The Bible as literature

[RadioFan]

I thought about posting this shortly after I saw it, but we didn't have a theology forum. Some here might find this to be an interesting read. With a few exceptions, I think the guy nailed it. The link is a PDF, as it's an archived pay article, by one of the opinion writers for the T-W. There's also a "Bible quiz" for those who are interested -- a sampling of the Gallup poll questions, which most here will get without any probs. There's also a followup column, for anybody who's interested. Ask and I'll post it.

Bible class
Students need knowledge of influential book

MIKE JONES
World Associate Editor
11/06/2005
Tulsa World, Page G1 of Opinion

One of the most influential, important and beautifully written books in the history of the world is, for the most part, absent from most public schools. And the students are paying the price.

The Bible -- Old and New Testaments -- is critical to the learning process of young people. An absence of biblical knowledge is most evident in English and literature classes. Students with no background in the teachings of the Bible find themselves confused by the references to religion that permeate our books, particularly novels.

First, it must be said, that the teaching of religion, any religion, in the public schools is unacceptable. It is not the place of public schools to endorse any religion or indoctrinate the students in a particular religion. Religious beliefs and teachings are best left to the home and the church.

That said, however, the importance of the Bible as literature is undeniable. And there might well be a place in the public schools for a course in the Bible as literature. Not as science. Not as history. As literature.

A survey -- the Bible Literacy Report -- was published last spring by the Bible Literacy Project (a non-profit organization) in conjunction with the John Temple Foundation and the Gallup Organization. Neither the Bible Literacy Project nor the Templeton Foundation has any ties to a particular religion and neither seems to have an agenda. The Gallup Organization is a well-known and non-partisan polling group.

The results of the survey are fascinating and somewhat disturbing.

There were 41 high school English teachers (22 women and 19 men) interviewed for the project. They were from 34 schools (from small rural schools to cities of 3 million people) and 10 states (California, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin). The full report, complete with charts and graphs, can be found at http://www.bibleliteracy.org.

The great majority of the English teachers, 40 of 41, believe that a working knowledge of the Bible gives students an advantage over those who have little or no such background.

It makes sense. Literature is replete with references to the Bible. For example, John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" and "East of Eden" are direct references to the Bible.

In "The Grapes of Wrath" one of Steinbeck's characters, Rose of Sharon of the Joad family, makes a decision in the end to sacrifice and give life. Her name is taken from the Song of Solomon -- "I am the rose of Sharon, the lily of the valleys." Some biblical scholars believe that the rose of Sharon is also a symbol for Jesus Christ. A student who knew that could make more sense of the decision by Steinbeck's Rose of Sharon.

In George Orwell's "Animal Farm" the raven, Moses, sets out to free the farm animals from bondage. A list of seven commandments is established. The metaphor is obvious, at least for those with some understanding of the Bible.

A list of biblical references in literature is too long to list. The struggle between good and evil in William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" (another name for Beelzebub or Satan) stands out. But other authors from William Shakespeare to Charles Dickens to Nathaniel Hawthorne to the writers of today have salted their novels and plays with references to the Bible.

So, why do public schools not teach Bible courses? Because most teachers, parents and school boards find the issue too confusing.

Many teachers who introduce elements of the Bible into their classes say they see the benefits but remain cautious and on edge.

One teacher in the survey said that teaching the Bible as literature is difficult because "There's the issue of not wanting to get in trouble. And that's just big. It's gigantic."

Another said that she introduced some Bible passages into her class and her students handled it objectively. "But," she said, "we're always nervous."

The problem is the two extremes. One group wants no mention of any sort of religion anywhere in a school. They protest organized prayers by students and insist that "under God" be removed from the "Pledge of Allegiance."

The other side wants religion and the Bible taught in public school, but usually only their brand of religion. They want organized prayer, but only their prayer.

If the Bible could be seen and taught as a tool of literature, it could be a great help to students and teachers. The Gallup survey interviewed 1,002 teenagers 13 to 18. Forty-six percent were in the ninth grade, 35 percent in the 10th or 11th grade and 16 percent in grade 12 or higher. Eighty-five percent attended public schools, 11 percent private or parochial and 2 percent were home schooled.

The good news is that 85 percent knew why we celebrate Easter; 72 percent correctly identified Moses; 90 percent correctly identified Adam and Eve; 70 percent knew of the Good Samaritan.

