Disqualifying Adam and Eve

(Revised: added a poll at the end just for fun) Since most people in the world (some of them Christians) don't believe in Adam and Eve based on the conclusions resulting from scientific disciplines such as Anthropology, Paleontology, Archeology, and Biology from now on I will disqualify it as a datum in any discussion I have on this site. That means that I will no longer accept the historicity of Adam and Eve as a premise supporting any conclusions, I will dismiss it out of hand and I encourage this viewpoint from others.

In my view, to entertain or even to discuss the historicity of Adam and Eve is irrelevant. They have already been shown to be infinitesimally unlikely by fields such as Anthropology, Paleontology, Archeology, and Biology. In my view it is a sensible position to commit to the view point that Adam and Eve are folklore until the introduction of new information warrants reconsideration. In my view to recognize the possibility of the existence of Adam and Eve as a premise in a discussion is to give it the appearance that it is a real consideration and worthy of discussion. I say that it is no more worthy of discussion than a flat earth or the existence of Leprechauns.

Logically, using the same criteria to support the existence of Adam and Eve, one could argue for the existence of Leprechauns. To concede that the existence of Adam and Eve is a possibility is to prevent the discussion from going forward toward a resolution because the insistence of the opponent to disregard the conclusion of the disciplines of Anthropology, Paleontology, Archeology, and Biology is counter to the most widely held viewpoint in the world and is irrational in the face of sound reasoning. If another Christian doesn't believe it why should I give it the benefit of doubt? Why should I allow it as a premise in any discussion?

Now an apologist may accuse me of appealing to authority and the bandwagon fallacy. However, those are labels for a fallacious reasoning scheme. To apply that label to my process of reasoning in this case necessitates showing that my presumption about the validity of the conclusions drawn from those disciplines is flawed and/or that the viewpoint of the majority is based on the underlying fallacy of the conclusions drawn from those disciplines. It necessitates discrediting the conclusions of those disciplines. That is an uphill battle if there ever was one. In both cases I am insulated from the charge of fallacy.

In my view, the persistence of groundless beliefs such as Adam and Eve is due to the tolerance of them in discussion by those that know they are groundless. We can still tolerate other viewpoints until those viewpoints begin to intrude or become harmful in the practical and pragmatic business of day to day life. Discussants need to make the same commitment to discourage and challenge the use of inaccurate information in their personal lives that they do in other areas of their lives.

PollPub.com VoteAdam and Eve or Darwin's Theory (Evolution)
Adam and Eve
Darwin's Theory (Evolution)


View Results

Poll powered by PollPub.com Free Polls

49 comments:

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

When I was a Christian I did believe in Adam and Eve at one point. My reason for believing in them was that they were validated by the New Testament. I'm glad it didn't mention Leprechauns and fairies too!

I think that is the reason that some Christians do believe in Adam and Eve at least in some form.

lee said...

So I guess the whole talking snake thing is out too huh?

I understand your position Lee R., but some fallacious doctrinal positions hinge on a pair of fallacious characters, it is so much fun debunking the fallacious doctrines that if we refuse to discuss the fallacious couple we really don't have anything to talk about..
I really don't think I could have made that sentence more convoluted.

Harry McCall said...

As Jesus said: “Oh ye of little faith…”. But wait! Jesus did not believe the Genesis account of Adam and Eve either. And, as the saying goes; “If it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!”

I do, however believe in Intelligent Design: That intelligent and creative men created Genesis 1 – 11. So, even as an atheist, I strongly support “I.D.” of the Bible.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi all,
in the interest of clarity
I changed the first line from "including christians" to "some of them christians" because I only meant to include christians in the set of those who don't believe, not to say that most christians don't believe.

Lee Randolph said...

to further clarify, there is overlap between the set of christians and the set of those who don't believe in adam and eve.

kiwi said...

If you accept the supernatural (this is to say, once you accept any form of magic we can think of is possible), then ANYTHING goes. Maybe God used evolution to create all species, but Adam and Eve were special creation. Maybe the universe is really 6000 year old but Satan is planting false evidence that lead us to believe the universe is much more older.

