ARTICLE: Reinventing Our God-Talk

[Ryokan]

Cup, watching you work is beautifdul. Pearls.

[Nanny]

Nanny, are you aware that there is a vast and dramatic difference between "popular press" and "scholarly reference?" That's not a very frequently discussed issue in Christian apologetics (or Wiccan apologetics, for that matter)--but the gulf is very real.

If one wants to do a serious study of history, one cannot look to apologetic texts whatsoever--either for or against a certain position. One must look to the evidence--the texts of the time, the archaeology, the cultural context. And one must examine all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports your particular claim.

If I understand you, then "popular press" cannot incorporate "scholarly reference" (archaeology, historical context, etc.)?

.... Assumptions of what I do or do not want to do is terribly condescending. I hope we can avoid such.

I believe I'm correct that you are pretty set in your opinion/belief -- as am I. I don't say that in rancor and don't think I have anything to apologize for.

So, let me get this straight--let us assume for a moment that my analysis of the Exodus historical claims are accurate. If you were persuaded of the accuracy of that analysis, would you then give up your faith?

I have no fear whatsoever. When we began, I simply asked you to give me "specific examples of portions of the Bible where all available evidence points away from a literalist or historic interpretation" and asked that you include the portions of scripture as well as the "available evidence."
Understand that the Bible does contain figurative language; literalists do not deny this. But when you deny the Exodus and the Conquest, you've bitten off a lot to chew. Please just give me ... specific examples of texts ... where all available evidence points away from literalist or historic interpretation, as you originally affirmed.
I've got some work to do here, so don't construe my delay as disinterest.

Oh, and by the way, the three to four thousand years of Biblical record I mentioned had to do with the estimated year of the wilderness wanderings, which I think is around 1440 BC. You could address the 2000 year old N.T. record, if you prefer, when you give me "all the available evidence" refuting the event.

[technomage]

If I understand you, then "popular press" cannot incorporate "scholarly reference" (archaeology, historical context, etc.)?

Quite the contrary--many popular press books do contain scholarly references. But a scholarly reference is examined by a group of peers in that particular discipline--this editing process is part and parcel of the sequence of scholarly publishing. These "peer editors" make notes of errors, implausible conclusions, or misuse of sources--and if they find any, they usually send a recommendation to the publisher to reject a particular work. These recommendations are based on the scholarly soundness of the article in question--and scholarship, the transmission of fact, is the primary driving force of such publications.

Popular press has only one driving force--profit. Other factors--the soundness of the scholarship, the use of evidence and sources, even the clarity of the logic--are utterly irrelevant: if the book can make a profit, it will be accepted for sale. Now, don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no onus against making an honest buck ... but if you examine such authors as Eric Von Daniken or Immanuel Velikovsky, you'll know that "popular press" and "accuracy" are not necessarily synonymous. (Truth to tell, "academic press" and "accuracy" are also not necessarily synonymous, but the odds are much better.)

I believe I'm correct that you are pretty set in your opinion/belief

I think that may be the fundamental error, Nanny--for you would be quite incorrect. I am not only willing to change my beliefs and opinions, I am eager to do so if new evidence comes forward that invalidates my current beliefs and opinions.

I have no fear whatsoever. When we began, I simply asked you to give me "specific examples of portions of the Bible where all available evidence points away from a literalist or historic interpretation" and asked that you include the portions of scripture as well as the "available evidence."
Understand that the Bible does contain figurative language; literalists do not deny this. But when you deny the Exodus and the Conquest, you've bitten off a lot to chew.

Please just give me ... specific examples of texts ... where all available evidence points away from literalist or historic interpretation, as you originally affirmed.

As you will. Tell you what: I'll give you a list to choose from. We'll take the discussion itself to a new thread.
1: Creation Account
2: Patriarchal Age
3: Exodus Account
4: Conquest

I'm not equipped to discuss the United Monarchy at this time: this particular area is incredibly busy right now with the discovery of a 10th or 9th century palace in the Old City of Jerusalem, so while there are some incredible discoveries in progress, making an evaluation at this point is premature.

For the same reason, I'm also not prepared to discuss the Divided Monarchy or the Post-Monarchial periods in any tremendous detail: with the discovery of Oded Golan's possible involvement in wholesale antiquities forgeries, this particular area is too unsettled to properly evaluate at this time.

Oh, and by the way, the three to four thousand years of Biblical record I mentioned had to do with the estimated year of the wilderness wanderings, which I think is around 1440 BC. You could address the 2000 year old N.T. record, if you prefer, when you give me "all the available evidence" refuting the event.