On the other hand, only 49 percent knew what happened at the wedding at Cana (Jesus turned water into wine); 37 percent could identify a quote from the Sermon on the Mount; a mere 34 percent knew of Paul's encounter on the road to Damascus (Paul was blinded by a vision of Christ and converted to Christianity).

There are many other interesting and surprising findings in the poll. One is that born-again and Evangelical teens were only slightly more knowledgeable about the Bible than other teens interviewed.

Another is that only 10 percent of the students could name all five of the world's major religions (Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism).

A knowledge of the Bible is an important tool in education. Some kids, me included, were taught Bible lessons in Sunday school. Later on, one of my favorite classes in college -- and one of the few that I made a decent grade in -- was the teachings of Paul.

Learning about and understanding the Bible can be interesting and fun. It played a huge role in the formation of this country. But, despite what some hardliners say, the country was never meant to be a strictly Christian nation.

Teaching the Bible as literature in school is a thin and difficult line. Maybe it is best left to the home. But more and more it seems that young people are not getting that training at home.

Teaching the Bible, or the Quran or the Torah for that matter, as literature, not as religion, in school might be the answer. Any attempt to do so, however, is likely destined to failure.

One thing is for sure, kids without a knowledge of the Bible are at a disadvantage. Not only in literature, but in life.

[Diogenes]

Good article-except for this part...

First, it must be said, that the teaching of religion, any religion, in the public schools is unacceptable.

...at least until they stop indoctrinatating students with Darwinism, moral relativism, multiculturalism etc. Our schools could use a little emphasis on ethics, morality, and an open evaluation of different belief systems and faiths.

Just another reason for school choice.

[RadioFan]

Our schools could use a little emphasis on ethics, morality, and an open evaluation of different belief systems and faiths.

Yes.

I think there are a lot of good teachers who try to do just that, through example, if nothing else. Of course, there are also a lot of other teachers and administrators who play favorites regarding certain students, no matter how abhorrent their behavior. An end to that shit would be a good start.

[poptart]

Schools presenting the Bible as 'an important piece of literature' is like reading Playboy for the articles.

[Diogenes]

Schools presenting the Bible as 'an important piece of literature' is like reading Playboy for the articles.

Nonsense. I challenge you to present a more culturally significant work than the Bible.

Are you saying there aren't informative, thought provoking articles in Playboy?

His point is obviously that the Bible is much more than literature, not less. Of course, all this is moot as any attempt to allow access to the Bible in schools even as literature runs the risk that students would be interested enough to actually read it, which would be anathema to those in charge.

[poptart]

Schools presenting the Bible as 'an important piece of literature' is like reading Playboy for the articles.

Nonsense. I challenge you to present a more culturally significant work than the Bible.

You're right, mvscal.
There aren't any.

Dio is also right.
In 2006, there's no way the 'Bible as important education literature' can of worms gets opened.

[Diogenes]

Schools presenting the Bible as 'an important piece of literature' is like reading Playboy for the articles.

Nonsense. I challenge you to present a more culturally significant work than the Bible.

You're right, mvscal.
There aren't any.

Dio is also right.
In 2006, there's no way the 'Bible as important education literature' can of worms gets opened.

Did I mention this was just another reason for School Choice?

Just checking, save your dead-horse-kicking pics.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Actually, there's no educational reason why you couldn't legally teach a course in which the Bible is examined from a literary or even historical point of view. I know that the "Global Studies" (i.e., what we used to call "social studies") course taught to 9th/10th graders in NY pretty much has to touch upon Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (and therefore, the Bible). The eastern religions also get taught. Because of the context in which it is taught (comparitive religions and their impacts on cultures and history), the Bible is "neutral" and thus fair game.

Teaching the Bible and/or Chrsitinaity as "the most correct one" would be an obvious problem in a public school.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Actually, there's no educational reason why you couldn't legally teach a course in which the Bible is examined from a literary or even historical point of view. I know that the "Global Studies" (i.e., what we used to call "social studies") course taught to 9th/10th graders in NY pretty much has to touch upon Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (and therefore, the Bible). The eastern religions also get taught. Because of the context in which it is taught (comparitive religions and their impacts on cultures and history), the Bible is "neutral" and thus fair game.

Teaching the Bible and/or Chrsitinaity as "the most correct one" would be an obvious problem in a public school.