It's funny that Alvin Plantinga claims that as long as there is no defeater for Christianity, then it's rational to be Christian. But how can there be a defeater when 1) you can interpret the Bible at will until any contradiction goes away 2) there are invisible magical entities who are possibly toying with our universe?

So what's the problem here? The problem is thinking the laws of nature can be changed by the invisible magician. Once you think that, reality stops making sense. It stops making sense to a point you cannot even take a flight with the peace in mind, because at any moment Satan could make it crash.

Jason said...

Harry,

Why didn't Jesus believe the Genesis account?

Evan said...

I think angels belong in the same category as Adam and Eve.

There are multiple attestations to the existence of angels in the Bible. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting one in that world, but there are no credible scientific evidences proferred for their existence in the modern era.

The twists and turns needed to explain this are just as bad as the Adam and Eve contortions.

Harry McCall said...

Odd: If Jesus knew of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, unlike Paul, he never used it in any of his theology.

But, just how much of the Bible did Jesus know about or even believed in? It appears that the mostly illiterate Jesus (who never wrote anything because he was unable to (John 8:8 being a late addition) knew very little of the Bible compared to the highly educated Hellenistic Paul who used the Genesis account to formulate systematic theology (especially to attack women).

It’s little wonder that Christians CAN NOT get a “Plain of Salvation” from the Synoptic Gospels and hardly anything from the Gospel of John. The reason being, other than some very popular oral stories about Moses and the Law, Jesus, like most Jew of the day: A. Could not afford an Aramaic or Hebrew Torah (let alone the whole TaNaK). B. Even if Jesus and the masses could get just a scroll of the Aramaic Torah, they could not read it (The story of Jesus reading from the Isaiah in the synagogue is highly problematic (Luke 4: 17)).

When we compare the illiterate Jesus with the religiously educated Jewish Paul, one can truly understand why (even with the shaping of the Gospels in Christian tradition) evangelical Christians can take just one letter from Paul (Romans) and have a complete systematic theology on Salvation while poor old illiterate Jesus has to ramble on in oral moral tales call “parables” which even confused his own followers (Mark 4:2 – 13).

Lee Randolph said...

As I see it, the Christians problem is not evolution. Its all the kinds of humanoid fossils that have been found.

If I stipulate that Adam and Eve were specially created as adults, then the Christian has to explain what the other Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis fossils are. Adam and eve were supposed to be the first, but there sure are a lot of old primate bones laying around and we know how human biology reacts when brothers and sisters mate. Its not likely they would have survived, unless the old perpetual miracle was going on. To lump in the homo erectus and Neanderthals into the animals that Adam named doesn't make sense either because there is evidence of Neanderthal ritual, which signifies intelligence. And then if they want to posit the perpetual miracle, then they have to rationalize away the reasons god wouldn't make things the way he intended in the first place. It would have made more sense if Genesis started with Adam and Eve, let them build up a community and then put the 'fall of man' events into motion.

In my mind evolution is not the nail in the coffin for Christianity, its anthropology. Its explaining when Adam and Eve popped into existence.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Harry,
Genesis 1-11,
I'm listening to a course by an old testament scholar who has spent most of his professional life studying genesis who says that Gen. 1-11 are not regarded as factual events by biblical scholars. I guess it depends on what the criteria of a biblical scholar are.

Robert_B said...

A good video listing the scientific theories that must be denied in order to hold young earth creationism belief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies

Harry McCall said...

Lee, I see the early universal account of Genesis 1 – 11 going the same way the Young Earth believers went. The more the specifics are given up in the Bible, the vaguer the generalities become and the easier it is to apologetically defend.

Let’s open a whole new can of worms here. If man (Adam) and not woman (Eve) was created in the image of God (Imago Dei), did Adam have a navel / belly button? Sounds stupid, but most of theology is crated this way.

If Adam had a naval as created in the image of God, then we can assume God had a navel too and thus a father also who (based on Semitic languages) was the god El in the Canaanite Pantheon. Or, better yet, was Yahweh created in the image of El? If so, than man is in the image of, not Yahweh, but the Canaanite God “El”! Indeed, since Yahweh is generally accepted not to come on the scene until Exodus, the Canaanite God “El” is the creator.

