Happy Atheist Forum

This seems like the right place for this topic but I might be wrong.  ??

I have a question that I welcome any input on, from atheists and theists alike.
 
I've been having discussions with a good friend of mine who I believe to be (more or less by his own admission) a "Young Earth creationist".  This puzzles me quite a bit since he, like me, has a very logical and scientific way of thinking.  He values rational thinking. We are the sort of friends that know what the other is thinking before they say it, and sometimes even think it.  I say that to emphasize how well we know each other, and how similar we are.  I am therefore left very confused how a mind similar in every way to my own can believe the Christian Deluge story from a literal, Young Earth, anti-evolution perspective.

The key thing about that which I don't understand is why those adhering to that belief felt compelled to take Genesis literally in the first place.  I suspect there is some way to pick and choose the right verses from the New Testament to form an argument for taking it literally, but, he was unable to articulate that argument or those verses for me.  I can't blame him for that, he's not a Biblical scholar with instant command of every argument...since he is overall a rational thinker I trust he must have heard a compelling (to him) argument somewhere.  I've tried searching for that argument online but I must be using the wrong terms, or nobody has really written about it here yet, because I haven't found much.

So, can someone here explain the argument that Genesis must absolutely be taken literally?

It seems like Christians are shifting more toward that opinion today than in recent history.  Just a decade or so ago I seem to recall my mom (a Christian) saying "a day for God isn't necessarily a day as we think of it".  But now she, too, is waxing literal/fundamentalist.  Why the shift?

I am currently re-reading Genesis, a bit at a time.  I made a pretty crude argument when talking to this friend...  I said, "God says the serpent will eat dirt forever...we know serpents don't eat dirt...so obviously God was speaking figuratively, right, not literally?"  He told me that is viewed to be Messianic prophecy.  If that is the case, I wondered where the guide is that states which verses in Genesis are to be taken literally, and which are to be taken figuratively as Messianic prophecy or some other prophecy, but our conversation did not go that route.  Can anyone explain this?

Any insight into these matters would be much appreciated!

Having a bit of background in churches that believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, I might have a little bit of information. The thing is, even christian churches disagree on what they mean by literal translation. And which translation to use. And which verses are to be translated which way, etc.
The overall appearance to people is that there is a general agreement amongst lots of churches on this. There is not. That is why there are so many friggin denominations out there.

Example: Baptist churches. Not one baptist church, or one baptist sect. Hundreds of baptist denominations exist. Maybe into the thousands. From Wiki, just the denominations listed in the US (numbers are references on the site):

United States
Alliance of Baptists [15]
American Baptist Association
American Baptist Churches [16]
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists [17]
Baptist Bible Fellowship International
Baptist General Conference
Baptist Missionary Association of America [18]
Central Baptist Association
Christian Unity Baptist Association
Churches of God General Conference [19]
Conservative Baptist Association of America
Continental Baptist Churches
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship [20]
Enterprise Association of Regular Baptists [21]
Evangelical Free Baptist Church
Free Will Baptist
Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Association
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America
General Association of Baptists
General Association of General Baptists
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches [22]
General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.
General Six-Principle Baptists
Independent Baptist Church of America
Independent Baptist Fellowship International
Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America
Institutional Missionary Baptist Conference of America
Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association
Landmark Baptists
Liberty Baptist Fellowship
Macedonia Baptist World Missions [23]
Mainstream Baptist Network [24]
National Association of Free Will Baptists
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. [25]
National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A.
New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches
North American Baptist Conference
Old Regular Baptist
Indian Bottom Association of Old Regular Baptists [26]
Old Time Missionary Baptist
Original Free Will Baptist Convention
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Reformed Baptist
Regular Baptist
Roger Williams Fellowship [27]
Separate Baptist
Separate Baptists in Christ
Seventh Day Baptist General Conference [28]
Southern Baptist Convention [29]
Southwide Baptist Fellowship
Sovereign Grace Baptists
Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
United American Free Will Baptist Church
United American Free Will Baptist Conference
United Baptists
Unregistered Baptist Fellowship
World Baptist Fellowship
Worldwide Baptist New Testament Missions [30]


Ok, so IF there was agreement, then here is the general argument for literal translation. The bible was written by men, but inspired by god. god is perfect, therefore every word that comes from him is perfect, and even man can't screw up his inspired word. So every dotted letter i, every crossed t, every comma, period, and mark is EXACTLY as it is meant to be.

Because of this belief by some sects, then things like the six-day creation in Genesis are taken as six literal, 24hr days. Exactly. That goes for every other thing found in the bible. If someone wants to be part of a church that believes this, then they have to, by definition, believe every word literally. Even if those words disagree with what they think is true to the contrary, like knowing the Earth is billions of years old, not 6000 years old (which they come to by means of the book of Numbers and others). You have to dump what you know in favor of what they tell you to believe by faith for it to work.

This requires much more information than I have time for, but maybe this is a starting point to answer your question, I hope.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"It seems like Christians are shifting more toward that opinion today than in recent history.  Just a decade or so ago I seem to recall my mom (a Christian) saying "a day for God isn't necessarily a day as we think of it".  But now she, too, is waxing literal/fundamentalist.  Why the shift?

I thought it was a strategic issue, the thoughtful faithful retreated, conceding some ground as indefensible.
But the wilfully ignorant see conceding anything as weakness which leads to defeat.

Quote from: "McQ"Having a bit of background in churches that believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, I might have a little bit of information. The thing is, even christian churches disagree on what they mean by literal translation. And which translation to use. And which verses are to be translated which way, etc.
The overall appearance to people is that there is a general agreement amongst lots of churches on this. There is not. That is why there are so many friggin denominations out there.

First, thanks for answering.  I do know what you are saying here.  I, myself, was raised in the church and have been to services at many different denominations of churches for various reasons throughout my life.  I do think I know what my friend would say to this, and that is that for the most part, they agree on the important parts, and that is what matters.  Easy answer to a hard question, but I can understand it well enough since one could say the same thing about atheists, eh?

