The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[One Bad Pig]

Because I don't trust you and because I was bored, I spend some time googling up on this, and your claims don't really seem to hold up.

Firstly, midrash Haggadah doesn't seem to have become particularly popular until later (100-500 AD) and is there even a single example of someone using it on Genesis 1? The midrashs seem to focus on Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. I can't find one that mentions the creation narratives.

Secondly, Philo was really far from mainstream Judaism, and his works weren't at all influential within Judaism. He's not a useful source for understanding general Jewish beliefs. He was a weird and idiosyncratic theologian writing weird things. But you are right about his non-literal view of the 'days':

Creation cannot, he says, have taken place in six natural days, for days are measured by the sun's course and the sun is but a portion of creation. The literal story of Adam's rib being made into Eve he flatly calls " mythical."

Thirdly, Josephus treats Genesis 1 as literal. He's regularly cited across the internet by YEC's and they quote from him. Josephus talks about figurative language in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of genesis, but not the first.

If you're going to impugn someone's post via research by Google, it would be polite to at least provide links so that person (and others) can assess the quality of your sources. I'm also somewhat surprised that you seem to trust YECs to quote Josephus accurately and in context when they're using him as support for their polemics.

[psstein]

Because I don't trust you and because I was bored, I spend some time googling up on this, and your claims don't really seem to hold up.

Firstly, midrash Haggadah doesn't seem to have become particularly popular until later (100-500 AD) and is there even a single example of someone using it on Genesis 1? The midrashs seem to focus on Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. I can't find one that mentions the creation narratives.

Midrashim (both Halakot and Haggadah) largely focus on the legal aspects and the moral lessons to be drawn from the story of Moses and the Israelites in the desert.

Midrash pre-dates the Rabbis by several centuries.

[psstein]

Obviously the ancient Israelites up to and including the time of Jesus thought the early parts of genesis were literal truth.

Questionable at best. The sources are limited to the small minority of what has survived. And, as I showed above, these kinds of stories were very common in the Ancient Near East.

[Starlight]

Questionable at best. The sources are limited to the small minority of what has survived. And, as I showed above, these kinds of stories were very common in the Ancient Near East.

How do you treat the theological status of NT biblical references that implicitly assume the literalness of Gen 1-3 as a basis for their arguments - e.g. Jesus on divorce (and very indirectly on same sex marriage) "God made them man and woman", and Paul on sin and death coming into the world and Christ undoing that in Rom 5?

[rogue06]

Because I don't trust you and because I was bored, I spend some time googling up on this, and your claims don't really seem to hold up.

Firstly, midrash Haggadah doesn't seem to have become particularly popular until later (100-500 AD) and is there even a single example of someone using it on Genesis 1? The midrashs seem to focus on Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. I can't find one that mentions the creation narratives.

While from roughly a century after the period of the apostles it still serves to demonstrate that the Jews of ancient times weren't viewing Scripture only in a woodenly literal manner. And yes, while mostly concerned with Exodus it definitely covers Genesis as well.

Another example of this are the discrepancy in the ages of several of the various patriarchs provided in the Masoretic text of the genealogy of Genesis 4 as compared to those provided in the Septuagint (the Torah portion of which is likely from the 3rd century B.C.). For instance they disagree how long Peleg and his son Reu lived with the Masoretic giving numbers that total 239 years for each while the Septuagint has 339 years for each. If you add up the years between Adam and the Flood the Masoretic tell us it was 1656 years while the Septuagint calculates it at 2262 years. A similar substantial difference can be seen for the post-diluvian patriarchs as well.

This indication of a somewhat fluid tradition suggests that the Jews of the time were still working things out as does Hillel and Shammai's disagreement over whether heaven or earth was created first. That could not have happened if as you said "the ancient Israelites up to and including the time of Jesus thought the early parts of genesis were literal truth."

Secondly, Philo was really far from mainstream Judaism, and his works weren't at all influential within Judaism. He's not a useful source for understanding general Jewish beliefs. He was a weird and idiosyncratic theologian writing weird things. But you are right about his non-literal view of the 'days':

Creation cannot, he says, have taken place in six natural days, for days are measured by the sun's course and the sun is but a portion of creation. The literal story of Adam's rib being made into Eve he flatly calls " mythical."

