Bible Difficulties and Creation Accounts

[Jack777]

One of the stoutest arguments against the Bible by Higher Critics and others is that there were no miracles. This helps to ensure that no one will guess that Genesis 1:1 is true. This idea is taught in schools, both public schools and private Christian schools. Another handy application of denying miracles is that anyone who knows the Bible is true has tough sledding in talking seriously about the Revelation of God to us. What? Oh what will rescue people from the embarrassment of believing the Bible is true in situations like this? Why denying Revelation, of course. The trick is to do that without really doing that and causing too much violence to the person's Faith. This is especially great when people are made to think they have to choose between the Revelation of God and the Theory of Evolution. The ultimate explanation is then, the Bible does not mean what it says it means. The thing is to couple a natural explanation with the Biblical account, snip, cut, paste, and voilá, you have a case against Creation or most anything you can think of.

A sure fire favorite is to say that Moses and the Children of Israel crossed a very shallow sea of reeds on a windy day, you know, kind of like Winnie the Poo and the Blustery Day, only Biblical. The idea is that God did not part a deep sea with walls of water menacing on each side as the Children of Israel walked on dry sea bottom. In the Secular Humanistic or Higher Critical yarn spun for wide-eyed kids finding out their Sunday School teacher is really daft the explanation does not say that God could not, it is just that He did not.

The place that is proposed by those who think the Bible is not true is only a few miles across and it is silly to think Pharaoh would not have just gone around the small shallow lake and waited to pick them off at his leisure. Then too, it seems a bit silly to think in a shallow lake a few feet deep all these people would drown anyway. Maybe Pharaoh instructed all of the army to jump down and put their faces in the water to make sure they drowned to please the Higher Critics that would come along 3,500 years later so it would help to shake the Faith of believers. A shrewd move on the part of Pharaoh, but why would he care that much about a lot of people he did not even know and so much so to wipe out everyone in his army along with the priests, government officials and others that traveled along on campaigns? Suddenly the Pharaoh shouts the order!

"Alright everyone, lets put our faces down now so we can all drown!"

"Chief, I don't think the men are going to like this."

"How many times have I told you that I don't care what they think? And stop calling me "Chief."

"Well, Chieee...uh...Pharaoh, the men are having a great deal of difficulty drowning."

"Tell them to try harder then."

"Alrighty then."

"Don't start."

Well, its just that this has gone on for a couple of days from now and a lot of people are getting bored and hungry."

"Make some of them take off the chariot wheels and beat everyone else to death with the spokes."

"Then, what?"

"I brought along some Kool-Aid laced with the poison of asps."

"You're kidding, right Chief?"

"No I am not, and don't call me Chief."

"Alrighty then."

"Stop it."

"What?"

"I'll have you beaten on the spot!"

"Lets push on, this is crazy."

"Alrighty then."

[barnasha]

[font=Verdana]One of the stoutest arguments against the Bible by Higher Critics and others is that there were no miracles. This helps to ensure that no one will guess that Genesis 1:1 is true.

the beginning is the opener, that is, 'this is what will be'. genesis tells EVERYTHING... that is, everything which allowed for a person and a book to exist in that moment - not just a story or stories about the history of other moments. that is how I view creation... "time" is the greatest illusion the devil could make. for example, to think that god isn't operating in every single fraction of perception - but only in relation to aspects of human events, this anthropomorphic view is the type of illusion that the notion of 'time' introduces, in terms of thinking and being. like for example, putting off being holy until the "Last Day"...

J. Ralston Skinner said: “It is made to be read ‘B’rashith bârâ Elohim’. . . , “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Skinner notes that Elohim is a plural noun, but the form of the verb “bârâ” (meaning “created” in Hebrew) is third person singular [in other words, the number of Deity(ies) in the subject and the verb does not match grammatically]. Skinner adds that Nachmanides called attention to the fact that the text might also be read as “B’rash ithbârâ Elohim”. . . , which translated means “In the head (source or beginning) created itself (or developed) Gods, the heavens and the earth,” which is more grammatically correct.

[jason]

One of the stoutest arguments against the Bible by Higher Critics and others is that there were no miracles.
Do you really think so ?

I've always thought it was one of the most brain damaged and lame arguments ever employed.

It is one of those things that the dense toss out and the incredulous swallow without consideration. About 5 seconds reflection upon the idea should me it obvious that there is no way the person making this claim could possibly know that this is the case.

If you ever catch anyone trying this you should take them to task to actually demonstrate that miracles are not possible and not just let them assert such obvious nonsense.

If you ever encounter someone making a claim like this, something they could not possibly know, then you should ask them to demonstrate the truth of it.

