On myth
John Wilkins
goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
1. It is not surprising that those who were thinkers of *any* kind at
an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
"Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
2. To claim that the myths of the past were intended to be read as
literal history presumes that they had a notion of literal history.
Arguably (at least it was argued to me when I did historiography in
university) such a notion wasn't invented until Herodotus and
Thucydides wrote their investigations with an attempt to get it right
rather than to get it politically or religiously acceptable. Nobody
even *knew* about history until then. The annalists and chroniclers of
the ancient and more recent periods were largely engaged in presenting
political and religious myths for the purposes of propaganda than
presenting objective histories. We have to reconstruct the past
histories rather than simply read them. Even as late as the mid-20th
century, histories were being written to do this, as a result of which
each generation has to critically examine the histories of the past as
myths, to correct any interpretations that are local to the period and
culture. Even the idea that one might give correct details is a late
addition.
3. To understand a narrative, one has to treat it with respect. Genesis
and the patriarchal histories must be read *as if you were one of the
intended audience* if you are to grasp it. Once that is done, of course
you "re-enter" your modern persona, but to interpret the past in terms
of today is a specific historical sin called "Whiggism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
and it does nothing worthwhile other than make you feel all warm and
cozy about yourself. If that is what you want from history and other
cultures, fine, but do not expect the honest scholar to find that all
that attractive.
The Bible was not written as history (with the possible exception of
Luke-Acts, as the author of that work seems to have read his
Thucydides) and to critique it for not being what it was never intended
to be, or to be read as, is simply dishonest. I say that of the
literalists as well as the scientism of our disputants. You can't
understand those texts by sitting in a 21st century western mindset;
although of course you want, whether you are a believer or not, to
interpret the results in your own terms.
This is called "exegesis"; and it is a canon of historical
interpretation that before you can impose an interpretation on a text,
you must understand it in its own terms. Genesis is not a scientific
text, and sensible people know this because even the very notion of
"science" was absent when it was written. Not until the late classical
period do people start to interpret the Old Testament in scientific
terms, which is when the problems begin.
Now how a modern "Abrahamic" theist reconciles their scriptures with
the knowledge we have from science is their own problem and not mine,
but at the very least a sensible theist must realise this is not a
science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
true.
JTEM
John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> In the ongoing discussion about whether those
> who wrote the Bible were goatherders and
> primitive, a few points occur to me.
Generally speaking, reading & writing where not
left to the goat herders. Were they primitives?
Sure. The city of Ugarit, for example, was
destroyed more than 2,000 years before the invention
of the button, and in their writings we find many
of the original Pagan sources for the bible.
No, they weren't "Israelites" or "Hebrews" or "Jewish"
or even monotheistic. But, they recorded many of the
Pagan tails which would later be adopted by the
writers of the bible -- altered just enough to fit
into the (somewhat) monotheistic narrative.
> 2. To claim that the myths of the past were intended
> to be read as literal history presumes that they had
> a notion of literal history.
Well... sort of. That's certainly true from the perspective
of the writers, but it's a bit of a stretch to claim that
for the masses.
And it just so happens that Herodotus is known as "The
Father of History," and he was writing at least a century
before the oldest known copy of the bible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus
The bible itself would be roughly contemporary (perhaps
even a little younger than) Manetho's history of Egypt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manetho
Now, you've got to remember: When I say the bible I don't
mean the various pieces. After all, I already explicitly
stated that could find writing which would eventually be
included within the bible at Ugarit, and, if you didn't
know, Ugarit was destroyed some time before the first
millennium B.C.
Many -- if not all -- of the stories found in the old
testament predate the bible by a good many years. Problem
is, they weren't part of any culture or religion as
described by the bible. They weren't written by "Israelites"
or "Hebrews," and they certainly weren't written by
anyone who believed in one and only one God.
> Arguably (at least it was argued to me when I did
> historiography in university) such a notion wasn't
> invented until Herodotus and Thucydides wrote their
> investigations with an attempt to get it right
> rather than to get it politically or religiously
> acceptable.
Wow, you're just *Way* off base here.
There is no "Bible" prior to Herodotus. None. Individual
stories, traditions -- some of which would later find
their way into the bible, many which would not -- sure.
But no "Bible."
As late as "Herod the Great" -- into the time of Jesus --
the people & culture as described in the bible was a VERY
poor match to the reality. Go back a few centuries and it
was nonexisting.
Even the oh so great "Second Temple" of Herod was one, huge,
screaming violation of the Ten Commandments, adorned as it
was with at least one Pagan Eagle (a depiction of a bird
WITHOUT any Pagan associations is a biblical no-no), and it
ONLY accepted donations in the form of a coin decorated
with a Pagan god.... and Eagle.
http://www.coinlink.com/News/world-coins/israeli-archaeologists-discover-rare-second-temple-coin/
> The Bible was not written as history (with the possible
> exception of Luke-Acts, as the author of that work seems
> to have read his Thucydides) and to critique it for not
> being what it was never intended to be, or to be read as,
> is simply dishonest.
Fact of the matter is, you're not in much (if any) better
shape than the next guy, when it comes to deciding how
the bible should be read.
It seems clear enough to me how it should be read, and that's
within the social-political context of the day it was written.
They had the example of Herodotus and Thucydides, and in
all probability they had Manethos, too. It's absolutely,
positively NOT a mistake or a coincidence that it is written
like a history -- as a history. The people of the Levant
were suffering from some cultural penis envy. They had first
been conquered by and then dominated by the Greeks. Greek
culture was devouring them and their identity, while at
the same time they were not (and never could be) Greeks
themselves.
Sure, we like to think of the oh so noble, open-minded
Greeks, but they were a pack of snobs. They viewed their
own culture as valuable, everyone else's as shit, and
non-Greeks were, for the most part, barbarians.
Anyhow, the bible is a whopping big proclamation -- "We
are as big, as ancient and as important as any other culture
on this earth, if not more so" -- and a rejection of the
Hellenistic culture.
Dan Listermann
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47314106-9b70-4478...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sure, we like to think of the oh so noble, open-minded
> Greeks, but they were a pack of snobs. They viewed their
> own culture as valuable, everyone else's as shit, and
> non-Greeks were, for the most part, barbarians.
An interesting parallel could be drawn between Western culture today and the
Islamic world.
.
JTEM
"Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Sure, we like to think of the oh so noble, open-minded
> > Greeks, but they were a pack of snobs. They viewed their
> > own culture as valuable, everyone else's as shit, and
> > non-Greeks were, for the most part, barbarians.
> An interesting parallel could be drawn between Western
> culture today and the Islamic world.
It could, but it works both ways. The Islamic world loves
the technology and certainly the strength of the western
world, but it never had a very flattering view of
western culture.
All-seeing-I
1Chronicles starts with the Historical Birth Records From Adam to
Abraham. 2Chronicles ends describing the first year of Cyrus king of
Persia and how he was going to help rebuild the temple in Israel.
Everything in between the two books describes such things as who
became king, when they ruled, their age, members of their family, how
they came to power, how their rule ended, when people lived and died,
how they lived, what they ate and what life was like during that time
perod... etc etc.
The same with the Books of Kings. Judges, Ezra, Ruth, etc,,,. They all
describe events, people, places, attitudes, dates, locations, and even
things like the names of towns being changed.
Most of the bible is history. It is the history of one man's family
from Adam to Jesus written in story format. That man was Abraham.
Any idiot that can read at a 6th grade level should be able to
understand that the bible is filled with the facts and events
surrounding the family of Abraham, beginning with Adam, and ending
with Jesus. That makes the bible a "history of the Hebrews"
To claim otherwise is simply propaganda and intended as fodder for the
modern day atheists to soothe their minds..
----
Vend
Actually I think that pretty much any culture does the same with other
cultures of the same age.
The point is that we still view the ancient Greek culture as valuable
respect to the culture of their contemporaney neighbors.
R Brown
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:madman-3301a5c1-512f-...@m31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
individual (you for example) say that the contents of the Bible cause you to
reject the reality of evolution then either the Bible has it wrong or your
interpretations of its contents are faulty.
The merits of who, what, when, where and how of any religious writing are
best left to those who believe and worry about such things. If they don't
reflect reality then don't take them as fact. Their stories might provide
meaningful lessons or even be entertaining. Some of them are bloody
horrific. One could be as fruitfully occupied debating the merits of the
collective works of the brothers Grimm.
> ----
>
>
Dan Listermann
much of their culture too.
.
Mitchell Coffey
> In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> 1. It is not surprising that those who were thinkers of *any* kind at
> an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
> Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
> "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
> automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
> had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
> well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
> biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
To beat this baby to death a bit, it might be noted that one
grandfather of the current President of the United States included the
keeping of goats among his several enterprises, and Pres. Obama's
father, in his youth, helped herd them.
Also, I dispute your claim that circa 600bce the herding of goats, as
a broad economic activity, did not require knowledge of astrophysics,
biology and geography, as such subjects stood at the time. How else
were they to precisely time their procedures based on the seasons,
breed, raise and treat their stock, and get flocks to, from and among
pastures and markets?
Mitchell
Mark Evans
There is a difference between writing the bible and writing down the
bible. Much of the early part of the bible seems to predate writing
per se. It was "written", which is to say made up, long before it was
written down.
Mark Evans
Mitchell Coffey
el cid
and specifics. It should also expand some beyond Greek and
Hebrew references. Don't tell me I can't be choosy and don't
call me a beggar.
Kermit
Seconded.
Kermit
el cid
> ... One could be as fruitfully occupied debating the merits of the
> collective works of the brothers Grimm.
Nothing wrong with doing so. Rather well respected universities
include course that would do so (you know, in that 'liberal arts'
part of a university education). Even physical biochemists can find
use for such things if you have an interest in modern anthropology.
You may be making the mistake of too readily dismissing that which
you do not yet understand.
el cid
That is a heavily disputed notion in scholarly circles. Literist
tradition
has it that way, agreed. Analysis of the text suggest major redaction
and remodeling in the synthesis of the Pentateuch, consult for example
the Documentary Hypothesis.
Burkhard
> On Feb 4, 8:51�am, "R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ... �One could be as fruitfully occupied debating the merits of the
> > collective works of the brothers Grimm.
>
> Nothing wrong with doing so. Rather well respected universities
> include course that would do so (you know, in that 'liberal arts'
> part of a university education).
My first law exam ever was: What crimes have been committed in Snow-
white and the seven dwarfs. I got marked down for not discussing
"practising medicine without a license" and "bringing foodstuff into
circulation unfit for human consumption".
See also: Karen Hicks, Jordan Austin; Social Studies, Vol. 85, 1994:
Experiencing the Legal System: Fairy Tale Trials for Fifth Graders.
As teaching tools for ethical and community standards they are
extremely efficient.
r norman
And thirded.
I have just got back from almost a month travelling and find myself
absolutely overwhelmed by the incredible inanity of most of what gets
written here. After a constant dose of it, you become hardened and
can't see it. But the constant "Did not!", "did so!", Am not!" "Are
too!" exchanges are really striking (and appalling) when viewed
afresh. To see an intelligent, well composed, well thought out little
essay is really a ray of sunshine.
And, contrary to JTEM, I don't think it is "way off base" but rather
right on the mark, hence excellent POTM material.
Dan Listermann
"el cid" <elcid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:051e633f-d91a-4013...@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Can you yet bring yourself to admit that the"core idea" of Genesis is a
deity creating the world?
.
Mitchell Coffey
> I might second it on a second draft. I want more references
> and specifics. It should also expand some beyond Greek and
> Hebrew references. Don't tell me I can't be choosy and don't
> call me a beggar.
You can't be choosy and you're a beggar.
Mitchell Coffey
el cid
Just what I expect from a Shirley like you.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"John Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:040220101858405579%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> 1. It is not surprising that those who were thinkers of *any* kind at
> an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
> Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
> "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
> automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
> had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
> well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
> biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
Neither does any religious bellower.
It's a FAIRY TALE.
If the car makers could not come up with a bible - does NOT mean the
goatherders did.