Quote from: "McQ"Ok, so IF there was agreement, then here is the general argument for literal translation. The bible was written by men, but inspired by god. god is perfect, therefore every word that comes from him is perfect, and even man can't screw up his inspired word. So every dotted letter i, every crossed t, every comma, period, and mark is EXACTLY as it is meant to be.

Yes, he has said this.  We had a discussion about it.  The discussion didn't last as long as I wanted it to.  What is the source of the argument that "divine inspiration" = immune to corruption?  Is that coming from the text somewhere, or was it introduced by apologists, or what?

I did start to ask him, how do they "officially" account for periods in their own history when they themselves thought the message was so corrupted by man that something had to be done about it?  Like with the birth of Protestantism?  Seems to me that if any period of time elapsed during which God's message was not getting through properly to men, that would prove to them that man can screw it up.  So how would they know it's not still currently screwed up?  The fact that denominations exist should prove perfect conveyance of the message is not possible.  But he gave me puzzled looks, either pretending not to understand my question, or possibly legitimately not understanding, and we ran out of time to continue that day.

Quote from: "McQ"Because of this belief by some sects, then things like the six-day creation in Genesis are taken as six literal, 24hr days. Exactly. That goes for every other thing found in the bible. If someone wants to be part of a church that believes this, then they have to, by definition, believe every word literally. Even if those words disagree with what they think is true to the contrary, like knowing the Earth is billions of years old, not 6000 years old (which they come to by means of the book of Numbers and others). You have to dump what you know in favor of what they tell you to believe by faith for it to work.

That's the thing, though.  Per my remarks about Messianic prophecy, they seem to still pick and choose a little as far as what is literal in Genesis.  But yes, you are right, that's what they do.  Where did all the flood water go?  It came from above the firmament, through the windows of heaven and the fountains of the deep, reshaped earth, and is all still here.  Never mind scientific evidence to the contrary.  The Bible is scientific evidence, too, from eyewitness accounts of history.  So goes the argument.

Quote from: "McQ"This requires much more information than I have time for, but maybe this is a starting point to answer your question, I hope.

It is a starting point.  My primary interest here, I think, so far, at first, is to understand whether a rigorous argument for literal interpretation can be made solely from within the text.  If not, I don't yet understand why they would feel compelled to form such an argument.  He says he doesn't understand why I would feel compelled not to form such an argument.  Go figure.

QuoteSo, can someone here explain the argument that Genesis must absolutely be taken literally?

Because once interpretation enters the picture, YECs must admit that interpretation is a human overlay on their god's word.  (Not that the many translations, copies, and butcherings aren't, but they're perfectly happy to gloss that over).

The very fact that the Bible requires translation, btw, is clear evidence of their god's imperfection (assuming he exists, of course).  A perfect god would be able to communicate with no need for translation.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Because once interpretation enters the picture, YECs must admit that interpretation is a human overlay on their god's word.  (Not that the many translations, copies, and butcherings aren't, but they're perfectly happy to gloss that over).

I brought all of that up and he acted like he didn't understand the concept of "lost in translation".  I explained how it could become difficult or even impossible for a future generation to correctly interpret a 21st century English sentence with absolute comprehension, for a variety of reasons.  I know he is smart enough to understand this, but for some reason he doesn't let that affect his view.  Apologists and Biblical "scholars" spend their lives coming up with justifications for any argument a Christian could want to make.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The very fact that the Bible requires translation, btw, is clear evidence of their god's imperfection (assuming he exists, of course).  A perfect god would be able to communicate with no need for translation.

He would probably say that language barriers are our own limitation, as imperfect beings.  And that God wants us to seek him, that's why he doesn't reveal himself clearly to each of us though it would be within his power.  A well-versed Christian really often does seem to have a response for everything, even when those responses logically contradict one another.

Here are some other crude arguments I presented, that occurred to me, after I read some of Genesis:

1) God's Test for Abraham
I argued that the only way to prove to Abraham, and to future audiences of the story, that Abraham had absolute trust/faith/etc in God would have been to let him go through with killing Isaac and then to have resurrected Isaac.  This would prove Abraham's commitment beyond the shadow of a doubt, IMO, but anything less would leave ample room for doubt.  Until the knife had slit the throat, there would always be an opportunity for a sudden change of heart.  So if God wasn't proving anything to Abraham or us, what was the point of the exercise?  To prove it to himself?  Then he is not omniscient.

2) Tower of Babel
Apparently God didn't foresee that in a matter of a mere 6,000 or so years, English would be so predominant among such a large number of people and Earth would be so overpopulated that humanity would far surpass anything those guys could have been building as far as "now I am become death" goes.  Or, he didn't care.  So why did he care then?

I never got a good response.

Indeed, all good points, particularly about ole Abe.

But this:

QuoteHe would probably say that language barriers are our own limitation, as imperfect beings.

... jumped out at me.  A Perfect Carpenter doesn't build a crooked cabinet.  By definition, a Perfect Carpenter builds a Perfect Cabinet.

If Genesis (or any of the Bible) is to be taken literally I'd think it would be important for that denomination to study the Bible in it's original language, since (someone mentioned it already) ideas and words are lost in translation. The word that was translated to "day" was originally "yom", which also means "a long period of time"...so even if one is to read it literally it still doesn't necessarily mean 6 24-hour days.

Quick addition. Yes all of the sources for the inerrency of the bible come from within the bible itself, from both the old and new testament. Circular reasoning, if there ever was. A link to a Christian site which explains and gives reference passages:

http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com ... tself.html (http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com/whatdoesthebiblesayabout/qa-itself.html)

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"... jumped out at me.  A Perfect Carpenter doesn't build a crooked cabinet.  By definition, a Perfect Carpenter builds a Perfect Cabinet.

He would say that the cabinet was perfect, before the fall.

