer to real people? Why would people make up these lists?

 

[wil]

But how can the genealogies listed in Genesis, 1 Chronicles, the opening passage of Matthew and Luke 3 not refer to real people? Why would people make up these lists?

forgiving 7x70...does that mean I should forgive you 490 times and then whatever you do on the 491st time that is it? Forget it, I'm gonna turn the other cheek for nearly 500 times counting carefully and one time I will turn around and deck your ass and be completely justified by Jesus and G!d for doing so?

200 years ago the US was formed as a nation...it seems an eterinity ago to everyone alive today...

2000 years of lineage was enough to get people to quit asking...imo.

Dad how did the world begin?

Dad how did the world begin?

Dad how did the world begin?

Dad how did the world begin?

It was G!d, seven days of creation

Dad where do we come from...

made out of mud by G!d

Dad then what happenned....

The stories grew and grew until someone insisted someone connect the dots...

Heck they even got so tired of connecting the dots they had folks live 400 years and not give birth till they were 100....

Dad who begat who?

Mom has the list.

Ok.

 

[Saltmeister]

forgiving 7x70...does that mean I should forgive you 490 times and then whatever you do on the 491st time that is it? Forget it, I'm gonna turn the other cheek for nearly 500 times counting carefully and one time I will turn around and deck your ass and be completely justified by Jesus and G!d for doing so?

200 years ago the US was formed as a nation...it seems an eterinity ago to everyone alive today...

2000 years of lineage was enough to get people to quit asking...imo.

Dad how did the world begin?

Dad how did the world begin?

Dad how did the world begin?

Dad how did the world begin?

It was G!d, seven days of creation

Dad where do we come from...

made out of mud by G!d

Dad then what happenned....

The stories grew and grew until someone insisted someone connect the dots...

Heck they even got so tired of connecting the dots they had folks live 400 years and not give birth till they were 100....

Dad who begat who?

Mom has the list.

Ok.

But what does this have to do with genealogy and the names contained within it? If it had said something like "70 generations" then maybe it wouldn't matter. But if it gives names, I wonder. Did someone just make these names out of thin air, or did they refer to real people?

For example, maybe your father's name was Joseph. His father was Jack and his father in turn was Malcolm. You could go on to list the father of your great grandfather and fathers of the fathers and so on ..... James, Victor, Reginald, Edward, etc. The important point here is that they'd all have a name.

You wouldn't make up a name and say, let's insert something between James and Victor because we're bored. How about we delete one of the names? No, sorry, can't have that either. It wouldn't be very respectful for our ancestors.

People would have taken these names quite seriously. You may not care to remember all the names of all kings of England or the names of the Presidents of the USA, but I'm sure there's someone that does. There's someone who is obsessed enough to remember their names.

Can you name the nine planets of the solar system? (Well, last time I checked there were nine planets) -- Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto -- there.

How about I try the kings of England and Britain?

Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward V, Mary, Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I, Charles II, James II, William III, Anne, George I

It gets easier when you have a general idea of what was happening in England/Britain at the time. Watching Simon Schama's "History of Britain" has definitely helped.

The Bible may not describe what the early ancestors did, but the authors of Genesis and 1 Chronicles probably did know what the early ancestors did. That knowledge may simply have been forgotten.

If there was a nuclear war and most of our present-day society was wiped out, some people like myself may still remember important information like the names of the kings of England and try to write it down before it's too late.

Can you name the dynasties of Imperial China in order? Shang, Zhou, Qin, Han, Sui, Tang, Yuan, Ming, Qing.

Generations of American society? Baby boomers? Generation X, Y, Z?

I think you get the picture. Certain things come in a certain order. Like paper-scissors-rock, elements of the Periodic Table and the arrangement of pawns and pieces at the beginning of a chess game. A comes before B, comes before C, comes before D, etc.

 

[IowaGuy]

The Bible may not describe what the early ancestors did, but the authors of Genesis and 1 Chronicles probably did know what the early ancestors did. That knowledge may simply have been forgotten....Certain things come in a certain order.

Certain things come in a certain order. So, how long have humans been in Australia? Or North America? How does this fit in with your proposed timeline?

IMHO, the authors of the bible never knew that humans existed in North America or Australia. So why would anyone think that all humans "literally" came from Adam or Noah?

I have never understood the theory of God's "chosen" peoples; or that some human races are "divine" and some aren't. It's hard for me to believe that the Great Spirit would play favorites. Although I agree that God, as he is described in the old testamanet, definitely played favorites along with all the other anthropomorphic traits applied to him.