The bottom line - NONE of the three groups mentioned has provided ANY valid
evidence or facts for the whole delusion.
It is a fairy tale, and should never be treated as anything else.
Ernest Major
<d...@listermann.com> writes
>
>Can you yet bring yourself to admit that the"core idea" of Genesis is a
>deity creating the world?
>
idea of Genesis 1 and the first few verses of Genesis 2 (Genesis as a
whole contains some quite varied material) is that a deity created the
world, or that there is just one deity.
However I am not aware that any of your colocutors has been denying that
meaning of Genesis 1 etc includes the divine creation of the world. The
person who is furthest from accepting that as the "core idea" of Genesis
1 etc may be yourself - your position seems to effectively be that the
"core idea" is that YECs are correct.
Basically you're indulging in a strawman - you're taking the position
that the intended meaning is not that the humans were created separately
from other animals, and changing that into the position that intended
meaning is not that the world was created.
--
alias Ernest Major
el cid
> "el cid" <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
This little scare quoted phrase you have, "core idea" is ill defined.
Do you actually have a coherent point to make?
There's no question that both creation myths in Genesis claim "god
did it". But you might as well reduce MacBeth to "Murderer is slain".
If your whole point in attacking creationists is to say "ha ha, you
believe in god", then make your little schoolyard chant and run
away with the other little boys. If you have something more
substantial to say, put something more substantial together.
Dan Listermann
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9CIb7$wuYva...@meden.invalid...
> In message <2b06e$4b6aefc1$4a53bf9f$65...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann
> <d...@listermann.com> writes
>>
>>Can you yet bring yourself to admit that the"core idea" of Genesis is a
>>deity creating the world?
>>
> From what I know there seems to be room for argument whether the core idea
> of Genesis 1 and the first few verses of Genesis 2 (Genesis as a whole
> contains some quite varied material) is that a deity created the world, or
> that there is just one deity.
It is a cosmogic myth. Please explain to us what you think that might mean.
.
Dan Listermann
to all of us what you think that means?
.
Kalkidas
"John Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:040220101858405579%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
[snip faux-scholastic smoke and mirrors designed to lull us to sleep so that
we uncritically accept the following...]
> .....at the very least a sensible theist must realise this is not a
> science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
> deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
> set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
> true.
So the Bible was "always intended" to be a set of myths, eh? Intended by
whom? And where in the Bible is that intention expressed? And if not in the
Bible, then where is that intention expressed? Are there other works by the
Biblical authors where they express that intention?
Where did you get your information about the "intention" of the Bible?
Through channelling?
raven1
wrote:
Fourthed. (And hearing that JTEM thought it was "way off base" only
increases my appreciation for the article).
Ernest Major
>
>"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9CIb7$wuYva...@meden.invalid...
>> In message <2b06e$4b6aefc1$4a53bf9f$65...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann
>> <d...@listermann.com> writes
>>>
>>>Can you yet bring yourself to admit that the"core idea" of Genesis is a
>>>deity creating the world?
>>>
>> From what I know there seems to be room for argument whether the core idea
>> of Genesis 1 and the first few verses of Genesis 2 (Genesis as a whole
>> contains some quite varied material) is that a deity created the world, or
>> that there is just one deity.
>
>It is a cosmogic myth. Please explain to us what you think that might mean.
>
cosmogenic myth, or that it is highly likely that the divine creation of
the world was part of the intended meaning.
It was you who introduced the idea of a "core idea", presumably as a red
herring, as it has nothing to do with your position that Genesis 1 etc
were intended to be "read literally", but when you've done that you have
to consider the possibility that the core idea is not that the world was
divinely created. For comparison the core idea (the moral) of the fable
of the boy who cried wolf is not that the wolf ate the boy, but that
repeated false alarms reduce the effectiveness of real ones. That core
idea can be applied to concepts like smoke detectors - a too sensitive
smoke detector is of lower utility, because people will learn to ignore
it.
My opinion is that we can't identify the intended meaning, or core idea,
of the creation myth in Genesis 1, etc. as this remove, but I'm open to
being convinced otherwise by people more familiar with the field.
However, this creation myth is (I'm told) based on other, earlier,
creation myths from the ancient Near East, but cast in a monotheistic
mold, to the extent, as someone has pointed out of using periphrasis to
denote the moon and sun to avoid the appearance of referring to other
gods. I don't see that there are ground to reject outright the
hypothesis that it was the monotheism, not the creation, that the
authors considered the core point.
>>However I am not aware that any of your colocutors has been denying
>>that meaning of Genesis 1 etc includes the divine creation of the
world.
>>The person who is furthest from accepting that as the "core idea" of
Jenny6833A
I don't find anything to disagree with in John's essay, but I also
don't find a relevant point. I don't criticize the bible, its
authors, or their scribes for what the bible is, or for what the
authors/scribes were or may have been. The bible is just another
collection of myths, and not very worthwhile or well written ones, so
I'd normally have no interest.
Were it not for the ludicrous claims of Jews and Christians, I'd not
even be aware of its existence.
I criticize the bible only in reaction to those who claim the bible is
true in one sense or another -- that it's the infallible word of some
unlikely and unappealing god. Even then, my criticism would be rare
and mild were it not for the fact that others try to force me to
accept _their_ view of it and live by _their_ interpretations of it.
:-)
Jenny
Mitchell Coffey
Finally! someone who knows I prefer to be called "Shirley."
Mitchell Coffey
Mark Evans
> On Feb 4, 9:56嚙窮m, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is called "exegesis"; and it is a canon of historical
> > > interpretation that before you can impose an interpretation on a text,
> > > you must understand it in its own terms. Genesis is not a scientific
> > > text, and sensible people know this because even the very notion of
> > > "science" was absent when it was written. Not until the late classical
> > > period do people start to interpret the Old Testament in scientific
> > > terms, which is when the problems begin.
>
> > > Now how a modern "Abrahamic" theist reconciles their scriptures with
> > > the knowledge we have from science is their own problem and not mine,
> > > but at the very least a sensible theist must realise this is not a
> > > science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
> > > deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
> > > set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
> > > true.
>
> > There is a difference between writing the bible and writing down the
> > per se. 嚙瘢t was "written", which is to say made up, long before it was
> > written down.
>
> That is a heavily disputed notion in scholarly circles. Literist
> tradition
> has it that way, agreed. Analysis of the text suggest major redaction
> and remodeling in the synthesis of the Pentateuch, consult for example
> the Documentary Hypothesis.
But even with major redaction, remodeling and even editing it looks as
if the basis of what is called the bible is an oral tradition, most
likely from multiple sources. I have seen how oral traditions can
persist for a long time without writing. My mother's family has a
pooka tale that goes back several centuries to when they were in the
British Isles.
Mark Evans
el cid
At least we both picked the right day to not quit taking Peyote.
Dan Listermann
> In message <14aaf$4b6afab7$4a53bf9f$10...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann
> <d...@listermann.com> writes
>>
>>"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:9CIb7$wuYva...@meden.invalid...
>>> In message <2b06e$4b6aefc1$4a53bf9f$65...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann
>>> <d...@listermann.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>Can you yet bring yourself to admit that the"core idea" of Genesis is a
>>>>deity creating the world?
>>>>
>>> From what I know there seems to be room for argument whether the core
>>> idea
>>> of Genesis 1 and the first few verses of Genesis 2 (Genesis as a whole
>>> contains some quite varied material) is that a deity created the world,
>>> or
>>> that there is just one deity.
>>
>>It is a cosmogic myth. Please explain to us what you think that might
>>mean.
>>
> Look, you idiot, no one here is disputing that Genesis 1 etc is a
> cosmogenic myth, or that it is highly likely that the divine creation of
> the world was part of the intended meaning.
Great. It is the primary reason the story is told. It is what it is all
about. The rest is filler and propaganda.
>
> It was you who introduced the idea of a "core idea", presumably as a red
> herring, as it has nothing to do with your position that Genesis 1 etc
> were intended to be "read literally", but when you've done that you have
> to consider the possibility that the core idea is not that the world was
> divinely created. For comparison the core idea (the moral) of the fable of
> the boy who cried wolf is not that the wolf ate the boy, but that repeated
> false alarms reduce the effectiveness of real ones. That core idea can be
> applied to concepts like smoke detectors - a too sensitive smoke detector
> is of lower utility, because people will learn to ignore it.
>
It was no tme who introduced "core idea." I can't remember which strawmen
builder did it, but he did it with Genesis in mind IIRC.
> My opinion is that we can't identify the intended meaning, or core idea,
> of the creation myth in Genesis 1, etc. as this remove, but I'm open to
> being convinced otherwise by people more familiar with the field. However,
> this creation myth is (I'm told) based on other, earlier, creation myths
> from the ancient Near East, but cast in a monotheistic mold, to the
> extent, as someone has pointed out of using periphrasis to denote the moon
> and sun to avoid the appearance of referring to other gods. I don't see
> that there are ground to reject outright the hypothesis that it was the
> monotheism, not the creation, that the authors considered the core point.
Well if it is, that is not obvious and will require work. Show it.
.
Dan Listermann
"Mark Evans" <markev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aba5aaa8-eb5e-489a...@c10g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 4, 10:32 am, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 9:56 am, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > This is called "exegesis"; and it is a canon of historical
>> > > interpretation that before you can impose an interpretation on a
>> > > text,
>> > > you must understand it in its own terms. Genesis is not a scientific
>> > > text, and sensible people know this because even the very notion of
>> > > "science" was absent when it was written. Not until the late
>> > > classical
>> > > period do people start to interpret the Old Testament in scientific
>> > > terms, which is when the problems begin.
>>
>> > > Now how a modern "Abrahamic" theist reconciles their scriptures with
>> > > the knowledge we have from science is their own problem and not mine,
>> > > but at the very least a sensible theist must realise this is not a
>> > > science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a
>> > > particularly
>> > > deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be,
>> > > a
>> > > set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also
>> > > be
>> > > true.
>>
>> > There is a difference between writing the bible and writing down the
>> > per se. It was "written", which is to say made up, long before it was
>> > written down.
>>
>> That is a heavily disputed notion in scholarly circles. Literist
>> tradition
>> has it that way, agreed. Analysis of the text suggest major redaction
>> and remodeling in the synthesis of the Pentateuch, consult for example
>> the Documentary Hypothesis.
>
> But even with major redaction, remodeling and even editing it looks as
> if the basis of what is called the bible is an oral tradition, most
> likely from multiple sources. I have seen how oral traditions can
> persist for a long time without writing. My mother's family has a
> pooka tale that goes back several centuries to when they were in the
> British Isles.
>
probably very old. It would not surprise me that it goes back beyond
hunters and gathers to the beginning of language itself. It is quick,
simple and it does its purpose.
.
Mitchell Coffey
No day is not the right day to not quit taking Peyote.
Mitchell
Ernest Major
<d...@listermann.com> writes
>> My opinion is that we can't identify the intended meaning, or core idea,
>> of the creation myth in Genesis 1, etc. as this remove, but I'm open to
>> being convinced otherwise by people more familiar with the field. However,
>> this creation myth is (I'm told) based on other, earlier, creation myths
>> from the ancient Near East, but cast in a monotheistic mold, to the
>> extent, as someone has pointed out of using periphrasis to denote the moon
>> and sun to avoid the appearance of referring to other gods. I don't see
>> that there are ground to reject outright the hypothesis that it was the
>> monotheism, not the creation, that the authors considered the core point.
>
>Well if it is, that is not obvious and will require work. Show it.
As usual you are missing the point. (Can't you understand a single
paragraph of moderate length as a unity?) I am not claiming that is
obvious or even true. I was saying that it is not indisputable that the
core idea of Genesis 1 etc was the divine creation of the world, and
presenting an alternative which has been offered.
--
alias Ernest Major
Steven L.
news:2d244a36-96bb-4ad1...@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> I criticize the bible only in reaction to those who claim the bible is
> true in one sense or another -- that it's the infallible word of some
> unlikely and unappealing god. Even then, my criticism would be rare
> and mild were it not for the fact that others try to force me to
> accept _their_ view of it and live by _their_ interpretations of it.
