Fact and Fiction in Scripture

[Cam42]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 06:22 PM']please leave Star Wars stuff ( especially stuff which would best be forgotten since Lucas was foolish enough to put it in) out of ithis Cam. We don't need to be accused of believeing in micocellular lifeforms which tell us the Will of God.
[right][snapback]613842[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

But they are symbiotic with us....and they are just as germaine as what LittleLes brings to the table.

[Technicoid]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 06:15 PM']Response,

I quoted the key paragraphs of  the two documents.  If you claim some other portion of these documents refutes these key paragraphs, please quote precisely which paragraph.

Not a "Did you read....etc.  Just succinctly state your evidence (if any).

And there's no provision for "doubt." The PBC document forbids doubt rather specifically.

"In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters...? Answer: In the negative. "[/quote]

Again, paragraph VII:

[quote]VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative. [/quote]

We don't doubt that the events of Genesis are literal or historical. We can take the words to be scientifically imprecise and meant to convey truth in a way that people at that time could grasp them.

You're looking at one paragraph (III) and dismissing the rest. Could you explain why the commission would include paragraphs IV - VII if they did not intend a nuance beyond which you are willing to admit?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 16 2005, 06:04 PM']A combination of natural law and social law. I think  its also part  of our human nature to want to be free.
[right][snapback]613813[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Where does "natural law" come from? And "social law" changes depending on the society. Slavery was/is lawful in some societies. Social law can deprive people of rights as easily as it can grant rights.

[edited for mistype -oops!]

Edited June 16, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 06:04 PM']Not really that is exactly what I said in my origional post, I don't see how  it in anyway disputs any of what I said. And the Fact is that if ALL men come from the same Man 60,000 years ago that has no bearing on whether there where other men, I don't dispute thatthere where other men, thats where the wemon came from however it fits well with the story of Noah that  all Y chomosomes come from the same man 60,000 years ago and that this is divergent from the fact that female mitocondria is much older that is exactly what one might expect from the scriptures--- Exactly.  I don't see any repudiation of my Post at all, you sightthe exact  same figures. It seems to me that you just don't want to admit that they supportthe general pattern set out inthe Scripture.
[right][snapback]613814[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Response:

The great Flood reported in the Bible is a retelling of the old Sumarian legend of Gilgamesh which has been found on two sets of cruiform tablets (The twelve clay tablets from Nineveh) much older than the Bible. Geologists confirm that a flood which probably formed the basis for the Gilgamesh and other accounts of that era occurred between 5500 - 7000 B.C., not 60,000 years ago.

And Luke's geneology of Jesus in Luke 3:34-36:
"the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, "

wouldn't allow Noah to be anywhere near 60,000 years old. Abraham is taken to have lived about 2000 B.C.

Thus the Y chromosome hypothesis does not mesh with approximate age of the putative Noah.by the furthest stretch of the imagination

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Technicoid' date='Jun 16 2005, 06:16 PM']So by this definition, something that happened metaphorically happened historically. Is that really what you meant?





How about something that happened and is decribed using idiom? Did that happen historcially? If I say that some dirty rat lied to me, and someone actually had lied to me, wouldn't that constitute a historically accurate statement?
[right][snapback]613831[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Response#1

Just the opposite. Metaphorical is not historical.

Response #2

That somebody lied to you would be historical assuming you had witnesses or could in some way establish that fact. Somebody claiming that something happend does not of itself make it historical.

It happened or it didn't happen. It's not that difficult a concept.

Littleles

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 06:46 PM']Response:

The great Flood reported in the Bible is a retelling of the old Sumarian legend of Gilgamesh which has been found on two sets of cruiform tablets (The twelve clay tablets from Nineveh) much older than the Bible. Geologists confirm that a flood  which probably formed the basis for the Gilgamesh and other accounts of that era occurred between 5500 - 7000 B.C., not 60,000 years ago.

And Luke's geneology of Jesus in Luke 3:34-36:
"the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, "

wouldn't allow Noah to be anywhere near 60,000 years old. Abraham is taken to have lived about 2000 B.C.