Quote from: "Being_Brave"If Genesis (or any of the Bible) is to be taken literally I'd think it would be important for that denomination to study the Bible in it's original language, since (someone mentioned it already) ideas and words are lost in translation. The word that was translated to "day" was originally "yom", which also means "a long period of time"...so even if one is to read it literally it still doesn't necessarily mean 6 24-hour days.

I might agree, and you might agree, but how do you convince him?  He would ask you how you know an ambiguous term meaning "long period of time" couldn't mean 24 hours to the original audience.  He would ask why you want to believe it was not 6 24-hour days.  After all, an omnipotent God allegedly could, in theory, still do that all in 6 24-hour days, then alter the laws of nature.  All original plant life could have grown in 24 hours, you know, because the soil was much more fertile before the fall (similar to the vapor canopy creating the hyperbaric chamber that made 900-year life possible).   They are working out all the miraculous explanations in order to first "harmonize" with, and later usurp, science.  All explanations nobody has any true way of verifying, but they don't care.  They say science is flawed, too.  They cite the problem of induction.  They claim there really is no way to know the past, or the future, or anything with absolute certainty.  Technically, and philosophically, I would have to say they are correct about the last part.  They are all becoming amateur philosophers, circular in their selection of truth, because they won't extend uncertainty to include the evolution of their scripture.  To them, it is unchanging and divinely inspired.  And if we point out the improbability of it all, they say it's just outside of our understanding and we should accept it, scripture tells us everything we *need* to know.  An omnipotent God *could* orchestrate this.  I don't know how to argue with someone like that, who superficially accepts the philosophical argument that there is no absolute truth but uses it to circularly argue truth in the Bible.  To make matters worse, when they don't know how to argue with someone like me they usually just end with asking if I want to end up in "Hell".  

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"... jumped out at me.  A Perfect Carpenter doesn't build a crooked cabinet.  By definition, a Perfect Carpenter builds a Perfect Cabinet.

He would say that the cabinet was perfect, before the fall.

Irrelevant.  A perfect cabinet would not go crooked.  It would have a doweled fingerjoint corners that hold everything true.

In case you're still not getting what I'm saying: an agent is defined by the works he does.  Is GM a perfect car-maker?  No.  Why?  Because their cars break down.  Now, it is possible that they might make cars that never break down, and yet they could still be imperfect for some other reason -- say, clumsy administration.  But it is not possible that they could make cars that break down and still be reasonably held to be "perfect."

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Irrelevant.  A perfect cabinet would not go crooked.  It would have a doweled fingerjoint corners that hold everything true.

In case you're still not getting what I'm saying: an agent is defined by the works he does.  Is GM a perfect car-maker?  No.  Why?  Because their cars break down.  Now, it is possible that they might make cars that never break down, and yet they could still be imperfect for some other reason -- say, clumsy administration.  But it is not possible that they could make cars that break down and still be reasonably held to be "perfect."

He would find these analogies flawed.  And please don't take this the wrong way, for personally I find almost every analogy to be flawed including those which I put forward, but I do as well.  Here are two reasons why:

1) A cabinet is a utility, lacking any sort of consciousness or any capacity that remotely resembles the concept of free will.  A human being seems much more complex than that. This would be more his objection than mine, because personally, I tend to be very deterministic -- perhaps to a fault.  I do tend to think of man as nothing more than a complex machine, yet a machine capable of developing ethics and putting them to relevant use by his own standards -- which is more than a cabinet can do.
2) Wouldn't GM only be imperfect if it was not within their ability to make cars that do not break down?  Can one prove it is not, when GM = a god?  What if GM intentionally makes cars that break down, while still possessing the ability to do otherwise?  Maybe they design cars to break down as part of a larger plan, shortly after the warranty expires, so you must return to the maker for support with your wallet open.

Quote from: "McQ"Quick addition. Yes all of the sources for the inerrency of the bible come from within the bible itself, from both the old and new testament. Circular reasoning, if there ever was. A link to a Christian site which explains and gives reference passages:

http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com ... tself.html (http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com/whatdoesthebiblesayabout/qa-itself.html)

Thanks for the lead, I will check it out.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"

Quote from: "Being_Brave"If Genesis (or any of the Bible) is to be taken literally I'd think it would be important for that denomination to study the Bible in it's original language, since (someone mentioned it already) ideas and words are lost in translation. The word that was translated to "day" was originally "yom", which also means "a long period of time"...so even if one is to read it literally it still doesn't necessarily mean 6 24-hour days.

I might agree, and you might agree, but how do you convince him?  He would ask you how you know an ambiguous term meaning "long period of time" couldn't mean 24 hours to the original audience.  He would ask why you want to believe it was not 6 24-hour days.  After all, an omnipotent God allegedly could, in theory, still do that all in 6 24-hour days, then alter the laws of nature.  All original plant life could have grown in 24 hours, you know, because the soil was much more fertile before the fall (similar to the vapor canopy creating the hyperbaric chamber that made 900-year life possible).   They are working out all the miraculous explanations in order to first "harmonize" with, and later usurp, science.  All explanations nobody has any true way of verifying, but they don't care.  They say science is flawed, too.  They cite the problem of induction.  They claim there really is no way to know the past, or the future, or anything with absolute certainty.  Technically, and philosophically, I would have to say they are correct about the last part.  They are all becoming amateur philosophers, circular in their selection of truth, because they won't extend uncertainty to include the evolution of their scripture.  To them, it is unchanging and divinely inspired.  And if we point out the improbability of it all, they say it's just outside of our understanding and we should accept it, scripture tells us everything we *need* to know.  An omnipotent God *could* orchestrate this.  I don't know how to argue with someone like that, who superficially accepts the philosophical argument that there is no absolute truth but uses it to circularly argue truth in the Bible.  To make matters worse, when they don't know how to argue with someone like me they usually just end with asking if I want to end up in "Hell".  

