The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[rogue06]

So, after all that, is the Genesis Creation narrative literally true or allegory?

If it is a polemic it is still literally true.

[rogue06]

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

Only with later, educated theologians, such as 'St' Augustine of Hippo, do non-literal interpretations of the creation narratives start becoming popular. One approach that seems quite popular among modern mainstream Christians is to say that Genesis 1-11 (the before-Abraham part) is 'pre-history' and different in kind from what follows, and it can be largely ignored / understood as a kind of 'just-so' story that sets the scene for the (supposedly) historical narratives that follow in the rest of the bible. This neatly allows them to accept evolution and ignore the difficult-to-defend Noah's Ark and Tower of Babel stories. A corollary of this position though is that you then can't take Paul too literally where he says sin and death came into the world through Adam, because obviously if evolution is true then death was around from the beginning and not caused by sin.

Really? Are you unaware of the free interpretation of Scripture within Judaism around His time as exemplified by the midrash Haggadah? Jews during Christ's time, like Philo of Alexander and Josephus, are said to have debated exactly how long the days of creation were. IIRC the former rejected the idea of a literal six day creation and considered the story of Adam’s rib as being figurative. And Josephus asserted in his Preface section 4 to his "Jewish Antiquities" that Moses wrote the second and third chapters in some enigmatic, or allegorical or philosophical sense. Further, if you are correct then Hillel and Shammai could not have disagreed on whether heaven or earth was created first.

[Meh Gerbil]

This last is the doctrine of Jesus as the Great Exemplar, i.e. the perfect pattern, whom all humankind should seek to resemble. But whilst this is more civilised than the Ransom theory, or the Substitutionary theory, or the Sacrificial theory I think probably the last is the way to go with Jesus being seen as the Lamb of God sacrificed in lieu of the insufficient animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant. E.g. the RC Church makes a big deal out of the “Sacrifice of the Mass”; regarding it as a pleading of Jesus’ one true sacrifice...not just a commemorative meal, as Protestants tend to view it... and something God demands just as he demanded the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant .

What if Jesus' death wasn't a necessary component of our Salvation but rather a necessary object lesson for us to understand the nature of God?

You know how you feel like garbage when you do something wrong? Let's say you accidently knock a cup of coffee out of my hands. Your very first impulse is to make an offer to buy me another cup of coffee in order to make things right. There is every likelihood that you'd insist on buying a cup of coffee even if I don't need it - even if I don't even want it - your mind would find satisfaction in reestablishing some sort of balance.

Sometimes I wonder that about the Crucifixion - is this something God really needed or did He go through all that noise because He knew the idea of perfectly free forgiveness would drive us nuts? I'm starting to wonder if much of Scripture records less of God's will and more of God's accommodation to our limitations.

[Starlight]

Really? Are you unaware of the free interpretation of Scripture within Judaism around His time as exemplified by the midrash Haggadah? Jews during Christ's time, like Philo of Alexander and Josephus, are said to have debated exactly how long the days of creation were. IIRC the former rejected the idea of a literal six day creation and considered the story of Adam’s rib as being figurative. And Josephus asserted in his Preface section 4 to his "Jewish Antiquities" that Moses wrote the second and third chapters in some enigmatic, or allegorical or philosophical sense. Further, if you are correct then Hillel and Shammai could not have disagreed on whether heaven or earth was created first.

Okay, I'll take your word for it. I'm not particularly interested in Jewish beliefs about the creation narratives, so meh.

[Starlight]

Sometimes I wonder that about the Crucifixion - is this something God really needed or did He go through all that noise because He knew the idea of perfectly free forgiveness would drive us nuts?

Erhm... I doubt perfectly free forgiveness drives any normal person nuts. Any normal human father forgives their kids freely and regularly. Of course, kids are all nuts to begin with, but I don't think their fathers forgiving them drives them any more nuts.

I'm starting to wonder if much of Scripture records less of God's will and more of God's accommodation to our limitations.

As I have noted a few times, biblical law about human relationships seems to be mostly pragmatically-driven, with Jesus saying Moses gave the laws allowing divorce as a concession to human nature, etc.