Certianly without begging the question or otherwise cheating, there is no possible way to demonstrate the truth of this claim.

Jason :jason:

[HRG_new]

Do you really think so ?

I've always thought it was one of the most brain damaged and lame arguments ever employed.

It is one of those things that the dense toss out and the incredulous swallow without consideration. About 5 seconds reflection upon the idea should me it obvious that there is no way the person making this claim could possibly know that this is the case.

If you ever catch anyone trying this you should take them to task to actually demonstrate that miracles are not possible and not just let them assert such obvious nonsense.

If you ever encounter someone making a claim like this, something they could not possibly know, then you should ask them to demonstrate the truth of it.

Certianly without begging the question or otherwise cheating, there is no possible way to demonstrate the truth of this claim.

Jason :jason:

True - in the sense that there is no possible way to prove that Thor's hammer did not revert to his hands each time, or that Zeus did not carry Europa to Crete and made love to her.

Actually, there is no possible way to prove either that my cat did not create the universe last Thursday.

However, when we are looking for the most probable coherent explanation of all our data - including the existing manuscripts of the Bible, the Elder Edda and the Theogony, but also including the basis facts of biology and mechanics -, it is based on the absence of miracles.

After all, admitting miracles cuts the connection between our perception and reality. Even the computer screen you think to see in front of you could be a miraculous hologram, courtesy of Loki Assoc.

[jason]

However, when we are looking for the most probable coherent explanation of all our data - including the existing manuscripts of the Bible, the Elder Edda and the Theogony, but also including the basis facts of biology and mechanics -, it is based on the absence of miracles.
Actually that is just intellectual bigotry to rule them out as a possible explanation.

To say something like, "The resurrection cannot have happened because we know miracles can't happen" is not a claim that can be substaniated. This is typically how it is employed. You cannot simply rule the claim "out of bounds" at the beginning. Though I understand why skeptic's like too, it saves them doing any real work, and unless you rule it out at the beginning your stuck with it as the best possilbe explanation, once you pick at the alternatives.

After all, admitting miracles cuts the connection between our perception and reality. Even the computer screen you think to see in front of you could be a miraculous hologram, courtesy of Loki Assoc.
No that doesn't follow. You are within your rights to think that a monitor works by the means we understand it to work by, (electron bouncing of phosphor dots and all that if you have a CRT). The problem is when the intellectually vacuous claim about the impossibilty of miracles is made when looking at potentially miraculous events.

Jason

[HRG_new]

Actually that is just intellectual bigotry to rule them out as a possible explanation.

To say something like, "The resurrection cannot have happened because we know miracles can't happen" is not a claim that can be substaniated. This is typically how it is employed. You cannot simply rule the claim "out of bounds" at the beginning. Though I understand why skeptic's like too, it saves them doing any real work, and unless you rule it out at the beginning your stuck with it as the best possilbe explanation, once you pick at the alternatives.

And this paragraph is a total red herring and does not address what I wrote. I explicitely said that miracles cannot be disproven. However, this holds for all miracles (Thor's Hammer, Zeus' extra-marital activities), not only those ones on which Christian faith is based.

What I said is that the most coherent explanation of all our data - including those of biology, physics, chemistry - seems to be that miracles don't happen, and that reports of alleged miracles are statistical outliers, aka "measurement errors" in the broadest sense.

This explanation may be incorrect (and I haven't ruled out others a priori), but to me it seems the most coherent and probable ones.


No that doesn't follow. You are within your rights to think that a monitor works by the means we understand it to work by, (electron bouncing of phosphor dots and all that if you have a CRT).

And I am within my rights to think that the resurrection reports are not genuine.

The problem is when the intellectually vacuous claim about the impossibilty of miracles is made when looking at potentially miraculous events.


Every event is potentially miraculous; as I said, the text on your computer screen may be a hoax by Loki. The problem arises when people of a particular faith exclude in effect all miracles but those which fit this faith. For instance, you rule out that the original Bible manuscripts were never written, but miraculously created. However, your reliance on the constancy of manuscripts is based on the same reasons (experience, science etc.) which lead me to rely on the principle that dead people stay dead.

Please read again what I wrote. I'm afraid you have misunderstood my point.

[jason]

And this paragraph is a total red herring and does not address what I wrote. I explicitely said that miracles cannot be disproven. However, this holds for all miracles (Thor's Hammer, Zeus' extra-marital activities), not only those ones on which Christian faith is based.
Sure. Who said I ruled out all other miracle claims ?