Can you elaborate? How can Christians possibly have forced you to
accept belief in God, in this country?
There seems to be this paranoia on the part of atheists that there are
all these Christians chasing them and oppressing them and demanding that
they convert to Christianity. Where is that happening, exactly?
All they are doing is advocating for their beliefs, and they have every
right to do that as long as it doesn't violate laws and the
Constitution.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Ray Martinez
> In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> 1. It is not surprising that those who were thinkers of *any* kind at
> an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
> Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
> "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
> automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
> had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
> well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
> biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
>
> 2. To claim that the myths of the past were intended to be read as
> literal history presumes that they had a notion of literal history.
The Bible, like any other source, **claims** literal history. The
claims are either true or false.
The comment above assumes Atheism ideology true, that is, the idea
that the Source which says the Atheism worldview is false, is myth.
The physical evidence contained in the British Museum alone,
confirming Biblical history, is staggering.
http://www.padfield.com/acrobat/history/British_Museum.pdf
> Arguably (at least it was argued to me when I did historiography in
> university) such a notion wasn't invented until Herodotus and
> Thucydides wrote their investigations with an attempt to get it right
> rather than to get it politically or religiously acceptable. Nobody
> even *knew* about history until then. The annalists and chroniclers of
> the ancient and more recent periods were largely engaged in presenting
> political and religious myths for the purposes of propaganda than
> presenting objective histories.
More assumptions based on Atheism ideology (as explained above).
> We have to reconstruct the past
> histories rather than simply read them. Even as late as the mid-20th
> century, histories were being written to do this, as a result of which
> each generation has to critically examine the histories of the past as
> myths, to correct any interpretations that are local to the period and
> culture. Even the idea that one might give correct details is a late
> addition.
>
> 3. To understand a narrative, one has to treat it with respect. Genesis
> and the patriarchal histories must be read *as if you were one of the
> intended audience* if you are to grasp it. Once that is done, of course
> you "re-enter" your modern persona, but to interpret the past in terms
> of today is a specific historical sin called "Whiggism":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
>
Who wrote the Wiki piece; Britney Spears or Ronald McDonald?
> and it does nothing worthwhile other than make you feel all warm and
> cozy about yourself. If that is what you want from history and other
> cultures, fine, but do not expect the honest scholar to find that all
> that attractive.
>
Here "honest scholar" means those who are Atheists and Darwinists. The
concept of "scholar" excludes Atheists and Darwinists because they are
in the business of suppressing and misrepresenting the Source which
says their worldview is false. This is seen in the fact that the
commentary asserts all of the Bible to be myth, having no evidence in
support. The British Museum alone proves that Atheists and Darwinists
are brazen liars.
> The Bible was not written as history
No one disputes the fact that the Bible **claims** to convey history.
The comment above, for the second time, simply says the history is
false in a very dishonest way.
> ....(with the possible exception of
> Luke-Acts, as the author of that work seems to have read his
> Thucydides) and to critique it for not being what it was never intended
> to be, or to be read as, is simply dishonest.
Re-stating the claim of fact in the dishonest way: Biblical history is
false.
Hundreds of millions of Christians, of course, disagree. Scholars have
shown the Bible 100 percent true: scientifically and historically.
Only Atheists and Darwinists refuse to accept for obvious reasons.
> I say that of the
> literalists as well as the scientism of our disputants. You can't
> understand those texts by sitting in a 21st century western mindset;
> although of course you want, whether you are a believer or not, to
> interpret the results in �your own terms.
>
We recognize that Atheists and Darwinists do not want to understand
the Bible because there is nothing in it for their worldviews. Their
minds are poisoned by the anti-reality concepts of Naturalism-
Materialism-evolution. They only want revenge on a Text that says they
are going to hell.
The Bible makes perfect sense when a Gift Minister, that is, a person
with a calling, explains its content. Atheists and Darwinists do not
have a spiritual IQ or sense. This explains why they do not understand
the Bible; and it explains why they do not want to understand the
Bible. The Bible is very complex, which reflects the Mind of its
Author.
> This is called "exegesis"; and it is a canon of historical
> interpretation that before you can impose an interpretation on a text,
> you must understand it in its own terms. Genesis is not a scientific
> text,....
Genesis makes scientific claims since it makes claims about how the
world, mankind and animals came and come to be. The claims are either
true or false.
> ....and sensible people know this because even the very notion of
> "science" was absent when it was written.
The writer has apparently forgotten that the claim of the Canon is
Divine inspiration, which in this context means 'Master Scientist.'
> Not until the late classical
> period do people start to interpret the Old Testament in scientific
> terms, which is when the problems begin.
>
> Now how a modern "Abrahamic" theist reconciles their scriptures with
> the knowledge we have from science is their own problem and not mine,
> but at the very least a sensible theist must realise this is not a
> science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
> deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
> set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
> true.
Again, could one expect Atheists and Darwinists to say anything else
about the Bible; or misrepresent it to the degree seen?
The Bible is full of scientific and historic claims, they are either
true or false.
Both science and history have confirmed the Bible. Anyone can see for
them self by doing a little research. The Atheist and Darwinism
propaganda machine has a firm grip on education and information. This
is why self-research is necessary. And I have shown in this reply how
pro-Atheism assumptions are framed as "settled fact."
It is Darwinism that contradicts the Bible, not science.
Ray
Burkhard
from the one I had intended. I had the distinction from copyright law
in mind between "idea" or "plot" and "expression of an idea".
Devils Advocaat
>
> It is Darwinism that contradicts the Bible, not science.
>
light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night" and in
Isaiah 13:10 "and the moon shall not cause her light to shine".
These two verses suggest that the moon is a source of light, which we
know is not the case, so tell me Ray how is this contradiction one
between "Darwinism" and the Bible and not between science and the
Bible?
Kermit
> In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> 1. It is not surprising that those who were thinkers of *any* kind at
> an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
> Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
> "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
> automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
> had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
> well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
> biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
I certainly have never suggested that goatherds were stupid by nature.
But I think it is reasonable to point out that authorities often
referenced as a source of knowledge about science were bronze age
(goatherds or not), and unlikely to know most of the things we find
interesting now in science.
My wife and I often speculate that late paleolithic humans were
*smarter than we are on the average.
1. It was not only the nearsighted who are weeded out in such a
merciless environment. The dull witted would have had their moment
sooner or later, and it wouldn't have been pretty.
2. Domesticated animals tend to be less intelligent than their feral
cousins. Who is more domesticated by humans than ourselves?
3. The hunter gatherers generally did those things which we now
recognize as contributing to intelligence - they didn't smoke; they
exercised, they ate healthy food... OK, they got eaten by smilodons,
too, but that may have been a beneficial culling of the herd.
>
> 2. To claim that the myths of the past were intended to be read as
> literal history presumes that they had a notion of literal history.
> Arguably (at least it was argued to me when I did historiography in
> university) such a notion wasn't invented until Herodotus and
> Thucydides wrote their investigations with an attempt to get it right
> rather than to get it politically or religiously acceptable. Nobody
> even *knew* about history until then. The annalists and chroniclers of
> the ancient and more recent periods were largely engaged in presenting
> political and religious myths for the purposes of propaganda than
> presenting objective histories. We have to reconstruct the past
> histories rather than simply read them. Even as late as the mid-20th
> century, histories were being written to do this, as a result of which
> each generation has to critically examine the histories of the past as
> myths, to correct any interpretations that are local to the period and
> culture. Even the idea that one might give correct details is a late
> addition.
>
> 3. To understand a narrative, one has to treat it with respect. Genesis
> and the patriarchal histories must be read *as if you were one of the
> intended audience* if you are to grasp it. Once that is done, of course
> you "re-enter" your modern persona, but to interpret the past in terms
> of today is a specific historical sin called "Whiggism":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
>
> and it does nothing worthwhile other than make you feel all warm and
> cozy about yourself. If that is what you want from history and other
> cultures, fine, but do not expect the honest scholar to find that all
> that attractive.
>
> The Bible was not written as history (with the possible exception of
> Luke-Acts, as the author of that work seems to have read his
> Thucydides) and to critique it for not being what it was never intended
> to be, or to be read as, is simply dishonest. I say that of the
> literalists as well as the scientism of our disputants. You can't
> understand those texts by sitting in a 21st century western mindset;
> although of course you want, whether you are a believer or not, to
> interpret the results in �your own terms.
>
> This is called "exegesis"; and it is a canon of historical
> interpretation that before you can impose an interpretation on a text,
> you must understand it in its own terms. Genesis is not a scientific
> text, and sensible people know this because even the very notion of
> "science" was absent when it was written. Not until the late classical
> period do people start to interpret the Old Testament in scientific
> terms, which is when the problems begin.
>
> Now how a modern "Abrahamic" theist reconciles their scriptures with
> the knowledge we have from science is their own problem and not mine,
> but at the very least a sensible theist must realise this is not a
> science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
> deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
> set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
> true.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Feb 4, 2:58�am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> > goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> > 1. It is not surprising that those who were thinkers of *any* kind at
> > an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
> > Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
> > "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
> > automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
> > had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
> > well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
> > biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
>
> Abraham. 2Chronicles ends describing the first year of Cyrus king of
> Persia and how he was going to help rebuild the temple in Israel.
> Everything in between the two books describes such things as who
> became king, when they ruled, their age, members of their family, how
> they came to power, how their rule ended, when people lived and died,
> how they lived, what they ate and what life was like during that time
> perod... etc etc.
>
> The same with the Books of Kings. Judges, Ezra, Ruth, etc,,,. They all
> describe events, people, places, attitudes, dates, locations, and even
> things like the names of towns being changed.
>
> Most of the bible is history. It is the history of one man's family
> from Adam to Jesus written in story format. That man was Abraham.
>
> Any idiot that can read at a 6th grade level should be able to
> understand that the bible is filled with the facts and events
> surrounding the family of Abraham, beginning with Adam, and ending
> with Jesus. That makes the bible a "history of the Hebrews"
>
> To claim otherwise is simply propaganda and intended as fodder for the
> modern day atheists to soothe their minds..
>
> ----
The collection of Greek myths also establish the founding of many
families, the establishment of cities, the history of ancient wars,
the reason for the existence of many species (narcissus, pegasus), the
cause of diseases (Pandora's box), the mechanism behind lightening
(Zeus), the process leading to the four seasons (Demeter, Persephone,
and Hades). How do we reconcile apparent conflicts between the
Pentateuch and the oral tradition of the Greeks? The Greeks, after
all, knew how important this stuff was and had no reason to lie.
I get all the history I need from the Illiad.
Kermit
All-seeing-I
> On Feb 4, 3:58�am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> > goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> > 1. It is not surprising that those who were thinkers of *any* kind at
> > an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
> > Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
> > "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
> > automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
> > had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
> > well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
> > biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
>
> grandfather of the current President of the United States included the
> keeping of goats among his several enterprises, and Pres. Obama's
> father, in his youth, helped herd them.
>
> Also, I dispute your claim that circa 600bce the herding of goats, as
> a broad economic activity, did not require knowledge of astrophysics,
> biology and geography, as such subjects stood at the time. �How else
> were they to precisely time their procedures based on the seasons,
> breed, raise and treat their stock, and get flocks to, from and among
> pastures and markets?
>
> Mitchell
Going back several thousand more years, we find that Jacob understood
the principals of "selective breeding". Which is how he was able to
gather quite a large herd of goats for himself.
But let's face the truth. Anyone that would call the author's of the
bible's books "goat herders" is not as smart as a goat.
Kermit
> "John Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
Myths are a collection of related stories which give a people purpose
and meaning, tell them how they should be living, and explains where
they came from. It gives them tribal identity. You don't think these
books do that?
This is how the prophets turned a subset of Canaanites into Jews -
they gave them new myths. (This is surely not the only thing they did,
but it was a necessary one.)