[Kbertsche]

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

I don't think this is true. The ancient Jewish scholars tended to like allegorical interpretations of different sorts. I think Maimonedes and others had developed non-literal interpretations of Genesis, but I can't remember the details.

[One Bad Pig]

Okay, I'll take your word for it. I'm not particularly interested in Jewish beliefs about the creation narratives, so meh.

If you're not particularly interested in Jewish beliefs about the creation narratives, you probably shouldn't make dogmatic statements about them.

[rogue06]

I don't think this is true. The ancient Jewish scholars tended to like allegorical interpretations of different sorts. I think Maimonedes and others had developed non-literal interpretations of Genesis, but I can't remember the details.

Moses Maimonides (also known by the acronym "Rambam"), who is acknowledged as one of the foremost Rabbinical arbiters and philosophers in Jewish history with his works considered to be a cornerstone of Orthodox Jewish thought and study by many today, wrote that "Conflicts between Science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible." He expanded upon this when he wrote "The Torah cannot be false. What has been proven to be true cannot be false by definition. Therefore if your understanding of Torah is contradicted by what has been proven to be true, the only thing that can be wrong is your understanding of Torah."

Obviously Maimonides held that it wasn’t required to read Genesis in an overly literal manner. As can be seen from the above, he argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko (a 12th-century student of Maimonides) agreed with this view.

But not taking it all overly literally goes back much further than Maimonides. The entire point of Talmud and the commentaries is to go beyond the literal meaning and see my post #62 as well.

[JimL]

Moses Maimonides (also known by the acronym "Rambam"), who is acknowledged as one of the foremost Rabbinical arbiters and philosophers in Jewish history with his works considered to be a cornerstone of Orthodox Jewish thought and study by many today, wrote that "Conflicts between Science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible." He expanded upon this when he wrote "The Torah cannot be false. What has been proven to be true cannot be false by definition. Therefore if your understanding of Torah is contradicted by what has been proven to be true, the only thing that can be wrong is your understanding of Torah."

And why cannot the Torah be false?

Obviously Maimonides held that it wasn’t required to read Genesis in an overly literal manner. As can be seen from the above, he argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko (a 12th-century student of Maimonides) agreed with this view.

So all that can be said then is that the Torah is a fairy tail based on the belief in a creator and creation.

But not taking it all overly literally goes back much further than Maimonides. The entire point of Talmud and the commentaries is to go beyond the literal meaning and see my post #62 as well.

So what is it then about Genesis that we should take literally? God and creation, right. And this has been proven to be true how?

[seer]

So all that can be said then is that the Torah is a fairy tail based on the belief in a creator and creation.

It is fairy tale James...

[Roy]

It is fairy tale James...

[seer mode]
So you agree that the Torah is a fairy tale.
[/seer mode]

[JimL]

It is fairy tale James...

Yes, thanks, mistakes happen. You're correct, it is a fairy tale!

[Starlight]

If you're not particularly interested in Jewish beliefs about the creation narratives, you probably shouldn't make dogmatic statements about them.

It's actually a good way to learn about subjects you know little about: Make a random statement, and people will rush to tell you why it's wrong, if it's wrong.

In hindsight it was probably a bit carelessly phrased on my part though, and yeah, I shouldn't have generalized to include Jewish views that I don't know much about.

[rogue06]

It's actually a good way to learn about subjects you know little about: Make a random statement, and people will rush to tell you why it's wrong, if it's wrong.

In hindsight it was probably a bit carelessly phrased on my part though, and yeah, I shouldn't have generalized to include Jewish views that I don't know much about.

Some folks simply ask rather than pontificate for information. Try it some time.

[Starlight]

Really? Are you unaware of the free interpretation of Scripture within Judaism around His time as exemplified by the midrash Haggadah? Jews during Christ's time, like Philo of Alexander and Josephus, are said to have debated exactly how long the days of creation were. IIRC the former rejected the idea of a literal six day creation and considered the story of Adam’s rib as being figurative. And Josephus asserted in his Preface section 4 to his "Jewish Antiquities" that Moses wrote the second and third chapters in some enigmatic, or allegorical or philosophical sense. Further, if you are correct then Hillel and Shammai could not have disagreed on whether heaven or earth was created first.

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.