I'm not quite sure what the social studies courseload is now, but I remember that back in the old days when I was in high school, we had Afro-Asian Culture Studies in 9th grade and European Culture Studies in 10th grade. The Afro-Asian course included a chunk of time spent on the Middle East, and in the context of that time it touched on Islam, Judaism and even Christianity. We also touched on a number of different eastern religions, such as Buddhism, Shintoism and Confucianism.

You can't teach European history without touching significantly on the history of the Catholic Church (indeed, our knowledge of the Dark Ages comes almost exclusively from the Catholic Church), or, for that matter, the Protestant Reformation.

Having said all of that, I went to a Catholic high school, so my high school may have had a little more freedom in that regard.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I'm not quite sure what the social studies courseload is now, but I remember that back in the old days when I was in high school, we had Afro-Asian Culture Studies in 9th grade and European Culture Studies in 10th grade. The Afro-Asian course included a chunk of time spent on the Middle East, and in the context of that time it touched on Islam, Judaism and even Christianity. We also touched on a number of different eastern religions, such as Buddhism, Shintoism and Confucianism.

You can't teach European history without touching significantly on the history of the Catholic Church (indeed, our knowledge of the Dark Ages comes almost exclusively from the Catholic Church), or, for that matter, the Protestant Reformation.

Having said all of that, I went to a Catholic high school, so my high school may have had a little more freedom in that regard.

Actually, what you described is pretty much what they teach now, except that it's now a two-part course called "Global Studies." It follows the fine tradition of pointlessly renaming coursework, as they've done in math (Math 1, 2, 3; Course A, Course B, etc.). They still teach American history in junior year.

Hell, my course went from "Biology" to "The Living Environment."

[battery chucka' one]

I think it is important to note that the Bible is incredibly accurate as a historical document. Jesus Christ, whether or not you accept Him as God, is one of the most pivotal and influential figures in the history of mankind. Just sayin'.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I think it is important to note that the Bible is incredibly accurate as a historical document.

I think that the accuracy increases as you get closer to modern times (i.e., the New Testament stuff), but the Old Testament is just laughable - giants, the Tower of Babel, Garden of Eden, talking snakes, Jewish slaves building the pyramids, etc. Some parts are accurate, some aren't. I don't worry too much about it, since I consider it a magnificent collection of a people's understanding/interpretation of how God worked throughout their lives and history. The writers weren't historians in the modern sense and weren't writing for the same purpose that modern historians write. This view gives the Biblical literalists fits, but that's their problem, not mine.

Jesus Christ, whether or not you accept Him as God, is one of the most pivotal and influential figures in the history of mankind. Just sayin'.

Concur - although I am also biased, seeing as how I believe He is God.

[battery chucka' one]

I think that the accuracy increases as you get closer to modern times (i.e., the New Testament stuff), but the Old Testament is just laughable - giants, the Tower of Babel, Garden of Eden, talking snakes, Jewish slaves building the pyramids, etc. Some parts are accurate, some aren't. I don't worry too much about it, since I consider it a magnificent collection of a people's understanding/interpretation of how God worked throughout their lives and history. The writers weren't historians in the modern sense and weren't writing for the same purpose that modern historians write. This view gives the Biblical literalists fits, but that's their problem, not mine.

Might I please answer some of these in a 'might be how' manner?

giants-nephilim-dinosaurs?

tower of babel- Who knows? The tower itself isn't as important as the event's supposed impact on the world.

garden of eden-my minister claims that it probably existed and was destroyed in the flood

Talking snakes-again, who knows? There's a talking donkey too. I do know, however, that it is within the realm of possibility when you're talking about God and the Devil. I've heard peeps talking in tongues. I can believe this.

Jewish peeps with the pyramids-does it say (in exodus) that they did this or did it just say that they were slaved? I'm not sure.
-----

Like you said, it's ultimately not horribly important. Bottom line, I worship God, not the Bible. Agree with you mostly as a Christian brother, though.

[battery chucka' one]

btw, satellite photos seem to have found Sodom and Gommorah at the bottom of the Dead Sea. That would be a bit of a telling symbolism with regards to God's feelings of the cities (burn them, then salt the ground so nothing could grow there again).