The best answer I can think of is that the Bible wasn't written to be a science textbook; the point of the Bible for Christians is salvation, not biology or agriculture, etc... Obviously some processes were not mentioned (like meiosis, for example??), and I'd think he has to see that. If he can accept that he should be able to accept that just because something isn't written in the Bible doesn't mean it's not true.

(...this coming from a creationist, but not a YEC...)

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"He would find these analogies flawed.  And please don't take this the wrong way, for personally I find almost every analogy to be flawed including those which I put forward, but I do as well.  Here are two reasons why:

1) A cabinet is a utility, lacking any sort of consciousness or any capacity that remotely resembles the concept of free will.  A human being seems much more complex than that. This would be more his objection than mine, because personally, I tend to be very deterministic -- perhaps to a fault.  I do tend to think of man as nothing more than a complex machine, yet a machine capable of developing ethics and putting them to relevant use by his own standards -- which is more than a cabinet can do.

The appropriate reply is, "How can a mere human change an omnipotent god's plan?  Free will and Omnipotence are contradictory."  And this would be where I go on to say exactly that, fruitlessly, because reason and faith don't play well together.

Quote2) Wouldn't GM only be imperfect if it was not within their ability to make cars that do not break down?  Can one prove it is not, when GM = a god?

This objection from a Christian would be a Pyrrhic victory: It would show that no matter what, their god is imperfect in one respect.  Either he cannot make good product, or he cannot make the full panoply of people.  I'd easily grant this objection under these circumstances.

QuoteWhat if GM intentionally makes cars that break down, while still possessing the ability to do otherwise?

In that case, the imperfection is in GM's intent.

QuoteMaybe they design cars to break down as part of a larger plan, shortly after the warranty expires, so you must return to the maker for support with your wallet open.

In which case their benevolence is open to question.  These too are objections I'd not only grant; I'd probably bring them up myself, as a matter of debate strategy.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The appropriate reply is, "How can a mere human change an omnipotent god's plan?  Free will and Omnipotence are contradictory."  And this would be where I go on to say exactly that, fruitlessly, because reason and faith don't play well together.

First, you assume they would make the claim that "free will" or "omnipotence" exist within their theology in the same absolute terms with which you might define them.  They can easily just play around with definitions of "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnibenevolent" and "free will", to wiggle out of contradictions.

Just yesterday I was reading this, which I have not yet had time to fully digest/analyze for myself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantinga% ... ll_defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense)
Apparently this logical defense "has received wide acceptance among contemporary philosophers".

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"2) Wouldn't GM only be imperfect if it was not within their ability to make cars that do not break down?  Can one prove it is not, when GM = a god?

This objection from a Christian would be a Pyrrhic victory: It would show that no matter what, their god is imperfect in one respect.  Either he cannot make good product, or he cannot make the full panoply of people.  I'd easily grant this objection under these circumstances.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"What if GM intentionally makes cars that break down, while still possessing the ability to do otherwise?

In that case, the imperfection is in GM's intent.

That he does not make people perfect does not show that he cannot.  That imperfection exists in the world does not show that the creator of said world is imperfect.  Of course, this, too, depends on your definition of perfection.  What is your definition?  I suppose I should have asked this from the beginning.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"Maybe they design cars to break down as part of a larger plan, shortly after the warranty expires, so you must return to the maker for support with your wallet open.

In which case their benevolence is open to question.  These too are objections I'd not only grant; I'd probably bring them up myself, as a matter of debate strategy.

Again, see the link I posted above.  Maybe you can help me accept or reject it?

Note that I am not supporting these arguments, merely trying to explore all the directions my debates with this friend might take.  This all seems much less straightforward to debate using pure philosophy & logic than it might appear on the surface.

Quote from: "McQ"Quick addition. Yes all of the sources for the inerrency of the bible come from within the bible itself, from both the old and new testament. Circular reasoning, if there ever was. A link to a Christian site which explains and gives reference passages:

http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com ... tself.html (http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com/whatdoesthebiblesayabout/qa-itself.html)

I read through this.  If the only source they have is the listed/linked verses, I would say they are [strike:1p0zuuii]jumping[/strike:1p0zuuii] leaping to a great many conclusions.  I may need to investigate further whether there is any more to support those conclusions than they provide...what they do provide seems pretty weak.

I found the statement below amusing in an ironic sort of way.  The statement itself, as it is worded, I would consider to be a fair comparison.  But since I do not consider the human body to be somehow perfect or miraculous, I would derive a completely opposite conclusion from the comparison than was intended.

QuoteAnd yet the Bible's various parts are as harmoniously united as the diverse parts that make up the human body.

Quote from: "Being_Brave"The best answer I can think of is that the Bible wasn't written to be a science textbook; the point of the Bible for Christians is salvation, not biology or agriculture, etc... Obviously some processes were not mentioned (like meiosis, for example??), and I'd think he has to see that. If he can accept that he should be able to accept that just because something isn't written in the Bible doesn't mean it's not true.

I think he does accept that there are things, things he would call true, not written in the Bible.  The problem is that he insists the things that are written in the Bible, are all true...literally.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"

Quote from: "McQ"Quick addition. Yes all of the sources for the inerrency of the bible come from within the bible itself, from both the old and new testament. Circular reasoning, if there ever was. A link to a Christian site which explains and gives reference passages:

http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com ... tself.html (http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com/whatdoesthebiblesayabout/qa-itself.html)

I read through this.  If the only source they have is the listed/linked verses, I would say they are [strike:4ys2e7v2]jumping[/strike:4ys2e7v2] leaping to a great many conclusions.  I may need to investigate further whether there is any more to support those conclusions than they provide...what they do provide seems pretty weak.

I found the statement below amusing in an ironic sort of way.  The statement itself, as it is worded, I would consider to be a fair comparison.  But since I do not consider the human body to be somehow perfect or miraculous, I would derive a completely opposite conclusion from the comparison than was intended.