 

[Saltmeister]

Certain things come in a certain order. So, how long have humans been in Australia? Or North America? How does this fit in with your proposed timeline?

They say the Aborigines were here 40,000 years before the Europeans discovered Australia. As for native North Americans, I cannot say.

IMHO, the authors of the bible never knew that humans existed in North America or Australia. So why would anyone think that all humans "literally" came from Adam or Noah?

The creation story in the Bible is about Middle-Eastern lineage. It isn't supposed to explain what happened elsewhere in the world. As far as lineage is concerned (as according to my theory), it only tells us the direct lineage from the Arabs and Jews to Adam and Noah.

We simply have to assume that the other descendants of Adam/Noah spread to the rest of the planet, mingled and intermarried with homo sapiens and that everyone is now a hybrid, including Arabs and Jews. I assume that everyone is now a hybrid because it would be unfair to say that anyone isn't.

I have never understood the theory of God's "chosen" peoples. It's hard for me to believe that the Great Spirit would play favorites.

But who said anything about "favourites" and "chosen-ness?" That's not the concept we have in the Bible. God didn't choose the Jewish people. They chose God. The Hebrew slaves cried out to God and He came and rescued them.

They were never favourites because God didn't favour them more than other people. They were required to obey a set of commandments as part of an agreement for being part of a relationship with God. He gave them more attention, but that's because they asked for it. Actually God has fewer requirements of non-Jews than Jews, so does that mean that God favours non-Jews more than Jews?

If a particular supermarket chain decides to deal with a particular food manufacturer, is that playing favourites? As is usual in business dealings, each side gives their set of requirements, and if one side fails to honour those requirements, then the deal is off. For example, you must pay $50 per box or you won't get the goods, or..... we won't pay for shoddy products. If you had to deal with other clients and suppliers, you'd probably make similar requirements for a contract.

If there is any favouritism in the Bible, it is that the Jews chose God above other gods.

 

[IowaGuy]

They say the Aborigines were here 40,000 years before the Europeans discovered Australia...But who said anything about "favourites" and "chosen-ness?" That's not the concept we have in the Bible. God didn't choose the Jewish people. They chose God. The Hebrew slaves cried out to God and He came and rescued them.

And you think the Hebrew Slaves are the only peoples that ever "cried out to God"? You don't think African slaves ever cried out to God? You don't think the Aborigines, in 40,000 years, ever cried out to God?

 

[Saltmeister]

And you think the Hebrew Slaves are the only peoples that ever "cried out to God"? You don't think African slaves ever cried out to God?

If they did, good for them!!!!

You don't think the Aborigines, in 40,000 years, ever cried out to God?

If they did, God would be part of the Dreamtime stories. The Bible is just the story of Middle-Eastern monotheism.

 

[IowaGuy]

If they did, God would be part of the Dreamtime stories...The Bible is just the story of Middle-Eastern monotheism.

Most Christians that I know see it as much more than that. Your "divine sparks" theory doesn't hold water if the bible is simply a history book with some genealogy thrown in.

 

[Snoopy]

From Etu Malku: "Evil is not an energy, neither is darkness."

• Everything that is set to movement communicates. Look into liquid hydrogen, salt, and sugar when it is existing in an area as pieces and parts that is a one dimensional layer with a divided spectrum (like data containers holding hostages). When it is moved out and into human being areas it is a providing life for change (pressure and separations) in a way that is not an appreciated experience with sight and sound, if you are aware there, but able to be done and necessary in some places toward what is being prepared to be placed to an area that will be an appreciated experience. This is the same life of internal thought. You can not see what you think, it is dark and dark is a real moving energy. Nervous system information is the life of what is called internal thought and it is understanding to someone that there is something else to be understood about an activity that is being misunderstood or to go over to another activity where you can understand clearly. You would do which ever is experienced as able to be done or interesting. At intervals, this nervous system information is "over written" and an existences are understanding (thinking) something right where they are that is useful toward transformation and never again being placed what is thought integrations. Life understanding interests completely, existing at unity with what you refer to as the Higher Self, is never "telling itself something."

From Etu Malku: "What are activity locations?"

• Places that life understands themselves to go over to. The computer is one. A church is another. A mall. A library. A Steak House. A football game. A police station. A bedroom. A kitchen. A park. A lake. A Commons Area.

• Activity locations are graded with changing amounts of what some call evil, but have not understood it’s function/purpose correctly. They have also not understood who it is that is receiving pressure and separations from what has been called evil. Evil is really saying understand (v) light (e) with what is ill (il).

From Etu Malku: "How do random events think?"