[RadioFan]

Might I please answer some of these in a 'might be how' manner?

giants-nephilim-dinosaurs?

tower of babel- Who knows? The tower itself isn't as important as the event's supposed impact on the world.

garden of eden-my minister claims that it probably existed and was destroyed in the flood

Talking snakes-again, who knows? There's a talking donkey too. I do know, however, that it is within the realm of possibility when you're talking about God and the Devil. I've heard peeps talking in tongues. I can believe this.

Jewish peeps with the pyramids-does it say (in exodus) that they did this or did it just say that they were slaved? I'm not sure.
-----

Like you said, it's ultimately not horribly important. Bottom line, I worship God, not the Bible. Agree with you mostly as a Christian brother, though.

All of that dosn't make you any less of a tard in the posting category, brother.

[RadioFan]

btw, satellite photos seem to have found Sodom and Gommorah at the bottom of the Dead Sea.

Satellite photos have also "seem to have found" Noah's Ark in Turkey.

[battery chucka' one]

btw, satellite photos seem to have found Sodom and Gommorah at the bottom of the Dead Sea.

Satellite photos have also "seem to have found" Noah's Ark in Turkey.

Actually, Turkish and American air force pilots regularly see Noah's Ark. It's not theoretical to them; it's a fact.

http://www.darkgovernment.com/board3/vi ... p?tid=1432

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/kids ... ahark.html

These above, unfortunately, are satellite photos. Sorry you don't seem to trust those.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Actually, no reputable scientific group honestly buys into the Noah's Ark satellite crap. Here's a link from national Geographic that that follows up the other NG link you posted:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... s_ark.html

Noah's Ark was a big ole fairy tale, probably lifted and adapted from another culture.

[Diogenes]

Actually there is no scientific or historical way to verify whether the ark story is literal or allegory. That doesn't make it any more or less possible, or those who believe it occured enemies of science. The same goes for all of the accounts in Genesis you dismiss out of hand. Just because they clash with your preconcieved notions doesn't make them untrue, just as the fact that others believe them to be more than allegory doesn't make them proven events.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Actually there is no scientific or historical way to verify whether the ark story is literal or allegory.

And since the concept of a TARDIS-like ship that was carrying seven of each of clean animals and two of the unclean plus additional provisions is scientifically untenable, most historians and scientists probably opt for the non-literal interpretation of the story. Those claiming that the story is true have the burden of proof, as they're the ones who have made the positive existential claim, or they have the option of taking it on faith (a non-scientific decision).

That doesn't make it any more or less possible, or those who believe it occured enemies of science.

Agreed on the second point.

The same goes for all of the accounts in Genesis you dismiss out of hand. Just because they clash with your preconcieved notions doesn't make them untrue, just as the fact that others believe them to be more than allegory doesn't make them proven events.

Unless one is willing to completely suspend disbelief and enter a magical fantasy world, only deluded Biblical literalists could buy into the accounts of Genesis. Period.

[Diogenes]

Actually there is no scientific or historical way to verify whether the ark story is literal or allegory.

And since the concept of a TARDIS-like ship that was carrying seven of each of clean animals and two of the unclean plus additional provisions is scientifically untenable, most historians and scientists probably opt for the non-literal interpretation of the story.

No, they embrace a hyper-literal interpretation of the account, assuming that when Genesis refers two two of each kind it means two poodles, two spaniels, two german shepards etc., instead of two dogs. Post-dileuvian devolution would explain the variety in type within a species, just as it does various human 'races'.

The same goes for all of the accounts in Genesis you dismiss out of hand. Just because they clash with your preconcieved notions doesn't make them untrue, just as the fact that others believe them to be more than allegory doesn't make them proven events.

Unless one is willing to completely suspend disbelief and enter a magical fantasy world, only deluded Biblical literalists could buy into the accounts of Genesis. Period.

Wrong. But someone with an a priori disbelief in the miraculous or divine would of course dismiss them out of hand.

[poptart]

Unless one is willing to completely suspend disbelief and enter a magical fantasy world, only deluded Biblical literalists could buy into the accounts of Genesis. Period.

Says he who believes that a man rose from the dead.

[battery chucka' one]

Unless one is willing to completely suspend disbelief and enter a magical fantasy world, only deluded Biblical literalists could buy into the accounts of Genesis. Period.

Says he who believes that a man rose from the dead.