Thus the Y chromosome hypothesis does not mesh with approximate age of the putative Noah.by the furthest stretch of the imagination
[right][snapback]613857[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Never said it did I said it fit with the over all pattern, I do not claim thatthe world is 6000 years old. So you are giving up the argument that we don't all come from the same parents, you concede that there was in fact an Eve and that there was a common mail decendent to time later. Do you concede that or not?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Technicoid' date='Jun 16 2005, 06:25 PM']Again, paragraph VII:
We don't doubt that the events of Genesis are literal or historical. We can take the words to be scientifically imprecise and meant to convey truth in a way that people at that time could grasp them.

You're looking at one paragraph (III) and dismissing the rest. Could you explain why the commission would include paragraphs IV - VII if they did not intend a nuance beyond which you are willing to admit?
[right][snapback]613847[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Response:

No, you can't take to words of the PBC document to be imprecise. They are about as precise as one can get. Those even at that time would recognize that the event either did or didn't happen. Scientific imprecision isn't involved at all.

(Incidently, it isn't I who am arguing that these events were historical. It's the Church's argument).

The other paragraph you quoted from the PBC document does not refute the main paragraph I quoted. Would the authors of the PBC have missed that contradiction if it really existed? The "nuance" ploy falls flat.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 06:56 PM']Response#1

Just the opposite. Metaphorical is not historical.

Response #2

That somebody lied to you would be historical assuming you had witnesses or could in some way establish that fact. Somebody claiming that something happend does not of itself make it historical.

It happened or it didn't happen. It's not that difficult a concept.

Littleles
[right][snapback]613860[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Your not a historian are you? First History is not defined by what happened, the first reqwuirment of history is that it be written down there is no history from before the written period, Oral history ( which actually has been shown to be very accurate when people take it seriously) is actually a brach of anthropology not History. This goes back to what I said earlier, Historical text may or may not be accurate ( that is a whole other area of debate) but things can be True and not be Historically accurate for example I can write in a history that a century ago there was a Civil War in the united states that would be inaccurate yet there was a Civil War in the United states between 1 and 2 centuries ago, it isn't untrue but it is not exactly correct either. Both of these are differant from a Fact which is mearly something which can be proven-- Facts can be untrue if the available knowlege allows something to be "proven" that later understanding disproves, and things can be True which are not provable at all--these cannot be Facts yet they may well be true. You are confusing all sorts of differant things. Further something may have happened and as inthe example above not happened at exact time given in an historical text, additionally Historical text Particularly in the Ancient world may well be topical and not Chronologiccal at all, exactness of dates was not so immportant to the ancients as it is today-- What happened was important and these where recorded.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 06:57 PM']Never said it did I said it fit with the over all pattern, I do not claim thatthe world is 6000 years old. So you are giving up the argument that we don't all come from the same parents, you concede that there was in fact an Eve and that there was a common mail decendent to time later. Do you concede that or not?
[right][snapback]613861[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Response: No.

Like the male possesing the "Y" chromosome of interest, Eve too might be the forebearer only of a group which survived. But in the case of her mitochondrial DNA, the scientific evidence is more questionable.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 07:17 PM']Response: No.

Like the male possesing the "Y" chromosome of interest, Eve too might be the forebearer only of  a group which survived. But in the case of her mitochondrial DNA, the scientific evidence is more questionable.
[right][snapback]613871[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Thats not what even what you quoated said-- ALL men must come frm that Man period, now there may be other male ansestors but they must come through the women, perhaps he was the only one lucky enough to have surviving offspring --- WELL DUH--- that is what I am saying here after all. Same with the women all women come from her it doesn't matter if there where others( I am not sayng that there where not or that there where) all of US come from her and Him all of us, that is the science of it, so you concede that or not, or do you question what Science says is true as well?

[Technicoid]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 07:11 PM']No, you can't take to words  of the PBC document to be imprecise. They are about as precise as one can get.  Those even at that time would recognize that the event either did or didn't happen. Scientific imprecision isn't involved at all.[/quote]

Nice try. It's not the document of the commission I'm taking to be scientifically imprecise. It's the words as written in Genesis.