Jesus himself supports this since Jesus seems to have never known a god named Yahweh. Jesus only knew Theos in Greek = “El” in Canaanite and Hebrew.

Just maybe the old Mormon proverb “As man is now, God once was. As God is now, man shall become.” has a lot of Freudian insight into how Intelligent Design was used to create God.

Rotten Arsenal said...

One night recently (Good Friday actually), after my men's league soccer match, several of us were hanging out in the parking lot drinking beer and somehow or another we got into religion. Long story short, it was me vs. about 6 "christians" (and 1 agnostic who wasn't all that helpful). They were appalled of my atheism and so we got into a debate.
Long story short, I mentioned that the bible isn't a definitive history or proof of god and as an example, mentioned that there are 2 different accounts of creation in Genesis. This was met with several comments that I didn't know what I was talking about. One guy had a bible in his car so we went over and looked at it. Although he couldn't quite come right out and admit that I was correct, he did acknowledge that "he could see how that statement could be true."
Genesis 11:26-31 has animals first then man and woman created simultaneously (along with an odd reference by God to some sort of group he was working with). Genesis 2:7-25 has the whole Adam first then the animals, and THEN the rib thing.

Why two stories? Because they are STORIES. They aren't true, just varying tales of how it was thought to have happened by people who had no idea about science.

sacred slut said...

If you eliminate Adam and Eve and their sin against Yahweh, then what need do you have of Jesus as the redeemer?

If Adam and Eve are metaphorical, doesn't that suggest Jesus is a fictional character as well?

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Sacred Slut,
BINGO!

In the coming weeks, in addition to my typical crap, I'm going to be posting a timeline of world events and comparing it to Genesis as I compare Genesis to Near Eastern Mythology.

At this stage of planning, Its seems like it is going to be in lots of easily digestible little pieces.

If you want to see surprising similarities to christianity, download a course on Hinduism or the history of the indus valley or Buddhism or the philosophies of the "Axial Age".

If you know your bible, you'll spot them right away.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Rotten Arsenal,
you have intuitively recognized the characteristic of folklore. Common themes but variations in time, place and names.

When people think of genesis, they should think, ancient civilizations, water sources, Boats and sails (4000-3000bce), and trading. think asia minor, ancient egypt, indus valley, sumeria, mesopotamia, and then look at where canaan, israel and Judah were. They were in the path to the coast of the mediterranean. Its a lot easier to sail along the coast or along the river than it is to walk across the landscape.

The monsoons that go from somalia to india provide a round trip once a year for a sailing ship, right along the coast of yemen and oman. There are small division between the land masses on either side of the arabian peninsula (yemen, oman).

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

You anti-Christ advocates are a COMPLETE mess! I've heard it all now...We've got an ILLITERATE Jesus who doesn't know the scripture that HE instituted...How about this as confirmation of Adam and Eve and beginnings:

Mk.10:3-9 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Scaled down version in Mt. 5:31 & 19:7)

Which, by the way, is an ILLITERATE requote of Gen. 1:27 " So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them"

and

Gen. 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"

So now we have an illiterate Jesus who at least quotes 2 OT scriptures.

Then what about Luke 4:16-20 "And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him."

An ILLITERATE Jesus TEACHES...WOW! Opens a CLOSED book....oOH NO! He even finds a scripture...GASP! Then HE READS! What is the illiterate world coming to????

Not to mention, He FINISHES and KNOWS that he's finished and gives the book back...WOE IS ME! And EVEN knows that the scriptures refer to himself...(ie: he UNDERSTANDS what he reads)

Then what about John 5:39, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Those dreaded illiterates...always tellin someone else to READ and stuff!

Anyway this FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT was dealt with VERY SIGNIFICANTLY by John Meier in "Marginal Jew" 1:269 and again by P. Foster in "Educating Jesus: The Search For Plausible Context" JSH Journal(2006) Get with something that has some teeth to it...Ooh THESE IS NOTHING that does...I forgot...my BAD!