A man who 1) bested the devil 2) walked on water 3) raised the dead and 4) lived a perfect, flawless life.

[poptart]

Yes.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Unless one is willing to completely suspend disbelief and enter a magical fantasy world, only deluded Biblical literalists could buy into the accounts of Genesis. Period.

Says he who believes that a man rose from the dead.

Yes, I'll concede that one as a matter of faith, but even then my faith in that area is bolstered a bit by the fact that his followers, the men who claimed to have seen Him after he rose from the dead, are considered to be actual individuals (as opposed to possible composite characters, like Moses) with historical evidence of their existence and who pretty much all died martyrs' deaths in defending that Resurrection. Tie that in to the relative "newness" of the accounts (when compared to the OT) and the comparitive historical accuracy in general, and the NT holds up better. If scholars determined, for example, that Pontius Pilate, Herod, and the Disciples never actually existed, I'd probably dismiss the NT (and therefore Christianity) as casually as I dismiss the accuracy of the OT. To do otherwise would be sheer stupidity (e.g., the Mormons' idicy of buying into the Book of Mor[m]on).

Genesis and chunks of the OT, IMNSHO, is comparable to frigging Greek or Roman fables. I don't believe a shred of the Garden of Eden story, Noah, Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. Nope. Cute stories by scientifically-illiterate folks attempting to better process the "how we got here's" and "why's" of things.

This is one of those deep, fundamental religious chasms betwixt you and I, but at least after all this time, we both know where the other stands...

[RadioFan]

Genesis and chunks of the OT, IMNSHO, is comparable to frigging Greek or Roman fables. I don't believe a shred of the Garden of Eden story, Noah, Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. Nope. Cute stories by scientifically-illiterate folks attempting to better process the "how we got here's" and "why's" of things.

There may be a small grain of truth in some of the stories, on a local (Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed by an earthquake or other natural phenomena) or regional (the flood) level only.

But with those possible exceptions, I agree. As far as taking literally these stories, it seems to me a rather naive view, to say the least. The people who wrote the OT thought the Earth was basically a flat plain with mountains that encompassed an area of a few hundred square miles, literally sitting on the back of a giant turtle. These people had no clue about anything in the physical world beyond their region, in which there was constant fighting and a virtual nonexistence of what we would call rational thought.

What I find interesting is that ancient cultures compleley seperated from one another have many of the same stories (a "great flood," a "snake" tempting people, etc.). Two possible explanations for that -- either the same basic stories spread from one location to other parts of the world over thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years, and were changed slightly to explain conditions in the local region, OR the human psyche is the same all over the world and people found similar ways to answer unanswerable questions through myth.

[Diogenes]

Genesis and chunks of the OT, IMNSHO, is comparable to frigging Greek or Roman fables. I don't believe a shred of the Garden of Eden story, Noah, Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. Nope. Cute stories by scientifically-illiterate folks attempting to better process the "how we got here's" and "why's" of things.

There may be a small grain of truth in some of the stories, on a local (Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed by an earthquake or other natural phenomena) or regional (the flood) level only.

But with those possible exceptions, I agree. As far as taking literally these stories, it seems to me a rather naive view, to say the least. The people who wrote the OT thought the Earth was basically a flat plain with mountains that encompassed an area of a few hundred square miles, literally sitting on the back of a giant turtle. These people had no clue about anything in the physical world beyond their region, in which there was constant fighting and a virtual nonexistence of what we would call rational thought.

What I find interesting is that ancient cultures compleley seperated from one another have many of the same stories (a "great flood," a "snake" tempting people, etc.). Two possible explanations for that -- either the same basic stories spread from one location to other parts of the world over thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years, and were changed slightly to explain conditions in the local region, OR the human psyche is the same all over the world and people found similar ways to answer unanswerable questions through myth.

Of course there is nothing 'scientific' about either of these takes, mearly cultural bigotry (in this case against aincient cultures) and a predisposition to dismiss that which you can't understand as primitive. As far as the last sentance in your post, the third explaination is obvious-that the stories are based on historical events.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Of course there is nothing 'scientific' about either of these takes, mearly cultural bigotry (in this case against aincient cultures) and a predisposition to dismiss that which you can't understand as primitive.

Right.....these "aincient"[sic] cultures have recorded alleged events that have no scientific or historical corroboration, that often go against what we currently know to be true (snakes have never talked or reasoned with humans, there is no evidence for a global flood after the rise of human civilization, there is no evidence for giant humans or that humans had lifespans in the multicentury area...).

