|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Not reading God's Word right is just wrong. No talking snakes! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Don't make the mistake of viewing evangelical Christians as a monolithic group. Not all evangelical Christians accept a worldwide flood or young-earth creationism. Many evangelical Christians hold to a local flood, and some to a mythical flood. Many hold to an old earth (and a century ago, the majority of evangelical leaders held to an old earth.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
It's hard to follow the context because Greentwiga wasn't using the message reply button for a while, but if you go back to my Message 50 you'll see some of the context, and I posted a message somewhere before that about Adam and Eve. Greentwiga's argument is that the Bible actually says that it was a local flood (not that it can be reinterpreted as a myth that grew around a local flood), or that the Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman (not that it can be reinterpreted from a myth about a single man and woman). I was telling Greentwiga that he should convince other evangelicals of these things before trying to convince us, the point being that if he can't even convince his most receptive audience then he certainly isn't going to convince us.
We all understand that some within the evangelical movement hold non-YEC views, but not only are they are a small minority, they do not agree with Greentwiga that the literal meaning of Genesis is what he says it is. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Oh, I try talking to the Evangelicals. Most are not trained as scientists so they have a hard time debating the facts. I would be kicked out of most of the Churches that I like to attend, not because my ideas are wrong, but because each Churches traditional beliefs are unassailable. I am working on ways to present my study (read writing a book) but currently prefer to try presenting ideas where they will be debated. You have said that the flood and the garden were myths possibly growing up around a real event like a local flood. I am presenting evidence that the Garden was a real event at a real time, and presented a conflict between two know religions. Even the talking serpent relates to known religious beliefs. Again, I enjoy your response to and challenging my ideas.
(sorry for the confusion caused by my not understanding at first how to use the reply button)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What the original writer meant and what you assume can be two different things. That is why I want to try to understand what the original writer meant, that is the most literal interpretation. Um, no. The Peshat is the most literal interpretation. What you are considering is the Derash.
The difference. When interpreting the Derash, the text cannot lose its Peshat. The problem I have with your stuff is that intead of reading the Bible and obtaining a meaning, you have obtained a meaning and then are trying to fit the Bible into it. Its bad theology, imho.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
I have a Masters in Intercultural Communication in addition to two degrees from Fundamentalist Bible Schools. I have very carefully scoured the texts, including the Hebrew, and frequently discarded my Hypotheses. Much of what I have said is conclusions that I reluctantly arrived at. I mention my masters to indicate that I am well trained in the concepts of communication that I am talking about. It is not what I think the Bible says, but what the writer was trying to say. What seems obvious to me can be dead wrong. I constantly seek to challenge my preconceived notions. I am also a scientist and am well trained in the scientific method. I know what bad science is, and cherry picking facts that fit my preconceived notions is bad science. I don't do that with the Bible either. By the way, I haven't heard the terms Peshat and Derash. Can you explain them? Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Yet you can't justify your reading of Genesis 5. Why should the fact that the chapter claims to be about the descendants of Adam causes you to assume that the man of Genesis 5:2 is not Adam and is completely unrelated to Adam ? Nor can you explain how you can have a reading of the Flood story that fits with the evidence. According to your own source the floods found in the archaeology are limited in area even within Sumeria, and did not cause massive depopulation even of the area that they did cover.
The Mesopotamian strata, whether at Ur or at Kish and Suruppak, testify only to a local flood which clearly left behind survivors and significant cultural continuity.
Also note:
No other Mesopotamian sites have produced flood remains of significance
Even your reading of Genesis 2 requires conflating the domestication of wheat with the start of farming - you treat those two distinct ideas as if they were interchangeable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
By the way, I haven't heard the terms Peshat and Derash. Can you explain them? Google them or try wikipedia. Wikipedia has decent laymens descriptions. What the hell, here are the links.
PeshatDerash Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I have a Masters in Intercultural Communication in addition to two degrees from Fundamentalist Bible Schools. Yeah? Well I'm Catholic.
I have very carefully scoured the texts, including the Hebrew, And your unfamiliar with PARDES!? weird...
Much of what I have said is conclusions that I reluctantly arrived at. ... It is not what I think the Bible says, but what the writer was trying to say. You honestly think that? Or are you just sayin'? Because, from your posts here, you seem to have an agenda. You seem to want to maintain the Bible's literal inerrancy while keeping it in tune with modern science and you are interpreting the text in whatever way you have to in order to acheive this.