Kermit
Ernest Major
<983a817c-c31b-4c9e...@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>I certainly have never suggested that goatherds were stupid by nature.
>But I think it is reasonable to point out that authorities often
>referenced as a source of knowledge about science were bronze age
>(goatherds or not), and unlikely to know most of the things we find
>interesting now in science.
>
It depends on what date you put on the stories in the Bible, but I have
the impression that the Old Testament was put together in the Iron Age.
--
alias Ernest Major
JTEM
"Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> I don't doubt that the non-Greeks loved the
> technology despite not thinking much of their
> culture too.
But I do seriously contest the notion that the
conduct of France and (especially) the U.K. in
the middle east taints all of the western world.
...and I laugh at the ridicules notion that
Bush's invasion of Iraq could ever come close to
matching their history.
And that whole "Crusades" nonsense has GOT to be
a joke! Islam was spread by the sword. That's
how it got from Saudi Arabia through all of north
Africa (not to mention into Europe). If the
crusades were evil, the spread of Islam was twice
as evil.
Kermit
> "Jenny6833A" <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2d244a36-96bb-4ad1...@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I criticize the bible only in reaction to those who claim the bible is
> > true in one sense or another -- that it's the infallible word of some
> > unlikely and unappealing god. �Even then, my criticism would be rare
> > and mild were it not for the fact that others try to force me to
> > accept _their_ view of it and live by _their_ interpretations of it.
>
> Can you elaborate? �How can Christians possibly have forced you to
> accept belief in God, in this country?
>
> There seems to be this paranoia on the part of atheists that there are
> all these Christians chasing them and oppressing them and demanding that
> they convert to Christianity. �Where is that happening, exactly?
>
Well, here's some in the field of teaching biology:
2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton)
1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet)
1 persecuted unmercifully for 4 years Van Till (Calvin)
1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson
IDist)
1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT
Permian)
1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas)
1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas)
1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland)
Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science
engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski
Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC
Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists.
Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall
protection for a while
http://democracyforamerica.com/blog_posts/27752-texas-teacher-suspended-for-being-liberal-and-an-atheist
Mr. Richard Mullens a (US history, government, and economics) school
teacher in Brookeland Tx, fired for being too liberal and an atheist
> All they are doing is advocating for their beliefs,
Sure, most of 'em.
>and they have every
> right to do that as long as it doesn't violate laws and the
> Constitution.
In the school my daughter went to - the children of a high percentage
of scientists, in a town sympathetic to the nearby government nuclear
reservation (our main source of income), they barely mentioned
evolution in biology class. She said she learned most of her
evolutionary science by listening to me or her mom ranting...
>
> --
> --
> Steven L.
> sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
The anti-evolutionary theory activism we see on this newsgroup is part
of a larger anti-reason movement threatening rational and informed
decision making in a world where understanding science is becoming
more and more important. Creationists, Moon Hoax Conspiracists, anti-
vaccers, New Age Woo, are threatening the lives of my grandchildren
and theirs.
Kermit
raven1
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>My opinion is that we can't identify the intended meaning, or core idea,
>of the creation myth in Genesis 1, etc. as this remove, but I'm open to
>being convinced otherwise by people more familiar with the field.
>However, this creation myth is (I'm told) based on other, earlier,
>creation myths from the ancient Near East, but cast in a monotheistic
>mold, to the extent, as someone has pointed out of using periphrasis to
>denote the moon and sun to avoid the appearance of referring to other
>gods. I don't see that there are ground to reject outright the
>hypothesis that it was the monotheism, not the creation, that the
>authors considered the core point.
I'd be a bit skeptical of that; the first verse refers to God as
"Elohim", which is a plural, dual-gendered word. The creation of Adam
then introduces "Yahweh", presumably an individual of the Elohim.
Dan Listermann
.
Dan Listermann
"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:hkfb7l$9o$2...@news.albasani.net...
Na, you recognize a strategic error.
.
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 4, 12:58�am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
>> goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>>
>> 1. It is not surprising that those who were thinkers of *any* kind at
>> an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
>> Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
>> "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
>> automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
>> had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
>> well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
>> biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
>>
>> 2. To claim that the myths of the past were intended to be read as
>> literal history presumes that they had a notion of literal history.
>
>The Bible, like any other source, **claims** literal history.
Where? Chapter and verse, please.
> The
>claims are either true or false.
"Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father".
Is that claim true or false, Ray?
>The comment above assumes Atheism ideology true, that is, the idea
>that the Source which says the Atheism worldview is false, is myth.
Atheism is neither an ideology nor a world-view. But you already knew
that.
>The physical evidence contained in the British Museum alone,
>confirming Biblical history, is staggering.
>
>http://www.padfield.com/acrobat/history/British_Museum.pdf
I'm interested in what way you think this supports the Bible as an
historical document. Does the existence of the City of Troy validate
Homer's account that Eris rolled a golden apple into a banquet of the
gods on Olympus, leading to the Trojan War?
Ernest Major
<quotht...@nevermore.com> writes
English and nouns like trousers, scissors and sheep, I'm not going to
take it as a slam dunk. Does anyone know enough about Biblical Hebrew to
be able to say whether the grammatical plural form should be taken
literally here, or has some other import?
--
alias Ernest Major
Kermit
> On Feb 4, 12:58�am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> > goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> > 1. It is not surprising that those who were thinkers of *any* kind at
> > an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
> > Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
> > "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
> > automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
> > had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
> > well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
> > biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
>
> > 2. To claim that the myths of the past were intended to be read as
> > literal history presumes that they had a notion of literal history.
>
> The Bible, like any other source, **claims** literal history. The
> claims are either true or false.
The Harry Potter books describes recent history. Are they lies?
>
> The comment above assumes Atheism ideology true, that is, the idea
> that the Source which says the Atheism worldview is false, is myth.
Myths give a people purpose and meaning. Does the bible not do that?
>
> The physical evidence contained in the British Museum alone,
> confirming Biblical history, is staggering.
>
> http://www.padfield.com/acrobat/history/British_Museum.pdf
I didn't see any evidence confirming the Garden of Eden. I *did see
evidence confirming the existence of Horus (A statue! From Egypt!). Of
course there was an old Israel. There's pretty good evidence they
found the palace of David. I noticed as a kid that from about David
on, the stories in the Jewish bible became pretty light on miracles.
>
> > Arguably (at least it was argued to me when I did historiography in
> > university) such a notion wasn't invented until Herodotus and
> > Thucydides wrote their investigations with an attempt to get it right
> > rather than to get it politically or religiously acceptable. Nobody
> > even *knew* about history until then. The annalists and chroniclers of
> > the ancient and more recent periods were largely engaged in presenting
> > political and religious myths for the purposes of propaganda than
> > presenting objective histories.
>
> More assumptions based on Atheism ideology (as explained above).
How is the general belief among scholars history and science are
fairly recent concepts an atheistic idea?
>
>
>
> > We have to reconstruct the past
> > histories rather than simply read them. Even as late as the mid-20th
> > century, histories were being written to do this, as a result of which
> > each generation has to critically examine the histories of the past as
> > myths, to correct any interpretations that are local to the period and
> > culture. Even the idea that one might give correct details is a late
> > addition.
>
> > 3. To understand a narrative, one has to treat it with respect. Genesis
> > and the patriarchal histories must be read *as if you were one of the
> > intended audience* if you are to grasp it. Once that is done, of course
> > you "re-enter" your modern persona, but to interpret the past in terms
> > of today is a specific historical sin called "Whiggism":
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
>
> Who wrote the Wiki piece; Britney Spears or Ronald McDonald?
What specifically did you find wanting in the article? Perhaps you
could give an example of an error or something important missing.
>
> > and it does nothing worthwhile other than make you feel all warm and
> > cozy about yourself. If that is what you want from history and other
> > cultures, fine, but do not expect the honest scholar to find that all
> > that attractive.
>
> Here "honest scholar" means those who are Atheists and Darwinists.
Ray, I'm afraid that nearly every time you assert something which is
verifiable in principle, it turns out to be wrong.
> The
> concept of "scholar" excludes Atheists and Darwinists because they are
> in the business of suppressing and misrepresenting the Source which
> says their worldview is false.
This is an example. Many atheists are scholars, some of them
recognized as such by the majority of people in their field.
Darwinists don't exist; if you mean evolutionary scientists, then you
should know that several are Evangelical Christians, and many more are
theists of various stripes.
>This is seen in the fact that the
> commentary asserts all of the Bible to be myth, having no evidence in
> support.
That's not what myth means, And archaeological support for the
existence of King David is hardly support for the special creation of
the species. Most archaeologists agree that Troy was real, but that is
not evidence for the existence of the Greek gods.
> The British Museum alone proves that Atheists and Darwinists
> are brazen liars.
Ummm... no. There was nothing in that link you provided that even
suggests this. It was a travel diary by an enthusiastic Christian
describing and categorizing some of the displays he saw at the museum.
>
> > The Bible was not written as history
>
> No one disputes the fact that the Bible **claims** to convey history.
Where does it claim this?
> The comment above, for the second time, simply says the history is
> false in a very dishonest way.
>
No, it says that people like you who try to fit it through your own
understanding and time are making errors in interpretation.
> > ....(with the possible exception of
> > Luke-Acts, as the author of that work seems to have read his
> > Thucydides) and to critique it for not being what it was never intended
> > to be, or to be read as, is simply dishonest.
>
> Re-stating the claim of fact in the dishonest way: Biblical history is
> false.
So, when Jesus said he was the bright and morning star, are you
calling him a liar, or agreeing that he is the planet Venus?
>
> Hundreds of millions of Christians, of course, disagree. Scholars have
> shown the Bible 100 percent true:
No they have not, nor have most ever made that claim.
>scientifically and historically.
Most would agree with Wilkins on this.
> Only Atheists and Darwinists refuse to accept for obvious reasons.
There are no Darwinists; they went the way of the Lavoisierians, the
Newtonists, and the Galileoans.
>
> > I say that of the
> > literalists as well as the scientism of our disputants. You can't
> > understand those texts by sitting in a 21st century western mindset;
> > although of course you want, whether you are a believer or not, to
> > interpret the results in �your own terms.
>
> We recognize that Atheists and Darwinists do not want to understand
> the Bible because there is nothing in it for their worldviews.
Many evolutionary scientists are believers. Why do you lie all the
time?
Some atheists are very motivated in understanding the bible; they
think it is interesting or important.
> Their
> minds are poisoned by the anti-reality concepts of Naturalism-
> Materialism-evolution.
A peculiar claim - the notion that unwilling to accept unverifiable
claims are somehow anti-realist.
> They only want revenge on a Text that says they
> are going to hell.
As an atheist, I can tell you that I am every bit as worried about
Yahweh's wrath as I am the disappointment of Zeus that I have offered
him no sacrifices.
>
> The Bible makes perfect sense when a Gift Minister, that is, a person
> with a calling, explains its content. Atheists and Darwinists do not
> have a spiritual IQ or sense.
Atheists and scientists tend to be skeptical, yes, and would not give
money to, say, a foul-mouthed, cigar-chompin' horse gambler because he
said that God wanted them to.
> This explains why they do not understand
> the Bible; and it explains why they do not want to understand the
> Bible. The Bible is very complex, which reflects the Mind of its
> Author.
My Creative Writing professor in college said, "If someone asks if you
meant this or that in your writing, nod your head sagely and agree.
They will think you ever so clever for it."
Folks who look at Rorschach ink blots for information are always
impressed by its wisdom and beauty.
>
> > This is called "exegesis"; and it is a canon of historical
> > interpretation that before you can impose an interpretation on a text,
> > you must understand it in its own terms. Genesis is not a scientific
> > text,....
>
> Genesis makes scientific claims since it makes claims about how the
> world, mankind and animals came and come to be. The claims are either
> true or false.
Or entertainment, or political manipulations, or poetry, or
shamanistic training methods, or hidden codes, or sly political
commentary, or a treasure map, or a best guess on how things are, or
some combination of those plus any number of things I haven't thought
of.