There is just as much credibility in buying into Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Native American mythology is there is in buying into Genesis. The story of the Garden of Eden is no more factual than the concept of Pandoras's Box or the Earth being on the back of a turtle.

One of the main reasons I find the Mormon religion laughable is that the Book of Mormon is, pretty much from cover to cover, full of crap that is demonstrably false. It claims Native Americans as a lost tribe of Israel (anthropology and genetics disprove this), that Jesus appeared to the Native Americans (absolutely NO evidence from any tribes for this), that certain species of plants and animals were in the New World prior to the Europeans' arrival, etc.

If a religious document (e.g., Old Testament, Book of Mormon, Dianetics) makes scientifically dubious and/or historically unsupported claims, then every person reading/hearing those claims has a damned good reason to not believe them. Believing in events that are conclusively proven to have not occurred (or not occurred as described) and debunked by science is not "faith" - it's fucking stupid. I accept the Resurrection as an article of faith, but if some archeologist or historian could conclusively prove that it never happened (e.g. prove they stole & hid the body as a hoax or that Jesus never lived) , I would have to definitely re-evaluate my religious beliefs.

As far as the last sentance in your post, the third explaination is obvious-that the stories are based on historical events.

Not even close. What is more likely is that shit got made up to explain things that their lack of historical, medical, and scientific methodology left open...

[poptart]

Believing in events that are conclusively proven to have not occurred (or not occurred as described) and debunked by science is not "faith" - it's fucking stupid.

This would be well and good ........ if events had been proven to have not occurred, and science had, in fact, debunked the Old Testament.

Small problem.

That haven't, and it hasn't.



Isiaiah 40:8: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

[Diogenes]

Of course there is nothing 'scientific' about either of these takes, mearly cultural bigotry (in this case against aincient cultures) and a predisposition to dismiss that which you can't understand as primitive.

Right.....these "aincient"[sic] cultures have recorded alleged events that have no scientific or historical corroboration, that often go against what we currently know to be true (snakes have never talked or reasoned with humans, there is no evidence for a global flood after the rise of human civilization, there is no evidence for giant humans or that humans had lifespans in the multicentury area...).

Just because something goes against what we know to be true currently doesn't mean it wasn't true in prior times. And a lack of evidence for something is not evidence against it. At least that is the argument Darwinists make when it comes to the fossil record.

If a religious document (e.g., Old Testament, Book of Mormon, Dianetics) makes scientifically dubious and/or historically unsupported claims, then every person reading/hearing those claims has a damned good reason to not believe them. Believing in events that are conclusively proven to have not occurred (or not occurred as described) and debunked by science is not "faith" - it's fucking stupid.

The fact that you believe something to be 'scientificly dubious' is a far cry from 'debunking' it, let alone 'conclusivly proven it to not have occured'. Just a sign of a closed mind.

As far as the last sentance in your post, the third explaination is obvious-that the stories are based on historical events.

Not even close. What is more likely is that shit got made up to explain things that their lack of historical, medical, and scientific methodology left open...

There is no scientific way to measure the probability of events that occured before recorded history, especially when you dismiss the historical account we do have (namely Genesis) out of hand, based on nothing but your personal predispositions..

[RadioFan]

This would be well and good ........ if events had been proven to have not occurred, and science had, in fact, debunked the Old Testament.

The Old Testament clearly isn't a science book. Reading it as such is idiotic. I believe that's what he meant.

Just because something goes against what we know to be true currently doesn't mean it wasn't true in prior times. And a lack of evidence for something is not evidence against it.

The laws of physics haven't changed since prior times. For some events, such as the flood, it's not only a matter of a lack of evidence for it, there is evidence showing it never happened, via vast parts of the Earth that have not been covered by water in the last several million years, at least.

[poptart]

Do you have some proof that parts of the earth have not been covered by water ....... in the last several million years, at least ... ?


Geez .....

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Do you have some proof that parts of the earth have not been covered by water ....... in the last several million years, at least ... ?


Geez .....

There is no proof that a global (or even near-global) flood had ever occurred after human civilization had organized. There is absolutely no historical evidence (and no, Dio, the Bible cannot be used to prove itself in that wonderful bit of circular logic you often try...) or scientific evidence for it. None. Nada.