[quote](Incidently, it isn't I who am arguing that these events were historical. It's the Church's argument).[/quote]

And I'm arguing that they're historical. I'm also arguing that our understanding has to keep in mind the language and context in which the passage was written, which is what paragraph VII is all about. Incidently, so is paragraph V.

[quote]The other paragraph you quoted from the PBC document does not refute the main paragraph I quoted. Would the authors of the PBC have missed that contradiction if it really existed?    The "nuance"  ploy falls flat. [/quote]

No, the paragraphs don't refute each other. Together with the other paragraphs, they form the intended meaning of the entire section. For you to read one without taking the others into consideration gives you an imperfect understanding of what the authors intended.

So I ask you again, what does the rest of the section mean? How do you explain pargraph III in light of pargraphs I, II, IV, V, VII, and VIII? Is your unwillingness or inability to do so the reason why you didn't provide paragraph III in the context of those other six? If not, please explain why the authors provided the rest of the document, particularly paragraphs V, VI, and VII.

BTW, here's paragraph V:

[quote]V: [b]Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense,[/b] so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: [b]In the negative[/b].[/quote]

So please explain paragraph III in the light of the others in the section.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 16 2005, 06:34 PM']Where does "natural law" come from? 
[/quote]

Humans.

[quote]And "social law" changes depending on the society.  Slavery was/is lawful in some societies.  Social law can deprive people of rights as easily as it can grant rights.
[/quote]

But if we apply the simple criteria I stated above it would have been a no brainer. Slavery causes harm on varying levels. While the bible did not speak against the act, and some even used it to validate the act. Those who were enslaved fought to overturn this injustice because they were living in conditions that harmed them physically, mentally and socially. Everything around them told them they had no rights nor deserved them. Yet they new intrinsicly that they indeed deserved to have rights and be treated equally.

[Melchisedec]

Technicoid,

Could we take Homer's Homer's Odyssey and deem it historical aswell?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 16 2005, 08:16 PM'][quote]Where does "natural law" come from?[/quote]

Humans.

[right][snapback]613911[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


And just how does a human make a natural law? I mean....seriously....how does a human make wind blow out in the ocean, and cause a hurricane to start? How does a human make a tree form from a walnut? How does a human get a taproot to search for water?

Give me a break....humans do not make natural law.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 07:12 PM']Your not a historian are you? First History is not defined by what happened, the first reqwuirment of history is that it be written down there is no history from before the written period, Oral history ( which actually has been shown to be very accurate when people take it seriously)  is actually a brach of anthropology not History. This goes back to what I said earlier, Historical  text may or may not be accurate ( that is a whole other area of debate) but things can be True and not be Historically accurate for example I can write in a history that a century ago there was a Civil War in the united states that would be inaccurate yet there was a Civil War in the United states between 1 and 2 centuries ago, it isn't untrue but it is not exactly correct either. Both of these are differant from a Fact which is mearly something which can be proven-- Facts can be untrue if the available knowlege allows something to be "proven" that later understanding disproves, and things can be True which are not provable at all--these cannot be Facts yet they may well be true. You are confusing all sorts of differant things. Further something may have happened and as inthe example above not happened at exact time given in an historical text, additionally Historical text Particularly in the Ancient world may well be topical and not Chronologiccal at all, exactness of dates was not so immportant to the ancients as it is today-- What happened was important and these where recorded.
[right][snapback]613866[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Response:

Lets see if I can follow what you are saying.

(1) You say that the first requirement of history is that it be written down. I would say the first requirement of history is that the event happened. But you admit that there is really an oral history (ie not written down), but then claim that this is really anthropology and not really history.

(2) Then you claim that things can be true but not be historically accurate. Again, if an event happened, it's history. Whether it is reported accurately is another matter.

(3) If the timing described is inaccurate than the history is history but it is not chronologically accurate.

(4) On the other hand, you tell us that some history may be topical but not chronological at all. I would say if the event happened, it happened in real time so there is a chronology, but the time may not be recorded .