He was a Hellenistic philosopher not a theologian but being Jewish he also wrote extensively about Scripture and AFAICT was not outside Hellenistic Jewish thought. More importantly, he does seem to be an influence on several of the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) and some suggest may have also influenced Paul as well.

But this is beside the point since it still serves to drive a hole through your proclamation that "Obviously the ancient Israelites up to and including the time of Jesus thought the early parts of genesis were literal truth." Philo, Josephus, Hillel and Shammai all contradict this.

Thirdly, Josephus treats Genesis 1 as literal. He's regularly cited across the internet by YEC's and they quote from him. Josephus talks about figurative language in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of genesis, but not the first.

This directly contradicts your second point which includes the bit about how "Creation cannot, he says, have taken place in six natural days." The days are part of Genesis 1.

So much for that.

[Starlight]

Another example of this are the discrepancy in the ages of several of the various patriarchs provided in the Masoretic text of the genealogy of Genesis 4 as compared to those provided in the Septuagint (the Torah portion of which is likely from the 3rd century B.C.). For instance they disagree how long Peleg and his son Reu lived with the Masoretic giving numbers that total 239 years for each while the Septuagint has 339 years for each. If you add up the years between Adam and the Flood the Masoretic tell us it was 1656 years while the Septuagint calculates it at 2262 years. A similar substantial difference can be seen for the post-diluvian patriarchs as well.

I would view these as primarily being a result of textual errors in manuscripts. I don't think it's got anything at all to do with how they interpreted the length of creation days. I would say that what it shows is that they really believed that it was plausible to literally add up the generations given in the text to arrive at an estimate of the age of the world, YEC style. The fact they reached different totals simply reflects that the numbers that happened to be present in their copies of the bible were different due to textual errors in copying.

Hillel and Shammai

Reading about their debates, I don't think they support the general point you are trying to make. Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other on the ordering of creation events. The two Rabbis essentially had different views on which of Genesis 1 or 2 was actually correct.

This directly contradicts your second point which includes the bit about how "Creation cannot, he says, have taken place in six natural days." The days are part of Genesis 1.

You're getting confused, Philo said the creation days weren't literal, Josephus thought they were. The quote is about Philo.

[Tassman]

The 'best' in terms of the correct interpretation of what the writers of the bible really meant and believed?

I think it’s what the early church “really meant and believed”, namely that Jesus’ death was a sacrificial ransom as commemorated in the Mass or Eucharist: “The Eucharist is a true sacrifice... The first Christians knew that it was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings. They recognised the sacrificial character of Jesus’ instruction, "Do this in remembrance of me".

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-s...ce-of-the-mass

Or best in terms of making for a vaguely plausible / defensible / coherent / personally satisfying theology?

Oh no, none of that.

[37818]

I think it’s what the early church “really meant and believed”, namely that Jesus’ death was a sacrificial ransom as commemorated in the Mass or Eucharist: “The Eucharist is a true sacrifice... The first Christians knew that it was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings. They recognised the sacrificial character of Jesus’ instruction, "Do this in remembrance of me".

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-s...ce-of-the-mass

And that denies the finished work on the cross.

John 19:28-30,
. . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the spirit. . . .

Hebrews 10:10,
. . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. . . .

Hebrews 10:12,
. . . He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, . . .

[Starlight]

And that denies the finished work on the cross.

Like Paul...

Col 1:14
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, which is the church.

[rogue06]

I would view these as primarily being a result of textual errors in manuscripts.

It is far more likely that the exact ages for the patriarchs were part of a somewhat fluid tradition. I should note that the Samaritan Pentateuch, which dates from the 5th cent. B.C., disagrees with both the Masoretic and Septuagint in this matter which further indicates that the ancient Jews of Christ's time and before did not feel bound to slavishly following a woodenly literal reading of Genesis.

genealogy - patriarchs.gif

And the fact that such differences existed for over 500 years (from the Samaritan to the Septuagint) indicates that the Jews were hardly overly concerned with it (unless you think they were too stupid to notice) which would be inconceivable if they were beholden to a strict, literal reading of the text.