Noah's Ark is a cute story. Nothing more.

[Diogenes]

Just because something goes against what we know to be true currently doesn't mean it wasn't true in prior times. And a lack of evidence for something is not evidence against it.

The laws of physics haven't changed since prior times. For some events, such as the flood, it's not only a matter of a lack of evidence for it, there is evidence showing it never happened, via vast parts of the Earth that have not been covered by water in the last several million years, at least.

Exactly how do you know that the laws of physics haven't changed since prior times? Specificly that entropy wasn't introduced in the Edenic Fall or that the speed of light hasn't been changing since then. A lack of evidece is not evidence in and of itself.

And no, there is no evidence that the flood never occured.

As far as the use of circular logic, Lab Rat seems to be projecting just a tad.

[poptart]

There most certainly IS evidence of a world flood.

There is not proof of it, however.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Exactly how do you know that the laws of physics haven't changed since prior times?

If you're going to put forth such an incredibly bizarre possible hypothesis, one might imagine that you'd give some smidgen of supporting evidence for it. For reasons I'll discuss below, you haven't got any....

Specificly that entropy wasn't introduced in the Edenic Fall or that the speed of light hasn't been changing since then. A lack of evidece is not evidence in and of itself.

Your argument is idiotic. Although it is true that "a lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself," you've forgotten one of the fundamental rules of argument - the side making the positive existential claim is the one with the burden of proof. We know now how the rules of physics, chemistry, and biology pretty much work. And we use those rules to understand out world now and understand the past better. More importantly, we use those rules to make predictions, and those predictions are usually very accurate. Because empirical evidence, experiments, supporting observations, and accurate predictions have supported the validity and soundness of these rules, civilization has agreed that the rules are universal. However, you are asking us to basically ignore them based on a book of Jewish folklore.

What you are putting forth, with absolutely NO rational basis, is a basic rewriting of the complete workings of the universe.

Your argument fails utterly because it is not falsifiable. For you to posit that the fundamental rules of physics, et al. change means that there is no scientific way for humans to learn about the universe. If the rules of physics, etc. were different once, there's no reason to suppose they can't/won't be again, which renders our tools of observation useless. It means that all of our evidence to this point is suspect as will be all future predictions. It renders science meaningless.

Unfortunately for you, not only is your argument just plain silly (and logically flawed in its basis), but it has absolutely no empirical basis at all. None. Your argument has less credibility than some drunken/stoned rant from a college sophomore.

As far as the use of circular logic, Lab Rat seems to be projecting just a tad.

On the contrary. Anyone who has gone 'round and 'round Biblical debates with the Christian fundamentalists/literalists on this board and others knows full well that at some point, inevitably, the literalist will bust out the "the Bible incident/claim must be true because the Bible (or character/verse within in) says it is true." That, my friend, is circular logic. Just because an event, person, claim is found in the Bible in NO WAY supports its actual existence/validity, unless it is further supported by other credible sources. The Bible is not "evidence" is any scientific, historically meaningful way. It was never meant as an historically accurate text in the modern sense, nor is it scientifically accurate. The Bible is not a history text, a science text, nor a real estate document. It is the collected writings of a tribe of folks who believe themselves God's Chosen Folks and expresses their developing relationship and understanding with Him (including their interpretation of how He worked and works in their collective and individual lives). It is a book of faith and morals, not science or (accurate) history.

[poptart]

On the contrary. Anyone who has gone 'round and 'round Biblical debates with the Christian fundamentalists/literalists on this board and others knows full well that at some point, inevitably, the literalist will bust out the "the Bible incident/claim must be true because the Bible (or character/verse within in) says it is true."

No, those of us who believe the Bible do so with a definite measure of faith.
I do not present the book of Genesis as factual.
I present it as God's Word, and that I believe His Word.

What you (and others) attempt to do is to dismiss the accounts of Genesis as DEFINITELY FALSE, and you do so despite a lack of proof to support your claim.
You BELIEVE the accounts given in Genesis to be false.

None of us 'know' factually whether the accounts, as written, are true or not.

We can certainly believe very strongly one way or the other.

[Diogenes]

Although it is true that "a lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself," you've forgotten one of the fundamental rules of argument - the side making the positive existential claim is the one with the burden of proof.