You live in a a small world. Simple minded, black and white, lies or
truth?
So, was Jesus the planet Venus or not?
>
> > ....and sensible people know this because even the very notion of
> > "science" was absent when it was written.
>
> The writer has apparently forgotten that the claim of the Canon is
> Divine inspiration, which in this context means 'Master Scientist.'
>
> > Not until the late classical
> > period do people start to interpret the Old Testament in scientific
> > terms, which is when the problems begin.
>
> > Now how a modern "Abrahamic" theist reconciles their scriptures with
> > the knowledge we have from science is their own problem and not mine,
> > but at the very least a sensible theist must realise this is not a
> > science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
> > deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
> > set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
> > true.
>
> Again, could one expect Atheists and Darwinists to say anything else
> about the Bible; or misrepresent it to the degree seen?
Could anyone expect you to be honest, or knowledgeable?
(Hint: no.)
>
> The Bible is full of scientific and historic claims, they are either
> true or false.
Human culture is not limited by your rigid and simple categories; the
world at large is not constrained by your ignorance.
>
> Both science and history have confirmed the Bible.
Actually, no. The science is very limited in the bible, and almost all
wrong, as we would expect from the times the books were written. The
history in the bible is informative back to King Saul or thereabouts,
but it still has to be taken with a grain of salt.
> Anyone can see for
> them self by doing a little research. The Atheist and Darwinism
> propaganda machine has a firm grip on education and information.
It's not propaganda if it's true, taught openly, backed up with
evidence. Science and scholasticism in general encourage exploring
ideas and rational and empirical support for theories. History is very
much like science in many ways. One trivial way is that you understand
neither.
>This
> is why self-research is necessary.
Making shit up is not research.
> And I have shown in this reply how
> pro-Atheism assumptions are framed as "settled fact."
No, you haven't, you have merely asserted it, numerous times, as you
have so many times before, and always without supporting evidence.
>
> It is Darwinism that contradicts the Bible, not science.
Science only contradicts the bible if you try to get your science from
it. That is foolish for anyone.
For a theist, it just means you have missed the message.
>
> Ray
Kermit
John Stockwell
> On Feb 4, 2:58 am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> > goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> > 1. It is not surprising that those who were thinkers of *any* kind at
> > an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
> > Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
> > "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
> > automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
> > had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
> > well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
> > biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
>
> > 2. To claim that the myths of the past were intended to be read as
> > literal history presumes that they had a notion of literal history.
> > university) such a notion wasn't invented until Herodotus and
> > Thucydides wrote their investigations with an attempt to get it right
> > rather than to get it politically or religiously acceptable. Nobody
> > even *knew* about history until then. The annalists and chroniclers of
> > the ancient and more recent periods were largely engaged in presenting
> > political and religious myths for the purposes of propaganda than
> > histories rather than simply read them. Even as late as the mid-20th
> > century, histories were being written to do this, as a result of which
> > each generation has to critically examine the histories of the past as
> > myths, to correct any interpretations that are local to the period and
> > culture. Even the idea that one might give correct details is a late
> > addition.
>
> > 3. To understand a narrative, one has to treat it with respect. Genesis
> > and the patriarchal histories must be read *as if you were one of the
> > intended audience* if you are to grasp it. Once that is done, of course
> > you "re-enter" your modern persona, but to interpret the past in terms
> > of today is a specific historical sin called "Whiggism":
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
>
> > cozy about yourself. If that is what you want from history and other
> > cultures, fine, but do not expect the honest scholar to find that all
> > that attractive.
>
> > Luke-Acts, as the author of that work seems to have read his
> > Thucydides) and to critique it for not being what it was never intended
> > literalists as well as the scientism of our disputants. You can't
> > understand those texts by sitting in a 21st century western mindset;
> > although of course you want, whether you are a believer or not, to
> > interpret the results in your own terms.
Luke-Acts has the flavor of a novel.
One of the underpinning myths
of modern Christianity is the myth that the Bible is an historical, or
even an eye-witness account of past events.
Part of this has its roots in Irineus' choice of the order for the
Gospels, which are not presented in the order they were written.
Reorder the chapters of the New Testament in the order they were
written, and you get a story that grows and unfolds. The illusion of
"eye-witness accounts" dissolves.
>
> > This is called "exegesis"; and it is a canon of historical
> > interpretation that before you can impose an interpretation on a text,
> > you must understand it in its own terms. Genesis is not a scientific
> > text, and sensible people know this because even the very notion of
> > "science" was absent when it was written. Not until the late classical
> > period do people start to interpret the Old Testament in scientific
> > terms, which is when the problems begin.
>
> > Now how a modern "Abrahamic" theist reconciles their scriptures with
> > the knowledge we have from science is their own problem and not mine,
> > but at the very least a sensible theist must realise this is not a
> > science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
> > deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
> > set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
> > true.
>
> 1Chronicles starts with the Historical Birth Records From Adam to
> Abraham. 2Chronicles ends describing the first year of Cyrus king of
> Persia and how he was going to help rebuild the temple in Israel.
> Everything in between the two books describes such things as who
> became king, when they ruled, their age, members of their family, how
> they came to power, how their rule ended, when people lived and died,
> how they lived, what they ate and what life was like during that time
> perod... etc etc.
>
> The same with the Books of Kings. Judges, Ezra, Ruth, etc,,,. They all
> describe events, people, places, attitudes, dates, locations, and even
> things like the names of towns being changed.
>
> Most of the bible is history. It is the history of one man's family
> from Adam to Jesus written in story format. That man was Abraham.
Actually, there were more historical writings that did not make it
into
the Bible. In more than one location in the OT is a reference to the
"book of the deeds of the kings of israel", which is no longer extant.
To make it into the "sacred collection" material had to have some
religious connection. Purely secular items didn't make the cut.
>
> Any idiot that can read at a 6th grade level should be able to
> understand that the bible is filled with the facts and events
> surrounding the family of Abraham, beginning with Adam, and ending
> with Jesus. That makes the bible a "history of the Hebrews"
It's mytho-historical. As Wilkin's correctly points out, they didn't
have our notion of history.
>
> To claim otherwise is simply propaganda and intended as fodder for the
> modern day atheists to soothe their minds..
>
> ----
While I would expect that you are an expert on propaganda, because
that is all you seem to be capable of producing, I would point out
that
the people who need soothing are Bible-ists who cannot seem to
accept that the Bible is neither a science book, nor is it a history
book,
nor is any of it an "eye-witness" account of anything.
Prof Weird
Nope - were one foolish enough to believe the stories, he gathered a
large herd by using MAGIC (letting the goats see striped rods in the
watering trough) to CHEAT his brother. If it was selective breeding
there would have been no point in mentioning the 'need' to have the
goats see striped rods before mating to produce striped goats. And
his BROTHER would have had to be the one doing the selective breeding
to produce striped goats (which Jacob claimed were from his herd).
> But let's face the truth. Anyone that would call the author's of the
> bible's books "goat herders" is not as smart as a goat.
And a goat is smarter than anyone that 'thinks' bible stories are a
better explanation of anything than validated science.
Goatherding IS one of the many professions practiced back then. They
were ignorant of many things, so they made up stories (involving their
favorite Magical Sky Pixie) to 'explain' things they saw in the
world. Few thought to question them (or just called them 'traditions'
to shield them from actual examination. Or were brave enough to
question, given the punishments meted out back then for the most
trivial of offenses)
r norman
This story should be enough to destroy the notion that "goatherds"
wrote it. They would know enought to understand that seeing stripes
does not produce striped offspring. This is exactly the sort of thing
that a city slicker writing a myth about family relations and how
relations and in-laws cheat each other would imagine might be true,
not knowing anything at all about goats. Besides, it makes a very
colorful and entertaining story to teach about how clever Jacob was;
something those who were supposed to be Jacob's offspring would like
to hear about.
The point about selective breeding is NOT about the stripes and
speckles. It is about how Jacob was careful to weed out only the
stronger females to be allowed to breed.
Mitchell Coffey
Which is obviously untrue. You've always shown yourself to be
ignorant of the Bible, and particularly of the Hebrew Scriptures (you
didn't even know the difference between the Tanakh and Torah!). This
latter is unsurprising, given your hatred of Jews, the latest
manifestation of which was your unqualified endorsement of the
repulsive antisemite, "Starmaker." Given the chance to renounce his
excesses (posting an antisemitic forgeries, lying about Jews - as you
yourself have done, supporting antisemitic lies using neo-Nazi
sources, etc.) you have consistently remained silent.
> But let's face the truth. Anyone that would call the author's of the
> bible's books "goat herders" is not as smart as a goat.
Nope, its smarmy hyperbole; intelligence has nothing to do with it.
The people doing this are wrong, but clearly far more intelligent and
informed than you, even about the Scriptures. You're obviously to
dishonest to defend this claim.
Mitchell Coffey
r norman
<unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>The Harry Potter books describes recent history. Are they lies?
I seem to recall an essay by Umberto Eco describing how Dumas, writing
The Three Musketeers, described actual streets and buildings in Paris.
Unfortunately, he also described a particular street intersection but
those two streets never actually meet, not even in the historic period
that the Musketeers lived in. So, Eco asks, was Dumas wrong? How can
a work of fiction be in factual error?
In the same vein, how can a work of myth be in factual error?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Mitchell Coffey
<m.co...@starpower.net>:
Second.
>On Feb 4, 3:58�am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
>> goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>>
>> 1. It is not surprising that those who were thinkers of *any* kind at
>> an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
>> Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
>> "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
>> automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
>> had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
>> well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
>> biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
>>
>> This is called "exegesis"; and it is a canon of historical
>> interpretation that before you can impose an interpretation on a text,
>> you must understand it in its own terms. Genesis is not a scientific
>> text, and sensible people know this because even the very notion of
>> "science" was absent when it was written. Not until the late classical
>> period do people start to interpret the Old Testament in scientific
>> terms, which is when the problems begin.
>>
>> Now how a modern "Abrahamic" theist reconciles their scriptures with
>> the knowledge we have from science is their own problem and not mine,
>> but at the very least a sensible theist must realise this is not a
>> science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
>> deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
>> set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
>> true.
>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Wilkins
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In some places, such as Ps 82, "Elohim" clearly refers to a number of
gods. The thought is that the term was retained but reinterpreted as a
singular name over time.
JTEM
r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> And, contrary to JTEM, I don't think it is "way
> off base" but rather right on the mark,
It's not really a matter of opinion. You can't
"Opinion" a copy of the bible that's older than
Herodotus or Thucydides. It either exists or it
doesn't, and in this case it doesn't.
Don't take my word on it, search for yourself.
He was wrong. Just plain wrong. He argued that the
bible couldn't have been meant as history, because
Herodotus and Thucydides hadn't invented histories
yet. Problem is, the bible isn't that old. It's
not. There's individual pieces dating back centuries
prior to Herodotus, but they aren't associated with
the culture or even the religion of the bible.
The culture as depicted in the bible never existed.
These monotheistic, one-and-only-one-God "Hebrews"
or "Jews" left an embarrassing number of goddess
figurines (and even a few too many depictions of the
God they never depicted) to allow for THAT.
Here's the God of the bible as his people drew him
(the bible forbid that sort of thing) in the 8th
century:
http://www.yahwehism.com/html/yahweh-samaria.html
Here's the God of the Bible on a coin, dating to
the 4th century (while Herodotus died in the 5th
century).
http://rjosephhoffmann.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/yahweh_winged_wheel_coin_enlarged.jpg
I suggest a little Googling on"Asherah" or maybe
"goddess judea" for information on what was
obviously a very popular (goddess) religion back
then.
Something you won't find? A single contemporary
trace of anything resembling an "Israel". Nope.
Not so much as a grocery list. No monuments, no
steles, no tombs, no correspondence of any kind.
Even the wing nuts who claim to find oodles of
references to some ancient Israel: Every last
one is highly problematic, and not a single one
is contemporary.