QuoteAnd yet the Bible's various parts are as harmoniously united as the diverse parts that make up the human body.

I agree that what is available from the bible itself is pretty weak. That's one of the problems that people find once they do read it or actually study it, as I did. The more I read, and the more I studied it, the less tolerable it became for me. It was evident that it is a book not to be used as a literal translation of god's mind to humans. It just gets worse, as far as being a reliable source for anything other than just being folk tales, mythology, etc.

The bibles that I own all have concordances in them, which are great for finding all the passages that relate to one another. With a concordance, you could find every single verse in the old and new testaments that deal with the inerrancy of scripture. There may be online concordances as well that will help. I haven't had time to really go look up anything yet in them.

Here's another way to look at it:

Genesis establishes the doctrine of Original Sin. So creation myths in Genesis must be taken literally. Without Original Sin, there is no need for Salvation, no need for Christ, no need for God and ultimately no need for religion. But there is a problem. Note I said myths. The story of Adam and Eve is the second creation myth. The first creation myth starts from Genesis 1:1-31 and continues through Genesis 2:3. Then, all of the sudden, everything is reset and God starts creating everything out of nothing again starting with Genesis 2:4. Because of this, I submit that Genesis cannot be take literally. There are two different accounts of the creation of the Earth and both are at odds to each other.

I've heard arguments that the first myth is the general story and the second myth is specific. But Genesis 2:5-7 refutes this. There is a clear reboot at Genesis 2:4. The college instructor who first showed me this stated that he believed that the Hebrews somehow absorbed two creation myths, and couldn't bear to strike either one from their Torah. So they kept both. Seems plausible to me.

Quote from: "tunghaichuan"Here's another way to look at it:

Genesis establishes the doctrine of Original Sin. So creation myths in Genesis must be taken literally. Without Original Sin, there is no need for Salvation, no need for Christ, no need for God and ultimately no need for religion. But there is a problem. Note I said myths. The story of Adam and Eve is the second creation myth. The first creation myth starts from Genesis 1:1-31 and continues through Genesis 2:3. Then, all of the sudden, everything is reset and God starts creating everything out of nothing again starting with Genesis 2:4. Because of this, I submit that Genesis cannot be take literally. There are two different accounts of the creation of the Earth and both are at odds to each other.

I've heard arguments that the first myth is the general story and the second myth is specific. But Genesis 2:5-7 refutes this. There is a clear reboot at Genesis 2:4. The college instructor who first showed me this stated that he believed that the Hebrews somehow absorbed two creation myths, and couldn't bear to strike either one from their Torah. So they kept both. Seems plausible to me.

The same thing occurred to me as I read Genesis 1 & 2.  In fact I mentioned this to him and he made that very argument.  The way he stated it, roughly, to the best of my recollection, was that the way the Hebrews often wrote things was to give an overview and then "zoom in" on it.  Not having the book in front of us at the time, and having an imperfect memory, I was unable to provide a rebuttal for that though I did know that if anything the order of event appears to be in conflict.  I suspect, though, that he would argue there is no precise definition of chronology in the text (and that we are merely inferring it incorrectly from all of the "ands") and that nothing is in conflict.  For example, it would seem there is conflict in the fact that in the first story it sounds like animals are created first, then man, and in the other it sounds like the reverse.  But notice that in the first story, they are indeed both created on the same day, so, if the argument can be made that there is no reason to assume the events in either story are to be taken chronologically from verse to verse, the conflict disappears.  I don't know if that argument can be made convincingly, though.

I also went on to say the whole "zooming in" explanation doesn't seem to help much in the flood story, because contradictions are inserted almost directly after one another in parallel there.  :p  He remained more or less silent on that and I have not pursued it further.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"The same thing occurred to me as I read Genesis 1 & 2.  In fact I mentioned this to him and he made that very argument.  The way he stated it, roughly, to the best of my recollection, was that the way the Hebrews often wrote things was to give an overview and then "zoom in" on it.  Not having the book in front of us at the time, and having an imperfect memory, I was unable to provide a rebuttal for that though I did know that if anything the order of event appears to be in conflict.  I suspect, though, that he would argue there is no precise definition of chronology in the text (and that we are merely inferring it incorrectly from all of the "ands") and that nothing is in conflict.  For example, it would seem there is conflict in the fact that in the first story it sounds like animals are created first, then man, and in the other it sounds like the reverse.  But notice that in the first story, they are indeed both created on the same day, so, if the argument can be made that there is no reason to assume the events in either story are to be taken chronologically from verse to verse, the conflict disappears.  I don't know if that argument can be made convincingly, though.

I also went on to say the whole "zooming in" explanation doesn't seem to help much in the flood story, because contradictions are inserted almost directly after one another in parallel there.  :p  He remained more or less silent on that and I have not pursued it further.

I have heard the "zooming in" argument, but have not investigated it. In the case of the two creation myths of Genesis, it sounds like apologist bullshit to me given the inaccuracies.

Taken literally the world would make more sense if you could just convince yourself science is bunch of bull pucky. After all why would an all knowing God get His own story wrong?

Another thought: reading Genesis literally also allowed the Church to victimize women as a literal reading of the Adam and Eve story makes Eve the cause of Original Sin. This view introduced misogyny int Christianity and allowed the Church to relegate women as inferior. Elaine Pagels wrote an excellent book on this called Adam, Eve, and the Serpent: http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Eve-Serpent- ... 527&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Eve-Serpent-Politics-Christianity/dp/0679722327/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1289326527&sr=1-1)

@Persimmon Hamster: you might want to look this over and relate to your friend:

http://www.gnosis.org/genesis.html (http://www.gnosis.org/genesis.html)

Several of the gnostic gospels from the Nag Hammadi library turn the Adam and Eve story upside down. Yahweh is the villain (who is called Samael which means "god of the blind" in the Hypostasis of the Archons) as he is an imperfect creator, creates an imperfect world, creates Adam and Eve (who have the divine spark, but do not know this) and then traps them in an illusion, which he conceals from them. The serpent is the hero as he imparts knowledge upon Eve. One gnostic gospel states that Eve was sent by Sophia (greek for "wisdom", and the mother of Yahweh/Samael) to raise up Adam from his ignorance.