• First, you can sit and see a random event as a lot of human beings moving in a way they can not explain completely. Life that exists this way is receiving, what is thinking, by way of integration - if an area of their being is being separated due to taking in pressure. You take in pressure when you are doing what you do not love to do, is not interesting to you, but to someone else and you are believing that you have to do it from what is human being partial understandings.

From Etu Malku: "Evil is a violation of a moral code of ethics."

• Those who are looking into evil or trying to police it, understand it this way. They are examples of life that will use itself aware across areas (some say dimension or realms) to understand it completely without the discomfort that comes when evil is being seen as something humans are doing or are providing.

Smells good! Take it off.

 

[Saltmeister]

Most Christians that I know see it as much more than that. Your "divine sparks" theory doesn't hold water if the bible is simply a history book with some genealogy thrown in.

Can you elaborate? State your assumptions. I don't base my views on the official or mainstream ideology or what "most Christians" think because the majority can be wrong.

I didn't say the Bible was a "history book." History books are supposed to give balanced and unbiased views and not to try to "force" people to accept something that would require them to change their minds on widely accepted views on how the world works. History books are supposed to be conservative. They are supposed to "educate" and give people information they can use to make up their own minds.

The Bible is not a conservative text. It certainly does have an agenda and its agenda is to tell people either that how we think the human race came to be what it is now may not be how it actually happened, or that we may be unaware of something that cannot be revealed through a fossil record. The Bible offers information that cannot be offered in a "history book" because of academic standards on what makes a history book a history book.

It is not to say that the Bible doesn't let you make up your own mind. It does. But it also prompts you to challenge widely accepted views. Unfortunately, some people make unrealistic assumptions like saying that the Genesis story describes the story of the same race as that observed by scientists in natural evolution. We can't assume it's the same race.

Have you seen all four seasons of Battlestar Galactica? You may find that much of my theory draws from that TV series as inspiration.

 

[IowaGuy]

Can you elaborate? State your assumptions.

IG's assumptions in this discussion:
1.) the bible was written by humans with no divine intervention
2.) Saltmeister's "divine spark" theory assumes some sort of divine intervention or divine choosing or choosing the divine
3.) the "chosen" people in the bible are only "chosen" because they are the authors of the bible. They are no more "chosen" than are the authors of the Popul Vuh, Dreamtime Stories, etc.
4.) therefore the "divine spark" would apply to most peoples of the world, not because of interbreeding but because most peoples are "chosen" in their own subjective view

I don't base my views on the official or mainstream ideology or what "most Christians" think because the majority can be wrong.

Neither do I that's why I like reading your posts; fresh perspective.

It is not to say that the Bible doesn't let you make up your own mind. It does. But it also prompts you to challenge widely accepted views.

How many correct interpretations of the bible do you think exist? One? Infinite? Are the "truths" contained in the bible absolute truths or relative/subjective truths?

Unfortunately, some people make unrealistic assumptions like saying that the Genesis story describes the story of the same race as that observed by scientists in natural evolution. We can't assume it's the same race.

Genesis is a huge problem for the inerrant bible folks. Do you believe in an inerrant bible, but that it has just been misinterpreted? That is kind of what I'm getting from your posts.

Have you seen all four seasons of Battlestar Galactica? You may find that much of my theory draws from that TV series as inspiration.

Dude, I haven't owned a TV for 12 years now. So, I'm a little out of the loop with any sort of pop culture reference

 

[wil]

Most Christians that I know see it as much more than that. Your "divine sparks" theory doesn't hold water if the bible is simply a history book with some genealogy thrown in.

Damn lousy as a history book, more like historical fiction, where the names, places, reality and facts don't matter all that much, the stories are much more important.

IG's assumptions in this discussion:
1.) the bible was written by humans with no divine intervention
2.) Saltmeister's "divine spark" theory assumes some sort of divine intervention or divine choosing or choosing the divine
3.) the "chosen" people in the bible are only "chosen" because they are the authors of the bible. They are no more "chosen" than are the authors of the Popul Vuh, Dreamtime Stories, etc.
4.) therefore the "divine spark" would apply to most peoples of the world, not because of interbreeding but because most peoples are "chosen" in their own subjective view

1. ah....i believe we each have the divine inside....so I don't say the divine intervened, but took part,

2. took part through the awful filter of a human, with power and greed issues.

3. agree

4. again, I'll not argue the chosen, but still think that the divine took part....in some of the books, the cannonization is another issue, both for the new and old testament....


but I'll apply the same to other religions spiritual books as well, divine involved distorted by man, many times....