The origins of the bible are the Pagan cultures
of the region, mostly what is referred to today
as the Canaanite and/or Phonetician culture.
Previously I had given the example of Ugarit, and
how we find the origins of much of the bible
within the regions Pagan culture. Do you want a
cite? Fine. Here's a cite:
http://phoenicia.org/ugarbibl.html
There are plenty more. Just Google it if you don't
believe me.
JTEM
raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> Fourthed. (And hearing that JTEM thought it was
> "way off base" only increases my appreciation
> for the article).
Naturally. As a reality based person with both
feet firmly planted on a foundation of science,
you of course believe that the truth is dictated
by your emotional reaction towards someone.
(I'd call you an idiot but that would be redundant)
John Wilkins
wrote:
> "John Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> news:040220101858405579%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> > In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> > goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> [snip faux-scholastic smoke and mirrors designed to lull us to sleep so that
> we uncritically accept the following...]
>
> > .....at the very least a sensible theist must realise this is not a
> > science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
> > deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
> > set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
> > true.
>
> So the Bible was "always intended" to be a set of myths, eh? Intended by
> whom? And where in the Bible is that intention expressed? And if not in the
> Bible, then where is that intention expressed? Are there other works by the
> Biblical authors where they express that intention?
>
> Where did you get your information about the "intention" of the Bible?
> Through channelling?
>
>
It is based on knowledge of such texts in similar cultures, and the
roles they played in the various Hebrew societies. If they intended it
to be literally true then the late redactor of the Pentateuch would
have reconciled the clear inconsistencies with the creation accounts -
no serious scholar doubts that the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts were
originally different narratives, one from the northern Shiloh-based
cult, and the other from the southern Jerusalem based cult.
Unfortunately, *no* text comes along with a card that lists in what
rhetorical trope one is to understand its parts (not even your
scriptures), so you have to work it out for yourself. It's called
"reading".
John Wilkins
<2d244a36-96bb-4ad1...@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Jenny6833A <Jenny...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 1:58?am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> > goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
> >
> > interpret the results in ?your own terms.
> >
> > This is called "exegesis"; and it is a canon of historical
> > interpretation that before you can impose an interpretation on a text,
> > you must understand it in its own terms. Genesis is not a scientific
> > text, and sensible people know this because even the very notion of
> > "science" was absent when it was written. Not until the late classical
> > period do people start to interpret the Old Testament in scientific
> > terms, which is when the problems begin.
> >
> > Now how a modern "Abrahamic" theist reconciles their scriptures with
> > the knowledge we have from science is their own problem and not mine,
> > but at the very least a sensible theist must realise this is not a
> > science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
> > deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
> > set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
> > true.
>
> I don't find anything to disagree with in John's essay, but I also
> don't find a relevant point. I don't criticize the bible, its
> authors, or their scribes for what the bible is, or for what the
> authors/scribes were or may have been. The bible is just another
> collection of myths, and not very worthwhile or well written ones, so
> I'd normally have no interest.
I wasn't aiming it at you or those who say this; but at Dan
Listermann's insistence that we can dismiss these texts in every way
because they are not science, and were written by goat herders (which
is to at the same time commit the Genetic Fallacy, ironically, and to
misrepresent the history of the texts).
>
> Were it not for the ludicrous claims of Jews and Christians, I'd not
> even be aware of its existence.
True - in that respect it differs from, say, the Ugaritic Texts,
written in proto-Canaanite. But we do not dismiss them as uninteresting
because they were written by those engaged in early agriculture. They
tell us a *lot* about ancient society.
>
> I criticize the bible only in reaction to those who claim the bible is
> true in one sense or another -- that it's the infallible word of some
> unlikely and unappealing god. Even then, my criticism would be rare
> and mild were it not for the fact that others try to force me to
> accept _their_ view of it and live by _their_ interpretations of it.
Then you are not, unlike Dan, criticising the Biblical texts, but those
who force a scientific interpretation upon them. And they are a worthy
target, attacked in worthy ways.
>
> :-)
>
> Jenny
>
John Wilkins
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Well into it. One of the stories in Judges, I think, has the "Hebrews"
losing to the valley Canaanites because the latter had "chariots of
iron" (I think of iron-rimmed wheels, which meant that they were able
to traverse harsher terrain than the bronze wheels of the Hebrews.
John Wilkins
<44379325-3f1c-4b73...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, el
cid <elcid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I might second it on a second draft. I want more references
> and specifics. It should also expand some beyond Greek and
> Hebrew references. Don't tell me I can't be choosy and don't
> call me a beggar.
No problem. All you have to do is buy out my teaching commitments this
semester and the next and I will gladly spend my time writing up that
draft for you. I'll even add in Hindu and Buddhist examples, and maybe
some East African religions too.
Kalkidas
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth
Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: \'mith\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
Date: 1830
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that
serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice,
belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or
someone;especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society
or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism - Orde
Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths
Clearly from definitions 2b and 3 the word "myth" carries a connotation of
untruth, not truth. The word is not neutral. So I ask again, where do you
get the notion that the
Bible was "always intended" to be a set of myths, i.e. intended to be
untrue?
el cid
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:11:30 -0800 (PST), Kermit
>
Trivially so, yes. But often they take advantage of gray zones
where things are neither simply true or false. Was MacDuff
born of woman? If you had a book that cursed any man who
opened it ... would you quibble with a librarian who did? Ook.
I happen to believe that myths can provide great insight into
truths that are hard to relate other than through symbolism.
But that doesn't mean that every myth relates such truths.
For instance, a myth could be crafted whose message was that
myths should be taken literally, or that you will always
eventually succeed if you just keep a positive attitude, or
that you will never succeed unless you have a positive
attitude, or that bad people always get bad luck.
There's no guarantee that myths work, just as there's no
guarantee that offspring will survive and reproduce. But
myths that have survived have likely served some useful
purpose and that purpose may include revealing some truth.
But as John has pointed out, working out if there's something
of value there, and how to interpret it, requires this
thing called 'reading' (and/or listening) which sound
like too much trouble to bother with (though less so
if one restricts themselves to rigid literal readings).
John Wilkins
wrote:
Dictionaries are to the meaning of words as sociology is to the ethics
of actions; they describe what people actually mean by them, not what
they are, in some more technical context, meant to mean or should mean.
Here's a summary of what Claude Levi-Strauss meant by myth:
"The basic idea is that myths cannot be understood in isolation, but
only as parts of an entire myth system. A structural analysis of a myth
system involves elucidating the shared features of different myths and
the transformations which link them. It is these relationships and
transformations between myths that are important, rather than the
details of individual myths; it is the systems of these that are
significant in the context of the broader culture."
http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Raw_and_the_Cooked.html
Here is a classic paper on the meaning of the term in anthropology,
which is the relevant sense[s] here:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/664879
I am about to go away for the weekend, but I can send you the PDF if
you would like to catch up to the mid-20th century. Basically a myth is
some narrative or belief that is highly charged with value and around
which cultural traditions are organised. But "belief" here includes
ideas that are *true*, such as modern cosmology or Darwinian evolution.
r norman
wrote:
The standard biblical analysis has the completion of the Torah in the
time period you mention. However, much of the important parts were
much earlier. The Jahwist supposedly wrote rather early, 950 BCE. The
Elohist was a little later, 850 BCE and the Deuteronomist around 650
BC. The Priestly source was clearly after the exile when the final
work was wrapped up and only that part is in the time frame you insist
upon.
Whether you believe it or not, these occur in times for which there do
exist historic records. Anything up to and even including the Kingdom
of David can be questioned but I believe it is acknowledged that there
probably was some sort of "Kingdom" at the time, even if it were
merely a little city-state type of thing; certainly not a grandiose
kingdom.
You are right that many of the stories do have origins in earlier
societies and religions. My point here is that these myths certainly
date back well before Herodotus and it is generally these myths that
cause the most discussion here -- the Creation, the Fall, the
Flood.... These are ancient stories. All the innumerable lists of
begats and the long lists of abominations and the long details of the
construction of the ark and of the temple -- all those purely
ritualistic religious details, are quite irrelevant to this discussion
and so their dates are irrelevant. Nobody (well, nobody rational)
claims the begats to be absolutely factually correct although there
may be later portions based on real people.
I have often argued that the culture of the Bible -- the "goat
herders" (or at least the nomadic shepards) of Abraham et al. never
existed, nor is there any evidence whatsoever of Egyptian enslavement
and exodus, let alone wandering in the Sinai for 40 years. But the
writers of the myths -- i.e., J, E, D, and P -- were sophisticated
city dwellers as were the writers of Gilgamesh and all the other
earlier tales all preceding Herodotus.
As to the "purpose" of scriptures -- your citation of the many
examples of polytheism found among the Israelites and Judeans seems to
me to indicate that the priestly classes were desperately trying to
produce a narrative that would drag the common people into monotheism.
That is, the Bible is partly a rhetorical device to serve a
political/religious purpose, not an attempt to accurately record a
true history. Made-up moralistic tales of God's revenge against the
back-sliding "stiff-necked" people might do the trick. And, of
course, the experience of the Babylonian exile (a historical fact)
would be used as another example of the evils of failing to observe
the rituals exactly as prescribed by the priests. Historic truth has
little to do with the writing.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
> In message <2b06e$4b6aefc1$4a53bf9f$65...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann
> <d...@listermann.com> writes
>>
>>Can you yet bring yourself to admit that the"core idea" of Genesis is a
>>deity creating the world?
Immediately after you admit that Genesis is nothing more than a fairy tale.
John McKendry
I wrote this back in 2003:
<quote self>
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar is one standard reference. He calls this usage
the "pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis"", plural of excellence or
majesty. (28th ed. = 2nd English ed., sect. 124.g) "The pluralis
excellentiae or maiestatis, as has been remarked above, is properly a
variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several
characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing a secondary
sense of the intensification of the idea. It is thus closely related to
the plurals of amplification, treated under e, which are mostly found in
poetry. So especially elohim *Godhead, God* (to be distinguished from the
numerical plural *gods*, ex. 12^12, etc.) The supposition that elohim is
to be regarded as merely a remnant of earlier polytheistic views (i.e. as
as originally only a numerical plural) is at least highly improbable, and
moreover, would not explain the analogous plurals (see below). That the
language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in elohim
(whenever it denotes *one* God) is proved especially by its being almost
invariably joined with a singular attribute (cf. 132h), e.g. elohim
tsadiyk Ps 7:10, etc. "
I'm not going to type any more of it; it's too dense, and if you really
want to see all the examples and cross-refs I urge you to consult Gesenius
directly. You may not find the suggestion "at least highly improbable",
but you have to recognize the evidence. Elohim, grammatically a plural
form, is used with singular adjectives (tsadiyk in G's example is a
singular, "righteous") and with singular verbs (as in Gen 1:1, bara elohim
"god created", bara is a singular form). A few other words occur the same
way, grammatically plural with singular attributes: kedeshim *the most
high* and probably terephim *family idol*, although since we don't know
exactly what a terephim was, we can only guess from usage - it seems to
refer to one thing.
This is the sort of question that generates a lot of, um, dubious
scholarship, all of which can of course be found on the Web. There's
what I consider a good neutral discussion from the Catholic Encyclopedia
at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm . Cognate usages in other
Semitic languages and so forth.
I don't think any serious student of the Hebrew Bible will deny that
you can find traces of the older polytheism in and under some of the
texts, but I don't think the plural morphology of elohim is one of those
traces.
</quote self>
See more detail in the thread at (make the URL one line)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/
browse_thread/thread/bea7664cc245a130/3fec640a12b2e2b1
?hl=en#3fec640a12b2e2b1
John
Kalkidas
[snip]
If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. But just in case, I'll
repeat it: Where do you get the idea that the Bible was "always intended" to
be a set of myths? Who intended it thus, and where is the record of their
expressed intention?
el cid
> In article
> <44379325-3f1c-4b73-8a4a-294739029...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, el
>
> cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I might second it on a second draft. I want more references
> > and specifics. It should also expand some beyond Greek and
> > Hebrew references. Don't tell me I can't be choosy and don't
> > call me a beggar.