Lee Randolph ~ "In the coming weeks, in addition to my typical crap, I'm going to be posting a timeline of world events and comparing it to Genesis as I compare Genesis to Near Eastern Mythology."

You assesed the "crap" part right(LOL)...but ANYWAY, I guess I should score BIG point with you, because you're the parrallel KING.

What Jesus quoted was at least parrallel to Genesis right? THEREFORE I WIN the illiteracy contest! Yessssss! Immma WINNER!

You are a parrallelomaniac...Lee R. let me ask you a couple of questions?

Do you wear socks and shoes? I wear socks and shoes...

Do you put them on before you go to work? I put mine on before I go to work...

THEREFORE we wear THE SAME SOCKS AND SHOES...Ahhhhhhaaaa! I knew It!!!

Possibility to Probability to Certainity...The Atheist theme song when it comes to ANYTHING against the Bible and the TRUTH of God's word but amazingly it NEVER works the other way!

What a bogus situation (LOL) Later!

Chris said...

Interpreting the Adam and Eve story as literal history isn't something that's done by educated religious people. The Bible is not meant to be taken literally.

The fact that it often is taken literally is not the fault of Christianity itself, but of those people who perpetuate ignorance in religion. Hell, the vast majority of religious people can't even read the Bible in its original language.

By the same token, when someone argues from a bad/broken understanding of science (say someone arguing for a faulty model of evolution) it doesn't render the actual science or fact untrue. Hell, the vast majority of people don't understand the statistics necessary to understand experimental results.

There is a vast amount of religious scholarship that goes almost completely ignored in the public education system and the university system (especially since few students bother to take religion or philosophy courses beyond the first year). If you care to debunk religion or disprove God's existance, you must do so by first understanding the nature of the religion and the claims made regarding the existance of God. You don't find out the truth by finding fault with the weakest form of an argument, but by finding fault with the strongest.

I suppose I'll stoop to mentioning that I'm not religious, nor am I an atheist. I have not yet seen arguments from either side sufficient to sway me either way. Perhaps in the future I will!

Lee Randolph said...

Hi harvey,
man is it good to see you! I slimmed down your comment, hopefully preserving context.
How about this as confirmation of Adam and Eve and beginnings:
Mk.10:3-9 ....But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. ..... (Scaled down version in Mt. 5:31 & 19:7)
Which ... is....Gen. 1:27 " So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them"


You're right Harvey, no one would ever have attributed the creation of males and females to a divine being without reading Genesis.

Gen. 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"

man you are so good at this. There is no way that the principle of oral tradition applied to Jesus.

So now we have an illiterate Jesus who at least quotes 2 OT scriptures.

I agree with that. I'd have a lot easier time believing that (1) Jesus existed and (2) he was literate if he had written something down, because (3) you know as well as I do that the majority of ancient writings are more or less book keeping and business related and the writers who were not businessmen were scribes, priests, rabbis, so in my mind its odd that the supreme intellect in the universe didn't write anything down or leave us a smear of blood or a TIME CAPSULE like I did when I was a kid at school.

Then what about Luke 4:16-20 "And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.....

There is no way the author of this could have just assumed that is there? Or no way he could have pulled a common trick of the illiterate and just repeat what they have heard while looking at the document.

An ILLITERATE Jesus TEACHES...WOW! Opens a CLOSED book....oOH NO! He even finds a scripture...GASP! Then HE READS! What is the illiterate world coming to????
Not to mention, He FINISHES and KNOWS that he's finished and gives the book back...WOE IS ME! And EVEN knows that the scriptures refer to himself...(ie: he UNDERSTANDS what he reads)


Its just simply not possible that none of this is midrash, or a written down version of oral tradition is it?

Anyway this FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT was dealt with VERY SIGNIFICANTLY by John Meier in "Marginal Jew" 1:269 and again by P. Foster in "Educating Jesus: The Search For Plausible Context" JSH Journal(2006)

Good for them. I'm sure they presumed the text was accurate as written.