There is no evidence that gnostics believed these stories to be literal. In fact, there is evidence that the gnostics considered their gospels/writings to be transformative myth and not a literal account of the creation of the world.  

So for the Orthodox Church, a literal reading of Genesis 1 & 2 accomplishes two things: it establishes Original Sin and allows women to be demoted to inferior status.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"First, you assume they would make the claim that "free will" or "omnipotence" exist within their theology in the same absolute terms with which you might define them.  They can easily just play around with definitions of "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnibenevolent" and "free will", to wiggle out of contradictions.

Indeed.  Wordplay is endemic in this territory.

QuoteJust yesterday I was reading this, which I have not yet had time to fully digest/analyze for myself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantinga% ... ll_defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense)
Apparently this logical defense "has received wide acceptance among contemporary philosophers".

The crucial passage:

Quote from: "Plantiga""It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures."

The second possibility I can accept.  The first is obviously contradictory, unless one relies on the wordplay referred to above.  I abjure such wordplay.  A limit on God's power strips him of Omnipotence.  Now, if we wish to redefine the god-concept, that's cool.  Very few Christians are willing to do this.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"That he does not make people perfect does not show that he cannot.  That imperfection exists in the world does not show that the creator of said world is imperfect.  Of course, this, too, depends on your definition of perfection.  What is your definition?  I suppose I should have asked this from the beginning.

In defining an agent as "perfect", one is judging by his product.  After all, what other criterion is there?  Your caution, that god may be underachieving, is noted; however, logically speaking, it excludes omnibenevolence to permit evil as a result of not working to perfection.

QuoteNote that I am not supporting these arguments, merely trying to explore all the directions my debates with this friend might take.  This all seems much less straightforward to debate using pure philosophy & logic than it might appear on the surface.

I hear you.  I like a vigorous back&forth, it gives my brainmuscle a workout too.

And yes, I can't stand philosophy, because it is so often obscurantist.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The second possibility I can accept.  The first is obviously contradictory, unless one relies on the wordplay referred to above.  I abjure such wordplay.  A limit on God's power strips him of Omnipotence.  Now, if we wish to redefine the god-concept, that's cool.  Very few Christians are willing to do this.

In defining an agent as "perfect", one is judging by his product.  After all, what other criterion is there?  Your caution, that god may be underachieving, is noted; however, logically speaking, it excludes omnibenevolence to permit evil as a result of not working to perfection.

I still have not invested any serious effort in unraveling Plantinga's alleged logical proof that omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence can be upheld in the face of the existence of our world...and I am starting to doubt I will due to lack of desire and time...

But as far as I have been able to comprehend the argument so far, I would summarize it in my own words as follows.  Basically, if there is some larger purpose that God needs to fulfill (beyond our comprehension), and this world is the only means by which he can achieve it, then does that necessarily render him either non-omnibenevolent and non-omnipotent?  Could he be benevolent in that, for example, once those of us "suffering" in this world are "redeemed" in death, and once he makes good on his alleged promise that we will be "rewarded" in a manner outside of "time" for our enduring this world, and we then understand the need for all of this...we will see there was no ultimate malice intended or in store?  To put this more metaphorically, and thus more imprecisely, that we will say "well, God, nobody can blame you, the omelet turned out perfect though you had to break some eggs along the way"...  And could he still be omnipotent in that, ultimately, his necessary purpose outside of human perception of time and scope of comprehension, will be fulfilled?  Similarly to how, sure, to an ant, it is within my power as a human being to move a "mountain" (which would surely befuddle an ant, had it a degree of consciousness) but the process involved in doing so would not be instantaneous (by neither my perception of time, or the ant's).

But yes, it's all wordplay.  If you define omnipotence in the pure sense of the term you would state that I didn't need a process to move that mountain, I could have done it instantaneously with a wink of my eye or even by simply willing it.  But also, if you would define omnipotence in the pure sense of the term, you would find it a logical paradox.  So when a Christian says their God possesses it, should we presume they are simply unaware of the logical paradox or that they have already accepted within themselves a definition that is slightly nuanced?  Is there in fact any clear interpretation to be gleaned from the Bible that would clearly, distinctly, without question be referring to that simple, "pure" definition of omnipotence?

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"I still have not invested any serious effort in unraveling Plantinga's alleged logical proof that omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence can be upheld in the face of the existence of our world...and I am starting to doubt I will due to lack of desire and time...

I've been debating this exact topic on the Challenge for Christians thread, if that interests you.  Here's a link to where my arguments begin: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6179#p90800

Quote- and this world is the only means by which he can achieve it -

I would argue that those words, or other words to the same effect, can never be applied to an omnipotent and omniscient entity.

Yes, those words jumped out at me as a stark limitation on his power.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote- and this world is the only means by which he can achieve it -

I would argue that those words, or other words to the same effect, can never be applied to an omnipotent and omniscient entity.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Yes, those words jumped out at me as a stark limitation on his power.

You both know that.  I know that.

The point is, you can try explaining that to a Christian until you are blue in the face.  What will happen is, he will (usually) immediately see the logical paradox of absolute omnipotence, but that won't convince him his God is impossible.  He will simply adjust his definition of God (or, already has) to account for it (or feed the old line about how you mustn't test God).  He may eventually be able to semi-satisfactorily (for purposes of argument) characterize some being with more power than us, more knowledge than us, and less capacity for or desire to commit "evil" than us that he sees as being his creator, his savior, his everything, worthy of praise and worship.  So, with logic, you've beaten him down into perhaps a lesser kind of unreasonability, but he still clings to unreason.  Now what?