>
> No problem. All you have to do is buy out my teaching commitments this
> semester and the next and I will gladly spend my time writing up that
> draft for you. I'll even add in Hindu and Buddhist examples, and maybe
> some East African religions too.
Excellent. The check's in the mail (common myth, not
to be taken literally)
Don't forget to include an aside about the novel gender
selection for Oz aborigine Sun Mother. (Come'on,
dreamtime. Are dreams to be taken literally?) And
consider Iroquois for the turtle. Quotes from Euripides
may be left in ancient Greek (heck, I don't plan on
reading it, I just want it written) but references
to Plato's Republic may alternative between rival
translations.
Mark Isaak
>[...]
> Can you yet bring yourself to admit that the "core idea" of Genesis is
> a deity creating the world?
I deny that the concept of "core idea" even applies to Genesis. It
does not apply to most myths.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
r norman
wrote:
I would never suggest that a myth cannot contain truths or convey
truths. That does not mean that such a myth must necessarily be
truthful and factual in every detail. You can believe that "slow and
steady wins the race" without actually thinking that the tortoise
outran the hare.
However, it really is difficult to find out just what fundamental
truths are trying to be taught in, for example, Lot's daughters
getting him drunk so that he would impregnate them.
Mark Isaak
> In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> 1. [...] Goatherding is actually a complex activity ...
>
> 2. To claim that the myths of the past were intended to be read as
> literal history presumes that they had a notion of literal history.
> [...]
>
> 3. To understand a narrative, one has to treat it with respect.
> [...]
>
> The Bible was not written as history (with the possible exception of
> Luke-Acts, as the author of that work seems to have read his
> Thucydides) and to critique it for not being what it was never intended
> to be, or to be read as, is simply dishonest. I say that of the
> literalists as well as the scientism of our disputants. You can't
> understand those texts by sitting in a 21st century western mindset;
> although of course you want, whether you are a believer or not, to
> interpret the results in your own terms.
>
> This is called "exegesis"; and it is a canon of historical
> interpretation that before you can impose an interpretation on a text,
> you must understand it in its own terms. Genesis is not a scientific
> text, and sensible people know this because even the very notion of
> "science" was absent when it was written. Not until the late classical
> period do people start to interpret the Old Testament in scientific
> terms, which is when the problems begin.
>
> Now how a modern "Abrahamic" theist reconciles their scriptures with
> the knowledge we have from science is their own problem and not mine,
> but at the very least a sensible theist must realise this is not a
> science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
> deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
> set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
> true.
Another important point that many people fail to grasp is that a text
(the Bible, for example) can have science and history in it and not be a
science or history text, and conversely, it may not be intended as a text
on science or history and yet still have science and history in it.
A mixture of factual and fantastical elements appears to be the norm for
myths. I cannot comprehend why so many people require them to be all of
one or all of the other.
James Beck
wrote:
One of the more interesting aspects of fiction is that it can be
entirely composed of non-factual and counterfactual elements and still
be accepted as compellingly "true." In that sense, the fiction writer
is paid to lie, although the demands of the market require that this
be done in a way that is acceptably recognizable as 'true' by a
sufficiently large audience. Otherwise the author doesn't eat.
For example, I find it evident that Jack Kerouac spent little or no
time in Denver. It's possible that he spent a little time there and
imagined the rest, but his description tastes like a travelogue by a
near-sighted travel correspondent. Since I grew up there, I'd say that
I found nothing in his description of Denver in 'On The Road' that
captures any sense of uniqueness to the place. I found his description
sufficiently false that I stopped reading his work at that point and
never picked it up again. It was my good fortune to have borrowed the
book.
Myth suffers from a similar problem. Relatively durable myths are
'true,' in the same sense as fiction, but also resist falsification.
On the contrary, the verification of *any* factual content in a
durable myth is taken by its adherents as evidence of the factuality
of the remainder. While I might explain the occasional fact as
sloppiness on the part of the myth-maker, it seems more likely that
there is a sort of maximum gullibility standard of evidence at work
that is similar to the mechanism operating in the market for fiction.
Consistent with that idea, if a myth contains a verifiable factual
error, it either dies, is rewritten or is reinterpreted.
By the same token, the non-falsifiability of say, the typical creation
story, implies that neither side can "win" on the question of origin.
Though the audience can certainly take sides, in a competent debate an
objective judge won't declare a winner. Any creation myth that cannot
be competently debated to a tie will be non-durable. Likewise, no
adherent of the myth that can't squirm his or her way to a tie is
worth debating with.
William Morse
> In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
> Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
> "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
> automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
> had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
> well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
> biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
>
> literal history presumes that they had a notion of literal history.
> university) such a notion wasn't invented until Herodotus and
> Thucydides wrote their investigations with an attempt to get it right
> rather than to get it politically or religiously acceptable. Nobody
> even *knew* about history until then. The annalists and chroniclers of
> the ancient and more recent periods were largely engaged in presenting
> political and religious myths for the purposes of propaganda than
> presenting objective histories. We have to reconstruct the past
> histories rather than simply read them. Even as late as the mid-20th
> century, histories were being written to do this, as a result of which
> each generation has to critically examine the histories of the past as
> myths, to correct any interpretations that are local to the period and
> culture. Even the idea that one might give correct details is a late
> addition.
I would just like to add to an excellent discussion that, at least as I
have read, many early societies saw time more as a cycle than as a
progression. Even today we have the expression that history repeats
itself. In the context of time as a cycle, the details of a particular
cycle are minor, the driver of the cycles is crucial. So a story is
important as parable not as history, and the details become unimportant
as long as the point is made.
> 3. To understand a narrative, one has to treat it with respect. Genesis
> and the patriarchal histories must be read *as if you were one of the
> intended audience* if you are to grasp it. Once that is done, of course
> you "re-enter" your modern persona, but to interpret the past in terms
> of today is a specific historical sin called "Whiggism":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
>
> and it does nothing worthwhile other than make you feel all warm and
> cozy about yourself. If that is what you want from history and other
> cultures, fine, but do not expect the honest scholar to find that all
> that attractive.
>
All-seeing-I
He was not cheating his brother. Labian was his uncle, his fathers
brother.And he was forced to do what he did because his uncle had
cheated him for 10 years and was going to cheat him again. You do not
even know the story.
You guys just do not get it", do you.
When looking past the embellishment of superstitions, what did Joseph
do?
He used selection to bread the goats for the traits he desigred.
The colored rods were simply a method to gather the goats to the
proper watering holes.
>
> > But let's face the truth. Anyone that would call the author's of the
> > bible's books "goat herders" is not as smart as a goat.
>
> And a goat is smarter than anyone that 'thinks' bible stories are a
> better explanation of anything than validated science.
>
> Goatherding IS one of the many professions practiced back then. �They
> were ignorant of many things, so they made up stories (involving their
> favorite Magical Sky Pixie) to 'explain' things they saw in the
> world. �Few thought to question them (or just called them 'traditions'
> to shield them from actual examination. �Or were brave enough to
> question, given the punishments meted out back then for the most
> trivial of offenses)- Hide quoted text -
You are't too bright. You must be a goat herder.
> - Show quoted text -
All-seeing-I
> stronger females to be allowed to breed.- Hide quoted text -
Too bad none of them here you
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
At this point one can only assume you need professional help/
All-seeing-I
> On Feb 4, 9:20�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
>
> >news:040220101858405579%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
>
> > > In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> > > goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> > we uncritically accept the following...]
>
> > > science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
> > > deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
> > > set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
> > > true.
>
> > whom? And where in the Bible is that intention expressed? And if not in the
> > Bible, then where is that intention expressed? Are there other works by the
> > Biblical authors where they express that intention?
>
> > �Where did you get your information about the "intention" of the Bible?
> > Through channelling?
>
> and meaning, tell them how they should be living, and explains where
> they came from. It gives them tribal identity. You don't think these
> books do that?
>
> This is how the prophets turned a subset of Canaanites into Jews -
> they gave them new myths. (This is surely not the only thing they did,
> but it was a necessary one.)
>
> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have a problem with this idea. The bible is clearly written in a
format that does not suggest it to be related stories simply to give a
people meaning. With the exception of the books of Kings and
Chronicles, which are the same but from different perspectives and
authors.
It is well established that you cannot differentiate between fact and
fiction, history and fantasy.
Eric Root
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:46:23 -0700, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:27:59 -0800 (PST), Kermit
> ><unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Feb 4, 7:03�am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 4, 3:58�am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> >>> > goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> >>> > an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
> >>> > Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
> >>> > "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
> >>> > automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
> >>> > had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
> >>> > well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
> >>> > biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
>
> >>> > literal history presumes that they had a notion of literal history.
> >>> > Arguably (at least it was argued to me when I did historiography in
> >>> > university) such a notion wasn't invented until Herodotus and
> >>> > Thucydides wrote their investigations with an attempt to get it right
> >>> > rather than to get it politically or religiously acceptable. Nobody
> >>> > even *knew* about history until then. The annalists and chroniclers of
> >>> > the ancient and more recent periods were largely engaged in presenting
> >>> > political and religious myths for the purposes of propaganda than
> >>> > presenting objective histories. We have to reconstruct the past
> >>> > histories rather than simply read them. Even as late as the mid-20th
> >>> > century, histories were being written to do this, as a result of which
> >>> > each generation has to critically examine the histories of the past as
> >>> > myths, to correct any interpretations that are local to the period and
> >>> > culture. Even the idea that one might give correct details is a late
> >>> > addition.
>
> >>> > science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
> >>> > deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
> >>> > set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
> >>> > true.
>
>
> >And thirded.
>
> >I have just got back from almost a month travelling and find myself
> >absolutely overwhelmed by the incredible inanity of most of what gets
> >written here. �After a constant dose of it, you become hardened and
> >can't see it. �But the constant "Did not!", "did so!", Am not!" "Are
> >too!" exchanges are really striking (and appalling) when viewed
> >afresh. �To see an intelligent, well composed, well thought out little
> >essay is really a ray of sunshine.
>
> >And, contrary to JTEM, I don't think it is "way off base" but rather
>
> Fourthed. (And hearing that JTEM thought it was "way off base" only
> increases my appreciation for the article).
Fifthfthfthfthed.
Eric Root
William Morse
The connotation of untruth is largely due to the Christian unwillingness
to accept the belief systems of others. Those belief systems are myths
- but if you talk to Amerindians they will tell you that their myths are
just as true as the Christian myths. So if the word is not neutral you
have only your own parochiality to blame.
The claim remains that the Bible was intended to be a set of myths. You
are the one who is making the inference that it was intended to be
untrue. Per the primary definition you quoted, myths are intended to
explain beliefs. Are you stating that the Bible was intended to be a
literal history, rather than to explain beliefs?
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
But the Hebrews were still bronze age then. I always like the
Philistines better than the Hebrews anyway. It was just another *^!*
barbarian invasion.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
RAM
So says the kook who thinks the Sumerians engaged in "in vitro
fertilization," says there was no moon landing, misinterprets the
Biblical story of a dream into anthropomorphic "watchers."
You have an negative credibility.
Mitchell Coffey
As you frequently say whenever anyone catches you in a lie or
demonstrates you idiocy, ignorance and bigotry. You aren't able to
dispute as single point.
Ernest Major
writes
(I'm also somewhat baffled as to why a Hindu would be defending the
truth of the Bible. Since you appear to be a literalist, I would have
thought that you would hold that the Bible claims that the Earth is
6,000 years, and on this point at least, the Bible is incorrect.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Jenny6833A
> "Jenny6833A" <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2d244a36-96bb-4ad1...@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I criticize the bible only in reaction to those who claim the bible is
> > true in one sense or another -- that it's the infallible word of some
> > unlikely and unappealing god. �Even then, my criticism would be rare
> > and mild were it not for the fact that others try to force me to
> > accept _their_ view of it and live by _their_ interpretations of it.