We can discuss the New Testament at a later time, if you like. I prefer to take things in sequence myself, but that's up to you.

[Nanny]

I have no fear whatsoever. When we began, I simply asked you to give me "specific examples of portions of the Bible where all available evidence points away from a literalist or historic interpretation" and asked that you include the portions of scripture as well as the "available evidence."
Understand that the Bible does contain figurative language; literalists do not deny this. But when you deny the Exodus and the Conquest, you've bitten off a lot to chew.

...Justin, the above is my quote.
This could go on forever arguing about such wide topics given in your list, and I think others are probably discussing such topics. The request is simple, please give chapter and verse and your evidence against the truth/factuality of the statement. I thought it'd be good exercise for me, and I could learn something in the process. And, I agree that this should go to another thread.

If Christianity is not true-truth, it is nothing and my faith is in vain. However, I repeat, I have no fear. Maybe I'll see you on another thread.

[technomage]

...Justin, the above is my quote.
This could go on forever arguing about such wide topics given in your list, and I think others are probably discussing such topics. The request is simple, please give chapter and verse and your evidence against the truth/factuality of the statement. I thought it'd be good exercise for me, and I could learn something in the process. And, I agree that this should go to another thread.

Nanny, before I start the new thread, I do want to ask you a question: are you interested in actually investigating the evidence, or are you only interested in arguing the point? I'm ... well, I'm not much for arguments just for the sake of argument.

If you're interested in looking at the evidence and forming a conclusion, well and good: I truly look forward to such conversations, and I tend to learn much from them. However, I also have to acknowledge that I don't have a dog in this fight. The historicity (or lack of historicity) of the Bible is, to me, an interesting academic question: nothing more. If it is something that you have a profound emotional attachment to, then it is probable that such a conversation might be extremely stressful to you--and I have no desire to cause anyone stress.

If Christianity is not true-truth, it is nothing and my faith is in vain.

I also vehemently disagree with this statement--I am of the opinion that even if every single event depicted in the Bible was historically incorrect (a position that I do not ascribe to), Christianity would still be valid--"true-truth" for those who believe, to borrow your phrase.

Think it over, and decide which of the four categories you want to concentrate on, and let me know.

[Nanny]

Nanny, before I start the new thread, I do want to ask you a question: are you interested in actually investigating the evidence, or are you only interested in arguing the point? I'm ... well, I'm not much for arguments just for the sake of argument.

If you're interested in looking at the evidence and forming a conclusion, well and good: I truly look forward to such conversations, and I tend to learn much from them. However, I also have to acknowledge that I don't have a dog in this fight. The historicity (or lack of historicity) of the Bible is, to me, an interesting academic question: nothing more. If it is something that you have a profound emotional attachment to, then it is probable that such a conversation might be extremely stressful to you--and I have no desire to cause anyone stress.

I doubt that any further discussion would benefit either of us because we have a basic philosophical disagreement as to the nature of truth, which to me is reality, or what is. Your next quote illustrates the wide chasm between your understanding of faith and mine. To me, faith is based on what really is. E.g., the Apostle Paul affirmed that unless Christ physically rose from the dead (a historical fact), our faith is in vain. Likewise, in the O.T., The Lord gives evidence of his reality before He requires faith and obedience. You can see how far apart we are on the basics, as witnessed by your next quote.

I also vehemently disagree with this statement--I am of the opinion that even if every single event depicted in the Bible was historically incorrect (a position that I do not ascribe to), Christianity would still be valid--"true-truth" for those who believe, to borrow your phrase.

Btw, the term "true-truth" is really a usage employed by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer. He felt it was necessary when speaking to modern man. Before the emergence of existentialism, I guess everyone knew what the word meant. Now moderns and post-moderns sit around wondering what is is.

Think it over, and decide which of the four categories you want to concentrate on, and let me know.

I don't want to be mean here, but we could devote our lives to discussing your categories. All I meant to do was to simply take you up on your challenge that there was ample evidence against the historicity of the Bible (or some such remark), and merely requested we investigate that remark in the particulars, i.e., chapter and verse. If you want to do that, you could start another thread. And, if not, ... well, it's been interesting to say the least.

[technomage]

I doubt that any further discussion would benefit either of us because we have a basic philosophical disagreement as to the nature of truth, which to me is reality, or what is. Your next quote illustrates the wide chasm between your understanding of faith and mine. To me, faith is based on what really is. E.g., the Apostle Paul affirmed that unless Christ physically rose from the dead (a historical fact), our faith is in vain. Likewise, in the O.T., The Lord gives evidence of his reality before He requires faith and obedience. You can see how far apart we are on the basics, as witnessed by your next quote.