Personally, once I saw the logical fallacy for myself, I concluded whatever "God" could be it would just be another consciousness, essentially no different from myself in its capacity for error, learning, reason, subjective purpose, etc.  And I thought to myself, "well, then, F**** him".

Of course, that is all ignoring other logical conundrums, such as defining "good", "evil", and the difference between the two...explaining why animals must also "suffer"...  Two coupled issues that both of you have attempted to get Achronos to tackle in other threads.  I think he will sidestep it entirely, but hopefully I am wrong.

On that note, I am starting to wonder if he is really a single person, or if "he" is some front for multiple theists having a go at smacking down atheists.  His communication style, knowledge of colloquialisms, etc, seems a little too inconsistent between posts.  Am I the only one getting that feeling?

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"So, with logic, you've beaten him down into perhaps a lesser kind of unreasonability, but he still clings to unreason.  Now what?

Having proven to your own satisfaction that the person you're debating with (or explaining to) operates outside of reason, I think you would very sensibly disengage, since debating and explaining assume reason as a pre-requisite.  An alternative would be to continue interacting but in a subtly different manner, your goal having changed to one of anthropological study, the subject of inquiry being the category of human that operates outside of reason.

QuotePersonally, once I saw the logical fallacy for myself, I concluded whatever "God" could be it would just be another consciousness, essentially no different from myself in its capacity for error, learning, reason, subjective purpose, etc.  And I thought to myself, "well, then, F**** him".

One of my proto-atheist opinions was, "If God exists, he either isn't omnipotent, isn't omniscient, or isn't all-loving."  At that point in my intellectual progress, I was OK with a God who lacked one, two, or all three of those absolutist attributes.  I found all-love to be the most dispensible.  A God who enjoyed watching creatures scrape and claw was entirely plausible to me at that time.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"The point is, you can try explaining that to a Christian until you are blue in the face.  What will happen is, he will (usually) immediately see the logical paradox of absolute omnipotence, but that won't convince him his God is impossible.  He will simply adjust his definition of God (or, already has) to account for it (or feed the old line about how you mustn't test God).  He may eventually be able to semi-satisfactorily (for purposes of argument) characterize some being with more power than us, more knowledge than us, and less capacity for or desire to commit "evil" than us that he sees as being his creator, his savior, his everything, worthy of praise and worship.  So, with logic, you've beaten him down into perhaps a lesser kind of unreasonability, but he still clings to unreason.  Now what?

Once I've ascertained that my interlocutor has wooden ears, I move on, only occasionally responding to his posts, and then only for the sake of lurkers.  Then, too, I've seen the dripping of small bits of logic completely erode a person's faith over the course of a couple of years online.  "What next?" therefore relies on your conversant.

QuoteOn that note, I am starting to wonder if he is really a single person, or if "he" is some front for multiple theists having a go at smacking down atheists.  His communication style, knowledge of colloquialisms, etc, seems a little too inconsistent between posts.  Am I the only one getting that feeling?

Didn't strike me as such, but the more the merrier, I s'pose.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"This seems like the right place for this topic but I might be wrong.  ??

I have a question that I welcome any input on, from atheists and theists alike.
 
I've been having discussions with a good friend of mine who I believe to be (more or less by his own admission) a "Young Earth creationist".  This puzzles me quite a bit since he, like me, has a very logical and scientific way of thinking.  He values rational thinking. We are the sort of friends that know what the other is thinking before they say it, and sometimes even think it.  I say that to emphasize how well we know each other, and how similar we are.  I am therefore left very confused how a mind similar in every way to my own can believe the Christian Deluge story from a literal, Young Earth, anti-evolution perspective.

The key thing about that which I don't understand is why those adhering to that belief felt compelled to take Genesis literally in the first place.  I suspect there is some way to pick and choose the right verses from the New Testament to form an argument for taking it literally, but, he was unable to articulate that argument or those verses for me.  I can't blame him for that, he's not a Biblical scholar with instant command of every argument...since he is overall a rational thinker I trust he must have heard a compelling (to him) argument somewhere.  I've tried searching for that argument online but I must be using the wrong terms, or nobody has really written about it here yet, because I haven't found much.

So, can someone here explain the argument that Genesis must absolutely be taken literally?

It seems like Christians are shifting more toward that opinion today than in recent history.  Just a decade or so ago I seem to recall my mom (a Christian) saying "a day for God isn't necessarily a day as we think of it".  But now she, too, is waxing literal/fundamentalist.  Why the shift?

I am currently re-reading Genesis, a bit at a time.  I made a pretty crude argument when talking to this friend...  I said, "God says the serpent will eat dirt forever...we know serpents don't eat dirt...so obviously God was speaking figuratively, right, not literally?"  He told me that is viewed to be Messianic prophecy.  If that is the case, I wondered where the guide is that states which verses in Genesis are to be taken literally, and which are to be taken figuratively as Messianic prophecy or some other prophecy, but our conversation did not go that route.  Can anyone explain this?

Any insight into these matters would be much appreciated!

I think the real reason for biblical literalism is insecurity. People who aren't really secure in their faith look for "THE Book" that would be absolutely inerrant and completely factual in every single word it contains. When they as much as hear that still something in THE Book does not quite correspond to reality, they say something like this: "if SOMETHING in the Word of God is not true, then how am I supposed to know that it's not like EVERYTHING there is not true?"

Personally, I could care less about factuality, historicity etc. of the Biblical account of Creation, Fall, Deluge, etc. My source of Truth is not THE Book but my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Who teaches me through my Church. The Church never made the literal understanding of Genesis a dogmat endorsed by Her Ecumenical Councils. Many wonderful men of God, bishops of this Church have made statements that they do not take Genesis as literal history and they do not advise their flock to take it literally. So I know that I am not in any kind of error in this regard.

You can see that there are two views in Orthodoxy. Some seem to take a literalistic viewpoint, and therefore anything they find in common with the Church fathers is a view that they should take on the Biblical stories.