>
> Can you elaborate? �How can Christians possibly have forced you to
> accept belief in God, in this country?
I said "... others try to force me to ...." What part of "try to" do
you not understand.
> There seems to be this paranoia on the part of atheists that there are
> all these Christians chasing them and oppressing them and demanding that
> they convert to Christianity. �Where is that happening, exactly?
Well, my son is getting that business at school these days. One can't
be accepted unless one has been "saved" -- with extra points for
multiple such "savings." One doesn't get to play in the
interscholastic games if one doesn't join in the pregame and halftime
prayers. The school board is under constant seige to toe the
Christian line, whatever it is this week. I think the obsession this
week is a prayer to start the school day. That's illegal, of course,
and they fear the ACLU, so they're going to hold it on the sidewalk
just off the school grounds. And they're going to take names, they
say, so they can "attend to" those who don't attend.
> All they are doing is advocating for their beliefs ...
Arm twisting would be a better way to put it.
> ... and they have every right to do that as long as it doesn't violate laws and the
> Constitution.
You seem to be a bit naive about the law in America. It's OK to
violate the law if your friendly local cop chooses not to arrest you
for it. It's not OK to act 100% within the law if what you ever-so-
legally do is judged to be "against God" or "offensive to the good
people in town" by that same cop.
In America, it's OK for legislative bodies at any level to pass and
enforce ordinances and statutes that violate the constitution. Such
laws are valid until overturned. Overturning takes around ten years
and a few hundred thousand dollars, and the result is far from certain
-- because appeals courts frequently dodge hot potatoes, especially
when the judges were elected and want to be re-elected.
Quite simply, the majority can do pretty much as they please in
America with little chance of paying any penalty for doing so.
When the majority is, as you put it, "advocating for their beliefs"
they can and do get away with just about anything. OTOH, when a
_minority_ is advocating for their beliefs, even when the law as
written supports them, they usually get squashed.
Have a nice day,
:-)
Jenny
Ernest Major
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> writes
>However, it really is difficult to find out just what fundamental
>truths are trying to be taught in, for example, Lot's daughters getting
>him drunk so that he would impregnate them.
>
read that it was to justify prejudice against Moabites and Edomites.
--
alias Ernest Major
Jenny6833A
> In article
> <2d244a36-96bb-4ad1-ae2e-a67280572...@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 1:58?am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > > In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> > > goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> > > an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
> > > Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
> > > "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
> > > automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
> > > had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
> > > well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
> > > biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
>
>
> > > This is called "exegesis"; and it is a canon of historical
> > > interpretation that before you can impose an interpretation on a text,
> > > you must understand it in its own terms. Genesis is not a scientific
> > > text, and sensible people know this because even the very notion of
> > > "science" was absent when it was written. Not until the late classical
> > > period do people start to interpret the Old Testament in scientific
> > > terms, which is when the problems begin.
>
> > > Now how a modern "Abrahamic" theist reconciles their scriptures with
> > > the knowledge we have from science is their own problem and not mine,
> > > science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
> > > deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
> > > set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
> > > true.
>
> > don't find a relevant point. �I don't criticize the bible, its
> > authors, or their scribes for what the bible is, or for what the
> > authors/scribes were or may have been. �The bible is just another
> > collection of myths, and not very worthwhile or well written ones, so
> > I'd normally have no interest.
>
> I wasn't aiming it at you or those who say this; but at Dan
> Listermann's insistence that we can dismiss these texts in every way
> because they are not science, and were written by goat herders (which
> is to at the same time commit the Genetic Fallacy, ironically, and to
> misrepresent the history of the texts).
>
>
>
> > Were it not for the ludicrous claims of Jews and Christians, I'd not
> > even be aware of its existence.
>
> True - in that respect it differs from, say, the Ugaritic Texts,
> written in proto-Canaanite. But we do not dismiss them as uninteresting
> because they were written by those engaged in early agriculture. They
> tell us a *lot* about ancient society.
>
>
>
> > I criticize the bible only in reaction to those who claim the bible is
> > true in one sense or another -- that it's the infallible word of some
> > unlikely and unappealing god. �Even then, my criticism would be rare
> > and mild were it not for the fact that others try to force me to
> > accept _their_ view of it and live by _their_ interpretations of it.
>
> who force a scientific interpretation upon them. And they are a worthy
> target, attacked in worthy ways.
A good reply. I appreciate your taking the time.
:-)
Jenny
Devils Advocaat
> On Feb 4, 8:57�am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> > > goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
>
> > > 1. It is not surprising that those who were thinkers of *any* kind at
> > > an early time were engaged in the economic activities of the day.
> > > Imagine if someone in two thousand years says of our best narratives,
> > > "Well, if you want to believe the stories written by a bunch of
> > > automotive makers". Goatherding is actually a complex activity (I once
> > > had one of the buggers, and they make sheep look like robots). To do it
> > > well takes skill and knowledge. Granted, not knowledge of astrophysics,
> > > biology and geography, but then neither does car manufacture.
>
> > grandfather of the current President of the United States included the
> > keeping of goats among his several enterprises, and Pres. Obama's
> > father, in his youth, helped herd them.
>
> > Also, I dispute your claim that circa 600bce the herding of goats, as
> > a broad economic activity, did not require knowledge of astrophysics,
> > biology and geography, as such subjects stood at the time. �How else
> > were they to precisely time their procedures based on the seasons,
> > breed, raise and treat their stock, and get flocks to, from and among
> > pastures and markets?
>
> > Mitchell
>
> Going back several thousand more years, we find that Jacob understood
> the principals of "selective breeding". Which is how he was able to
> gather quite a large herd of goats for himself.
>
> bible's books "goat herders" is not as smart as a goat.
Really?
Are you familiar with Genesis 30:37-39?
Not exactly a guide to selective breeding that would actually work, is
it?
VoiceOfReason
John Wilkins wrote:
> In the ongoing discussion about whether those who wrote the Bible were
> goatherders and primitive, a few points occur to me.
<...>
> 3. To understand a narrative, one has to treat it with respect. Genesis
> and the patriarchal histories must be read *as if you were one of the
> intended audience* if you are to grasp it. Once that is done, of course
> you "re-enter" your modern persona, but to interpret the past in terms
> of today is a specific historical sin called "Whiggism":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
>
> and it does nothing worthwhile other than make you feel all warm and
> cozy about yourself. If that is what you want from history and other
> cultures, fine, but do not expect the honest scholar to find that all
> that attractive.
>
> The Bible was not written as history (with the possible exception of
> Luke-Acts, as the author of that work seems to have read his
> Thucydides) and to critique it for not being what it was never intended
> to be, or to be read as, is simply dishonest. I say that of the
> literalists as well as the scientism of our disputants. You can't
> understand those texts by sitting in a 21st century western mindset;
> although of course you want, whether you are a believer or not, to
> interpret the results in your own terms.
>
> This is called "exegesis"; and it is a canon of historical
> interpretation that before you can impose an interpretation on a text,
> you must understand it in its own terms. Genesis is not a scientific
> text, and sensible people know this because even the very notion of
> "science" was absent when it was written. Not until the late classical
> period do people start to interpret the Old Testament in scientific
> terms, which is when the problems begin.
>
> Now how a modern "Abrahamic" theist reconciles their scriptures with
> the knowledge we have from science is their own problem and not mine,
> but at the very least a sensible theist must realise this is not a
> science text, a history text, nor even, I would suggest, a particularly
> deep psychology text. It is, however, and was always intended to be, a
> set of myths around which a tradition clusters. Some of it may also be
> true.
One of the things that irritates me about some of the more
"evangelical" atheists is their attempts to discredit all of
Christianity by pointing out select errors/inconsistencies/etc in the
Bible. When it's pointed out to them that most Christians don't
interpret the Bible literally, and that they're arguing against a
strawman, some of them go apeshit. Well, sorry if the world's
Christians don't live up to your stereotypes...
I don't much give a rip what people believe or don't believe, as long
as they don't try forcing their beliefs on other people (like trying
to push creationism into public schools). But some atheists are every
bit as annoying as the Mormons who come peddling their wares at my
door.
Dan Listermann
"Pepsi...@teranews.com" <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o0Kan.79013$CM7....@newsfe04.iad...
Point?
.
Dan Listermann
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:SC5QrLHr...@meden.invalid...
> In message <d8af3$4b6b1f30$4a53bf9f$22...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann
> <d...@listermann.com> writes
>>> My opinion is that we can't identify the intended meaning, or core idea,
>>> of the creation myth in Genesis 1, etc. as this remove, but I'm open to
>>> being convinced otherwise by people more familiar with the field.
>>> However,
>>> this creation myth is (I'm told) based on other, earlier, creation myths
>>> from the ancient Near East, but cast in a monotheistic mold, to the
>>> extent, as someone has pointed out of using periphrasis to denote the
>>> moon
>>> and sun to avoid the appearance of referring to other gods. I don't see
>>> that there are ground to reject outright the hypothesis that it was the
>>> monotheism, not the creation, that the authors considered the core
>>> point.
>>
>
> As usual you are missing the point. (Can't you understand a single
> paragraph of moderate length as a unity?) I am not claiming that is
> obvious or even true. I was saying that it is not indisputable that the
> core idea of Genesis 1 etc was the divine creation of the world, and
> presenting an alternative which has been offered.
> --
For gowds sake, Genesis is a cosmogic myth!
.
Dan Listermann
"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:hkfb7l$9o$2...@news.albasani.net...>> news:qO0e4M9f...@meden.invalid...
>>> In message <14aaf$4b6afab7$4a53bf9f$10...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann
>>> <d...@listermann.com> writes>>>> news:9CIb7$wuYva...@meden.invalid...
>>>>> In message <2b06e$4b6aefc1$4a53bf9f$65...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann
>>>>> <d...@listermann.com> writes
>>>>>> Can you yet bring yourself to admit that the"core idea" of Genesis is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> deity creating the world?
>>>>>>
>>>>> idea
>>>>> of Genesis 1 and the first few verses of Genesis 2 (Genesis as a whole
>>>>> contains some quite varied material) is that a deity created the
>>>>> world, or
>>>>> that there is just one deity.
>>>> It is a cosmogic myth. Please explain to us what you think that might
>>>> mean.
>>>>
>>> Look, you idiot, no one here is disputing that Genesis 1 etc is a
>>> cosmogenic myth, or that it is highly likely that the divine creation of
>>> the world was part of the intended meaning.
>>
>> Great. It is the primary reason the story is told. It is what it is all
>> about. The rest is filler and propaganda.
>>> It was you who introduced the idea of a "core idea", presumably as a red
>>> herring, as it has nothing to do with your position that Genesis 1 etc
>>> were intended to be "read literally", but when you've done that you have
>>> to consider the possibility that the core idea is not that the world was
>>> divinely created. For comparison the core idea (the moral) of the fable
>>> of the boy who cried wolf is not that the wolf ate the boy, but that
>>> repeated false alarms reduce the effectiveness of real ones. That core
>>> idea can be applied to concepts like smoke detectors - a too sensitive
>>> smoke detector is of lower utility, because people will learn to ignore
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> It was no tme who introduced "core idea." I can't remember which
>> strawmen builder did it, but he did it with Genesis in mind IIRC.
>>
> It was me, and you used it ever since in a totally different meaning from
> the one I had intended. I had the distinction from copyright law in mind
> between "idea" or "plot" and "expression of an idea".
>
And the "core idea" of Genesis is a cosmogic myth. What else is new?
.
Dan Listermann
"Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.02.05....@earthlink.net...
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:03:15 -0500, Dan Listermann wrote:
>
>>[...]
>> Can you yet bring yourself to admit that the "core idea" of Genesis is
>> a deity creating the world?
>
> I deny that the concept of "core idea" even applies to Genesis. It
> does not apply to most myths.
>
>
you in with the other weasels.
.
Ernest Major
--
alias Ernest Major
el cid
I don't know the proper quote Mark, but it goes something like this,
"what you lose here hast been paid back one hundred-fold elsewhere"