Btw, the term "true-truth" is really a usage employed by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer. He felt it was necessary when speaking to modern man. Before the emergence of existentialism, I guess everyone knew what the word meant. Now moderns and post-moderns sit around wondering what is is.

Then, Nanny, I am forced to the conclusion that if that is the level of "truth" that you demand from your Bible, you stand a very good chance of coming away from a forthright investigation of history with a badly damaged or destroyed faith.

I don't want to be mean here, but we could devote our lives to discussing your categories. All I meant to do was to simply take you up on your challenge that there was ample evidence against the historicity of the Bible (or some such remark), and merely requested we investigate that remark in the particulars, i.e., chapter and verse. If you want to do that, you could start another thread. And, if not, ... well, it's been interesting to say the least.

One does not investigate the entire scope of the Civil War by investigating a single diary of a soldier who never saw combat. An investigation of history of the type you originally asked for would require far more investigation than a single chapter or brief passage.

It's up to you. Considering the differences between the history and the truth-claims of the Bible is not a simple subject.

[Nanny]

Then, Nanny, I am forced to the conclusion that if that is the level of "truth" that you demand from your Bible, you stand a very good chance of coming away from a forthright investigation of history with a badly damaged or destroyed faith.

One does not investigate the entire scope of the Civil War by investigating a single diary of a soldier who never saw combat. An investigation of history of the type you originally asked for would require far more investigation than a single chapter or brief passage.

It's up to you. Considering the differences between the history and the truth-claims of the Bible is not a simple subject.

Justin, in your original statement in response to Mr. Koukl's article, you said:

There are already portions of the Bible where all available evidence points away from a literalist or historicist interpretation.

All I'm asking for here is a discussion of the particular "portions of the Bible" where "all available evidence points away from a literalist or historicist interpretation." I'm just asking for all your available evidence of these particular portions of the Bible. In other words, just be specific. That doesn't seem unfair or illogical. And for clarity, just take one at a time.

[technomage]

All I'm asking for here is a discussion of the particular "portions of the Bible" where "all available evidence points away from a literalist or historicist interpretation."

I've given you four portions:

1: Creation Account
2: Patriarchal Age
3: Exodus Account
4: Conquest

Choose one.

[lee_merrill]

I've given you four portions:

1: Creation Account
2: Patriarchal Age
3: Exodus Account
4: Conquest

Choose one.

I think Nanny's request is for a specific short passage in the Bible, and how all the evidence points against it. Your number 2 is essentially the whole book of Genesis, 3 is pretty much Exodus through Deuteronomy, 4 is the book of Joshua, these are not such specific references.

And need we ask whether whole books are being written on the creation account? Again, even this is too broad, and can't be reasonably discussed in one thread, is her request really so unclear as all that?

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

I think Nanny's request is for a specific short passage in the Bible, and how all the evidence points against it. Your number 2 is essentially the whole book of Genesis, 3 is pretty much Exodus through Deuteronomy, 4 is the book of Joshua, these are not such specific references.

And need we ask whether whole books are being written on the creation account? Again, even this is too broad, and can't be reasonably discussed in one thread, is her request really so unclear as all that?

Blessings,
Lee

One does not critique a book by pointing to a single page. You should know that, Lee--I've already exposed your mendacity twice in the realm of discussing prophecy.

[Nanny]

I've given you four portions:

1: Creation Account
2: Patriarchal Age
3: Exodus Account
4: Conquest

Choose one.

Justin, would you really want to embark on presenting "all the available evidence" disprooving the biblical accounts of these periods? Seems to me that would be a mammoth task. The burden is on you because you made the claim.

[technomage]

Justin, would you really want to embark on presenting "all the available evidence" disprooving the biblical accounts of these periods?

Actually, yes--in the interest of accuracy and truth, I would not only be willing to do so, I would greatly enjoy the conversation.

[Nanny]

Actually, yes--in the interest of accuracy and truth, I would not only be willing to do so, I would greatly enjoy the conversation.

So you'd have no objection then to giving me a specific passage and present your evidence disputing that passage? Don't forget to begin on another thread. Thanks.

[technomage]

So you'd have no objection then to giving me a specific passage and present your evidence disputing that passage? Don't forget to begin on another thread. Thanks.

Here you go: Justin and Nanny discuss the Exodus.