I am also a scientist and am well trained in the scientific method. I know what bad science is, and cherry picking facts that fit my preconceived notions is bad science. I don't do that with the Bible either. But that is exatcly what you are doing in multiple threads here. Do you not see this at all!? You cherry pick facts from Genesis to support your Garden of Eden theory and ignore all the ones that contradict it. And the ones that you can't ignore you twist into wild interpretation until they fit within your preconceived notion. I'm baffeled at how you can think that you are doing the exact opposite of what you are actually doing!?
By the way, I haven't heard the terms Peshat and Derash. Can you explain them? Thanks Did you see this part right here:
The difference. That its a different color and underlined means that you can click on it and it will link you to another page.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
greentwiga writes: Much of what I have said is conclusions that I reluctantly arrived at. I mention my masters to indicate that I am well trained in the concepts of communication that I am talking about. Did any of that communications training touch on the use of paragraphs at all? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
I have a Masters in Intercultural Communication in addition to two degrees from Fundamentalist Bible Schools. I have very carefully scoured the texts, including the Hebrew, and frequently discarded my Hypotheses. Much of what I have said is conclusions that I reluctantly arrived at. I mention my masters to indicate that I am well trained in the concepts of communication that I am talking about. It is not what I think the Bible says, but what the writer was trying to say. What seems obvious to me can be dead wrong. I constantly seek to challenge my preconceived notions. I am also a scientist and am well trained in the scientific method. I know what bad science is, and cherry picking facts that fit my preconceived notions is bad science. I don't do that with the Bible either. Here's your logic chain, greentwiga. PREMISE: The Bible is inerrant. HYPOTHESIS: If the Bible is inerrant, but a direct reading of the Bible contradicts scientific knowledge, the original author's meaning must have been lost in translation. FACT: Genesis recounts a global flood in which everything on teh Earth that breathes dies save the inhabitants of the Ark. FACT: Geology does not support a global flood FACT: Archeology does support a severe local flood in Mesopotamia circa 2900 BC. CONCLUSION: The author's original meaning was not a global flood, but was rather the local flood in Mesopotamia circa 2900 BC. The Bible is inerrant. Your conclusion regarding the author's original intent requires that you presuppose the author's inerrancy. You are assuming from the beginning that the Bible is inerrant, and therefore and preceived errors must be errors of translation. Without that basic assumption, your entire reason for re-interpreting the text to say anything other than what it plainly says disappears. Your conclusion is thus contained in your premise, and you are engaged in circular reasoning.
By the way, I haven't heard the terms Peshat and Derash. Can you explain them? Thanks How can you claim to be able to find the original intent of the author without even knowing the Hebrew rules of interpretation? You didn't learn this in your multiple degree programs at fundamentalist universities?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Your link was the first I had heard of it, too (and I have an MA in theology). If you look at your link, you will see that "Pardes" is a method used in "rabbinic Judaism." And as far as I can tell, it is pretty much restricted to rabbinic Judaism. This method is not used in Christian biblical exegesis, and I do not believe it is used in broader biblical studies, either. Mainstream Christian biblical exegesis seems to be analogous to the "Peshat" portion of your "Pardes." ("Peshat bears striking parallels and has been compared to the concept of Exegesis.") The wiki entries on Exegesis and Biblical_hermeneutics are pretty poor, but under the latter you will at least find an outline of the "techniques of hermeneutics" as described by Virkler. This is pretty much the standard Christian approach. (The classic text is "Protestant Biblical Interpretation" by Bernard Ramm, though wiki doesn't mention it.) As greentwiga implied, the assumption is that the original author was trying to communicate something to his contemporaries; our goal is to try to understand what this author meant to communicate. This is sometimes imprecisely called a "literal" method of interpretation; it is better called a "historical-cultural-grammatical-literary" method of interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Your link was the first I had heard of it, too (and I have an MA in theology). Did you study the Hebrew?
If you look at your link, you will see that "Pardes" is a method used in "rabbinic Judaism." And as far as I can tell, it is pretty much restricted to rabbinic Judaism. This method is not used in Christian biblical exegesis, and I do not believe it is used in broader biblical studies, either. Oh... okay. You're the one with the theology degree. PARDES usually only comes up when the Hebrew comes out. What I though was wierd was that greentwiga wrote:
quote:emphasis added I just figured that PARDES would come up at least once if you're carefully scouring the Hebrew. Maybe you can clear that up for me. Did you too study the Hebrew and have never heard of PARDES?