Reading about their debates, I don't think they support the general point you are trying to make. Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other on the ordering of creation events. The two Rabbis essentially had different views on which of Genesis 1 or 2 was actually correct.

I must have missed the part where Genesis 2 contradicted Genesis 1 over whether the earth or the sun was created first. I guess an overly literal reading of the second chapter actually supports the first in this instance since in verse 4 we read "the Lord God made the earth and heavens" placing the earth first.

The very fact that Jews like Philo, Josephus, Hillel and Shammai could have such different views concerning the creation makes the claim that during their time Jews were following a very literal interpretation of the creation account more than a bit untenable.

You're getting confused, Philo said the creation days weren't literal, Josephus thought they were. The quote is about Philo.

My bad.

Josephus wrote about Jewish history from the creation to his time and seems to have no trouble adding and omitting to his paraphrased version of Genesis 1. For instance he adds a good deal to the part about the creation of the firmament and omits parts he felt uncomfortable with such as the reference in Genesis 1:5 that declares that "there was evening and there was morning, one day" since the Jewish day did not end at sunrise, several blessing he didn't think were appropriate, all quotes from God for whatever reason (something he does a lot in his retelling of the Bible record), and the mention of the Leviathan in 1:21 and changed it to creatures that swim likely because he saw it as a mythical creature.

As Thomas W. Franxman notes in his Genesis and the "Jewish Antiquities" of Flavius Josephus, Josephus wasn't merely repeating the creation account he often altered the text and its meaning, noting, for instance, that when Josephus "informs us that “in the beginning God created heaven and earth”" he altered it from "God (instead of seeing “the light, that it was good”) surveyed “the whole of matter”." Franxman says that Josephus "has in effect retold much of Genesis"

Josephus appears to have felt it necessary to repeatedly "correct" the text which is hardly the mark of someone who holds to a literal reading. That he wasn't a literalist wrt to the creation or the rest of Genesis for that matter is further confirmed by his bluntly stated view that Genesis 2 and 3 (remember that Genesis 2 deals with the creation) is written in an allegorical or philosophical sense, which is inconceivable for anyone holding to a woodenly literal interpretation.

ETA: But even if Josephus held that the creation account provided in Genesis 1 was exactly as it happened the fact that he and Philo disagreed over this (and Josephus didn't hold a similar view about Genesis 2 and 3) demonstrates that there were a variety of views on the matter rather than supports your initial claim that "Obviously the ancient Israelites up to and including the time of Jesus thought the early parts of genesis were literal truth" does not stand up to even a cursory exam.

[37818]

Like Paul...

Col 1:14
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, which is the church.

Explain how you understand that to mean Paul denies Christ's finished work on the cross.

[psstein]

How do you treat the theological status of NT biblical references that implicitly assume the literalness of Gen 1-3 as a basis for their arguments - e.g. Jesus on divorce (and very indirectly on same sex marriage) "God made them man and woman", and Paul on sin and death coming into the world and Christ undoing that in Rom 5?

I see Paul's references as representative of what he himself believed, plus you're assuming the doctrine of original sin is original to Paul, not the result of a mistranslation by Augustine.

[psstein]

Like Paul...

Col 1:14
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, which is the church.

It's disputed among scholars whether or not Paul actually wrote Colossians... I lean towards authenticity, but my mind is far from made up.

[Starlight]

I see Paul's references as representative of what he himself believed, plus you're assuming the doctrine of original sin is original to Paul, not the result of a mistranslation by Augustine.

Well in general I think what came to be known as the doctrine of original sin was a mistranslation by Augustine, but Paul himself obviously links Adam-sin-death in Rom 5.

It's disputed among scholars whether or not Paul actually wrote Colossians... I lean towards authenticity, but my mind is far from made up.

I know, but writing Paul is easier than writing "Paul".

[One Bad Pig]

I see Paul's references as representative of what he himself believed, plus you're assuming the doctrine of original sin is original to Paul, not the result of a mistranslation by Augustine.

AFAICT it's more attributable to misunderstanding than mistranslation. Did Augustine even know Greek?