Others try to find what effects their faith directly including the correct dogmas of the Church.  With this, they may or may not take the passages literally.  This view is not new.  It's also an old view as well.  It may not be as widely held, but we can see that there were views that were widely held that were later discarded.  Therefore, these people have no problem is accept scientific theories and maintaining their own fidelity to the Bible and Church tradition.

You will find Protestants who are very similar in diversity as Orthodox when it comes to Genesis.  There will be Protestants, like the Dr. Francis Collins, who abandoned atheism, who takes Genesis allegorically. Other Protestants take Genesis literally, and these are the famous Creationists.  In either case, both groups are also similar to the Orthodox by taking their support if not from Church fathers, from immediate influential preachers of the past. Dr. Francis Collins have gotten his influence clearly from CS Lewis as he writes in his book. Many others have attempted a compromise, like Old Earth Creationism (accepting death before Fall, but rejecting evolution), Old Earth Evolutionism except Man (accepting death, evolving creatures, but man completely separate), and Theistic Evolution within Biblical teachings (i.e. the Bible teaches evolution), all of which exist in the Protestant tradition, somewhat in the Orthodox.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"The key thing about that which I don't understand is why those adhering to that belief felt compelled to take Genesis literally in the first place.  I suspect there is some way to pick and choose the right verses from the New Testament to form an argument for taking it literally, but, he was unable to articulate that argument or those verses for me.  I can't blame him for that, he's not a Biblical scholar with instant command of every argument...since he is overall a rational thinker I trust he must have heard a compelling (to him) argument somewhere.  I've tried searching for that argument online but I must be using the wrong terms, or nobody has really written about it here yet, because I haven't found much.

So, can someone here explain the argument that Genesis must absolutely be taken literally?

Jesus referred to the flood and A&E as historical events/persons. For example:

Matt 24
 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

To the OP:

Whenever the Hebrew word "yom" appears with evening, morning, or a number it is then understood to be a 24 hour period. Genesis 1 has Not just one, but all three for each of the creation days, therefore "yom" CLEARLY means a 24 hour day in Genesis 1. Pretty straight forward I'd say, no?

Quote from: Black36 on August 19, 2011, 03:46:21 AM
To the OP:

Whenever the Hebrew word "yom" appears with evening, morning, or a number it is then understood to be a 24 hour period. Genesis 1 has Not just one, but all three for each of the creation days, therefore "yom" CLEARLY means a 24 hour day in Genesis 1. Pretty straight forward I'd say, no?

No, it is not straight forward at all. And YEC'ers are quite biased in this.

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press):

Quote"It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."

Examples:
Genesis 4:3 = growing season.
Jdg 11:40 = Four days out of a year.
Deuteronomy 10:10 = forty days.
Num 9:22 = month or year.
I Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19 & 20, Amos 4:4, Exo 13:10 = year.
I Kings 11:42 = 40 years.
Isaiah 30:8 = forever.
Genesis 18:11 and 24:1; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2 = old age.
Samuel 9:20 = ago
Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, 2 Chronicles 18:7 = Always
Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7, 2 Chronicles 15:3 = Season
Deuteronomy 19:9 and 18 other instances = Ever
Psalm 23:6 and 16 other instances = for ever
Deuteronomy 28:29 = Evermore
Genesis 1:3-31 = Is a bad translation in that Yom is a "long time". If YEC'ers want to go the literal "day" route, then in Genesis 2:4, all six creative days are referred to as one all-embracing "day."
Gen 1:5 = 12 hours

As I have shown, Yom can mean just about any period of time, all the way to infinity. YEC'ers conclusions to the contrary are not supported by Hebrew linguists. This strict 24 hour day only definition are linguistic rules created by Hebrew YEC'ers and their viewpoint is obviously biased. They have a specific agenda they are trying to prove, and thus cannot be objective and Christian YEC'ers have picked up on it to conform to their worldview.

Quote from: Black36 on August 19, 2011, 03:46:21 AM
To the OP:

Whenever the Hebrew word "yom" appears with evening, morning, or a number it is then understood to be a 24 hour period. Genesis 1 has Not just one, but all three for each of the creation days, therefore "yom" CLEARLY means a 24 hour day in Genesis 1. Pretty straight forward I'd say, no?

You have shown what? That yom can mean things other than a 24 hour period, well sure, no one denies this. What I have shown is why it means a 24 hour period in the verses I cited. Plus, some of your examples are also 24 hour periods for yom as well, so I don't get why you chose them all when some back my position.

Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:31:14 PM

Quote from: Black36 on August 19, 2011, 03:46:21 AM
To the OP:

Whenever the Hebrew word "yom" appears with evening, morning, or a number it is then understood to be a 24 hour period. Genesis 1 has Not just one, but all three for each of the creation days, therefore "yom" CLEARLY means a 24 hour day in Genesis 1. Pretty straight forward I'd say, no?

You have shown what? That yom can mean things other than a 24 hour period, well sure, no one denies this. What I have shown is why it means a 24 hour period in the verses I cited. Plus, some of your examples are also 24 hour periods for yom as well, so I don't get why you chose them all when some back my position.

Arguing with yourself now?

Quote from: Ihateyoumike on August 27, 2011, 06:48:21 PM

Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:31:14 PM

Quote from: Black36 on August 19, 2011, 03:46:21 AM
To the OP:

Whenever the Hebrew word "yom" appears with evening, morning, or a number it is then understood to be a 24 hour period. Genesis 1 has Not just one, but all three for each of the creation days, therefore "yom" CLEARLY means a 24 hour day in Genesis 1. Pretty straight forward I'd say, no?

You have shown what? That yom can mean things other than a 24 hour period, well sure, no one denies this. What I have shown is why it means a 24 hour period in the verses I cited. Plus, some of your examples are also 24 hour periods for yom as well, so I don't get why you chose them all when some back my position.

Arguing with yourself now?

???