As greentwiga implied, the assumption is that the original author was trying to communicate something to his contemporaries; our goal is to try to understand what this author meant to communicate. I get what he's doing. The problem I have is when you take something from today and shoehorn it into the Bible in the sole effort of maintaining inerrancy. I find it dishonest. That's not what the author really meant. You're just making it out to be that way for another reason.
This is sometimes imprecisely called a "literal" method of interpretation; it is better called a "historical-cultural-grammatical-literary" method of interpretation. I agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
In my family genealogy, we list all the children of a couple (that we can find.) The ancient genealogies did it different. Sometimes they just added, and other children. Sometimes, but rarely, they added the wife. Other times they skipped one or many Generations. In all cases, they only highlighted the people that were significant for some reason such as the direct descendant, or the one that started a tribe or town. Gen 5 is the book of the generations of Adam, so I would not expect the person to list the people before Adam, but it does list at least some of the generations after Adam. Look at the Generations of Noah in Chap 10. We can still trace about half to known people groups and it seems likely that the other half were also, but it seems like many people were left out. Should I insist the genealogies fit the American method or one of these ancient methods?
My reading of Gen associates Adam with the start of farming of wheat. The harvesting that scientists say happened before the Younger Dryas did not entail tilling and cultivating. Whether Adam also domesticated the rest of the farming package, I don't know. I do know that one of Adam's sons kept flocks. Either at the same time or shortly after wheat was domesticated, sheep were being kept and undergoing the domestication process. Scientists say sheep, goats, pigs and Cattle were all domesticated near Karacadag, but not necessarily at there. They also say sheep, goats, and possibly pigs were undergoing domestication at about the same time as wheat. If there are other scientific studies, proving the scientists I have read are wrong, I am willing to listen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
In my family genealogy, we list all the children of a couple (that we can find.) The ancient genealogies did it different. Sometimes they just added, and other children. Sometimes, but rarely, they added the wife. Other times they skipped one or many Generations. In all cases, they only highlighted the people that were significant for some reason such as the direct descendant, or the one that started a tribe or town. Gen 5 is the book of the generations of Adam, so I would not expect the person to list the people before Adam, but it does list at least some of the generations after Adam. Look at the Generations of Noah in Chap 10. We can still trace about half to known people groups and it seems likely that the other half were also, but it seems like many people were left out. Should I insist the genealogies fit the American method or one of these ancient methods? My reading of Gen associates Adam with the start of farming of wheat. The harvesting that scientists say happened before the Younger Dryas did not entail tilling and cultivating. Whether Adam also domesticated the rest of the farming package, I don't know. I do know that one of Adam's sons kept flocks. Either at the same time or shortly after wheat was domesticated, sheep were being kept and undergoing the domestication process. Scientists say sheep, goats, pigs and Cattle were all domesticated near Karacadag, but not necessarily at there. They also say sheep, goats, and possibly pigs were undergoing domestication at about the same time as wheat. If there are other scientific studies, proving the scientists I have read are wrong, I am willing to listen. Before Adam?! The Bible is even more clear on this than it is about the global flood, greentwiga. Adam was supposed to be the first man. Not the first farmer, or the first farmer of wheat, the first human being, made in god's image. Eve was the first woman, made from his rib. What crazy Bizzarro-Bible have you been reading that supports the idea that Adam was anything other than the very first human being?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I'm glad that you agree with me now. Because that is not what you said before - not at all.
quote: Neither would the earliest stages of the domestication of wheat require tilling and cultivating - because domestication, by definition, requires starting with wild stock. But that's not what your reading of Genesis 2 says - there's no mention of domestication as such.If you want to say Genesis 2 is an inaccurate and mythologised account of the beginnings of farming then you might have some small case. But that's all this approach can get you. It's the same with the flood. You haven't got evidence of a real event that can be made to fit the Biblical description. quote: Odd how you're so certain that no generations were left out there !
quote: Given the uncertainty over the date of the domestication of wheat - and that your view requires a very early date in that range - that's little comfort for your views. Wikipedia may not be the most reliable of sources but it reports goats being domesticated in Iran around 10,000 BC and Cattle not until 8,000 BC (and their reference is to a site in Egypt). Not so near.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024