I haven't forgotten anything-and I'm not the one making positive existential claims here.

Just because something goes against what we know to be true currently doesn't mean it wasn't true in prior times. And a lack of evidence for something is not evidence against it.

The laws of physics haven't changed since prior times. For some events, such as the flood, it's not only a matter of a lack of evidence for it, there is evidence showing it never happened, via vast parts of the Earth that have not been covered by water in the last several million years, at least.

Exactly how do you know that the laws of physics haven't changed since prior times? Specificly that entropy wasn't introduced in the Edenic Fall or that the speed of light hasn't been changing since then.

Nice selective quoting though. Better luck next spin.

We know now how the rules of physics, chemistry, and biology pretty much work. And we use those rules to understand out world now and understand the past better. More importantly, we use those rules to make predictions, and those predictions are usually very accurate. Because empirical evidence, experiments, supporting observations, and accurate predictions have supported the validity and soundness of these rules, civilization has agreed that the rules are universal. However, you are asking us to basically ignore them based on a book of Jewish folklore.

Link? I'm not suggesting we ignore anything-just suggesting that those with an open mind consider the possibility that their uniformitarian assumptions might be flawed. As far as your unfounded positive existental claims about what the Bible is and isn't, you have exactly nothing to base them on except your personal biases. And if you have any examples of me ever saying 'the Bible must be true because it says so in the Bible' go ahead and point them out.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Although it is true that "a lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself," you've forgotten one of the fundamental rules of argument - the side making the positive existential claim is the one with the burden of proof.

I haven't forgotten anything-and I'm not the one making positive existential claims here.

To claim that there was a global flood a la Noah's Ark IS a positive existential claim.

The burden of proof is on those people who claim that Noah's Ark actually happened, not on those who state that no evidence for it exists.

The laws of physics haven't changed since prior times. For some events, such as the flood, it's not only a matter of a lack of evidence for it, there is evidence showing it never happened, via vast parts of the Earth that have not been covered by water in the last several million years, at least.

Exactly how do you know that the laws of physics haven't changed since prior times? Specificly that entropy wasn't introduced in the Edenic Fall or that the speed of light hasn't been changing since then.

Nice selective quoting though. Better luck next spin.

No selective quoting, and the argument stands. It is nonsensical to put forth the proposition that physical constants aren't (or haven't always been) just because it is the only way to patch the gaping hole in your argument.

Why not just go all the way and argue that prior to the "Edenic Fall," one plus one equaled three, red pigment mixed with yellow to make green, things fell upward, etc.

It is a nonsensical argument and you know it.

I'm not suggesting we ignore anything-just suggesting that those with an open mind consider the possibility that their uniformitarian assumptions might be flawed.

Assuming out of hand that "uniformitarian assumptions are flawed" without any rationale cause is nonsense. Why should anyone, especially scientists, be willing to throw out "uniformitarian assumptions" for the SOLE exception of patching Biblical holes? The correct answer is, there is NO reason. If there were a consistant flaw found somewhere in science's assumptions, then by all mean, experiment/observe and collect data to revise the hypotheses. If, however, you expect people to toss out the hundreds of years of empirical data gained through testing hypotheses through experiments, observations, predictions that have been accurately made based on those data solely because a religious book that many consider fanciful in parts doesn't "work" unless we toss out Western science, then that's plain stupid.

That's not "keeping an open mind," that's willful suspension of disbelief in the name of religious faith. That's precisely the kind of pseudoscientific crap the faux scientists at the ICR practice.

As far as your unfounded positive existental claims about what the Bible is and isn't, you have exactly nothing to base them on except your personal biases.

Right. I'm the ONLY person who believes that the Bible is a beautiful compilation meant to teach moral and religious truths, not scientific ones. Unfortunately for you, there's a ton of highly-regarded academics, including SUNY Distinguished Professor Dr. William Cook, who also agree with me. In fact, Dr. Cook helped reinforce that stand with me when I took a few of his classes. He is a devout Christian yet has no problem with the FACT that the Bible is not meant to be understood literally or as a historically accurate (in the modern sense) or scientifically accurate text.

[battery chucka' one]

You forget, Mike, that there are 'Christians' who will gladly cede that Christ probably didn't rise from the dead, wasn't born of virgin mother, and is most likely not the only way to heaven. They will also claim that this does nothing to degrade their faith.