What I said is that the most coherent explanation of all our data - including those of biology, physics, chemistry - seems to be that miracles don't happen, and that reports of alleged miracles are statistical outliers, aka "measurement errors" in the broadest sense.
That they are uncommon does not mean they are "measurement errors". And I don't think ruling out miracles would make the most sense of "all our data". Especially as the creation of the universe 13 or so billion years ago looks exactly like a miracle. Is the creation itself a "measurement error" ?

And I am within my rights to think that the resurrection reports are not genuine.
Not really. Although you can be excused from ignorance because you don't look closely enough. The next non-laughable alternative that can withstand careful scrutiny will be the first. I keep trying to get skeptics to play along but they keep getting annoyed when I ask inconvenient questions. Alas, perhaps one day.

However, your reliance on the constancy of manuscripts is based on the same reasons (experience, science etc.) which lead me to rely on the principle that dead people stay dead.
Nobody is claiming they do otherwise in the general case. But this is not the general case and there is good reason to think that the "general rule of thumb" you are employing is wrong in this instance.

Jason

[Jack777]

barnasha,


You are so on target. Wow! You are right. You are exactly right.

I think denigrating miracles is still something that is a front line argument that is designed to keep people from God

[barnasha]

What I said is that the most coherent explanation of all our data - including those of biology, physics, chemistry - seems to be that miracles don't happen, and that reports of alleged miracles are statistical outliers, aka "measurement errors" in the broadest sense.


setting yourself up in this manner is like trying to solve the problem of quantum physics with a book of newtonian physics... the two models just don't fit together. 'data' is something actual, recorded, and most importantly: symbolic. how does math feel, how do you experience it? as trite as it may sound to say, reality itself is not a theory, and even if you attempt to consider the psychic aspect of existence as merely electrochemical, you would only be examining half of reality, that is, the corporeal and actualized, the *imaged*, (e.g. saying "I am drinking a cup of tea at 4pm" instead of sitting down in real life gazing out the window and enjoying a fine cup of tea.)

this type of creation, if taken in its most possibly powerful interpretation, would not be imageable in 3d space, 3d space is 3 "days" of creation itself! In other words, God doesn't need to descend like adam did into a garden and THEN try to make stuff happen. (you can think about a cup of tea but it will never be the same as drinking one!!!) same for God Almighty, except you are the image of him. you have control over your own domain while He has control over domainness.

remember that no prepositions can apply to God: not above nor below, creation happens on the subatomic level, in the micro and macro cosmos just as it was planned by the only .. source... that could "design" the bliss of reality in the garden of eden as we have been given.


Romans 8:38-39, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

[Jack777]

Jason,


I do not mean to say that you were wrong, I hope you know.

[maudman]

the beginning is the opener, that is, 'this is what will be'. genesis tells EVERYTHING... that is, everything which allowed for a person and a book to exist in that moment - not just a story or stories about the history of other moments. that is how I view creation... "time" is the greatest illusion the devil could make. for example, to think that god isn't operating in every single fraction of perception - but only in relation to aspects of human events, this anthropomorphic view is the type of illusion that the notion of 'time' introduces, in terms of thinking and being. like for example, putting off being holy until the "Last Day"...

J. Ralston Skinner said: “It is made to be read ‘B’rashith bârâ Elohim’. . . , “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Skinner notes that Elohim is a plural noun, but the form of the verb “bârâ” (meaning “created” in Hebrew) is third person singular [in other words, the number of Deity(ies) in the subject and the verb does not match grammatically]. Skinner adds that Nachmanides called attention to the fact that the text might also be read as “B’rash ithbârâ Elohim”. . . , which translated means “In the head (source
or beginning) created itself (or developed) Gods, the heavens and the earth,” which is more grammatically correct.


This is along the line that I have come to consider closer to the truth. It does in IMO create greater problems in traditional theology. It also shows how translations can fail to reveal a more complete understanding of text.

Good post Barnasha

peace be with you.

[Jack777]

HI,

In Beginning is Jesus, which is pretty interesting.

[bar Jonah]

Jason is on target.

Historic miracles in general are non-falsifiable claims, and are therefore cannot be weighed either for or against a belief system. In arguments either for or against, one should focus on falsifiable claims.

This, of course, doesn't mean miracles are all thrown out the window. There may be cases where eyewitness account contradicts the miraculous account. That's not proof, but that's a piece of evidence to consider. Likewise, there may be corroborating evidence, such as Joshua's long day being recorded all the way over in China (if I remember correctly), completely independently of the biblical account.

But in general, miracles are very difficult to handle on either side of a debate.

[barnasha]

HI,

In Beginning is Jesus, which is pretty interesting.

before Abraham was, I AM, the alpha and the omega, the beginning before beginnings and ends