You assesed the "crap" part right(LOL)...but ANYWAY, I guess I should score BIG point with you, because you're the parrallel KING.

now, now harry, its okay for me to call my stuff crap but its not okay for you. ;-) Its good to be the king. I'll just follow in the tradition of philosophers and kings and legitimate myself by saying that I was chosen by god, because I am the ressurection of Horus, Shiva, Indra, Yahweh or some revered ancestor like
Elijah.

What Jesus quoted was at least parrallel to Genesis right? THEREFORE I WIN the illiteracy contest! Yessssss! Immma WINNER!

Do you know a guy named Balaam, or Shrek? You type very well considering.

Do you wear socks and shoes? I wear socks and shoes...
Do you put them on before you go to work? I put mine on before I go to work. THEREFORE we wear THE SAME SOCKS AND SHOES...Ahhhhhhaaaa! I knew It!!!


and you, my friend
are the King of strawmen,

can you say non-sequitur?

It must certainly be true that the isralites existed in a glass bell, uncontaminated by their environment.

Possibility to Probability to Certainity...The Atheist theme song when it comes to ANYTHING against the Bible and the TRUTH of God's word but amazingly it NEVER works the other way!

got any details to flesh this out a little? I can show you a few sites, and some hugh ross articles dealing with the inconsistency between adam and eve and anthropology and the word most used is "possible".

I'll go out on a limb here and say that it is PROBABLE that from 9000bce to present the bigger civilization influenced the smaller, and the levant was in the middle of the hittites, the sumerians, the persian, the babylonians, the egyptians, and traded spices and metals with the indus valley civilization.

What a bogus situation (LOL) Later!
I await with bated breath.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Chris,
You don't find out the truth by finding fault with the weakest form of an argument, but by finding fault with the strongest.

amen brother,
that's why I'm digging up the root and going after the torah.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Chris~ My friend you said this, "The Bible is not meant to be taken literally. The fact that it often is taken literally is not the fault of Christianity itself, but of those people who perpetuate ignorance in religion. Hell, the vast majority of religious people can't even read the Bible in its original language."

Who told you that? I mean this literal stuff? Lemme ask a question. Does Jerusalem exist? Does Egypt exist? Both are in the bible is that literal or figurative?

I mean you say, "The Bible is not meant to be taken literally" Do you really mean that or are there exceptions?

What are the rules for taking the bible literally at least according to you?

You also said this, "Hell, the vast majority of religious people can't even read the Bible in its original language."

Chris I'm an Ojibwa (Chippewa) Indian (4-real) 1/4 according to birthright and lineage. I can't speak ojibwa. Have I deauthenticated myself because I can't read a language that I can definately trace my roots to? Does that somehow make the Chippewa's not real, or cause me to know less of their history? My grandfather, Chief Beargrese, was the FIRST US mail carrier in northern Minnesota. His memory is celebrated annually until this day.

Is he less significant to US History becasue we can't read his language? Should he be less significant to me because I don't know how to read or speak Ojibwa?

Let me know that. Please.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Lee R. ~ You said this "I agree with that. I'd have a lot easier time believing that (1) Jesus existed and (2) he was literate if he had written something down, because (3) you know as well as I do that the majority of ancient writings are more or less book keeping and business related and the writers who were not businessmen were scribes, priests, rabbis, so in my mind its odd that the supreme intellect in the universe didn't write anything down or leave us a smear of blood or a TIME CAPSULE like I did when I was a kid at school."

So you'd rather have a handwritten note so you could say it wasn't the handwriting of Jesus...There are 66 books called the Bible and his fingerprints are all over that but the human LAB can decipher the print...What more do you need...How about independent witness. More parallels than you can shake a stick at...and those dreaded manuscripts that keep growing and growing all of them attesting to a real, not mythic person....Then all those other secular historians who go into great detail, I guess isn't good enough.

Look truth is both you and I and everyone reading, believe in historical figures EVERY DAY without seeing any handwritten notes, or physucal evidences (other than seeing or reading something about them in a book) Why? Simply because we evaluate ALL data to make conclusions consistent with what we know and what's generally accepted. I've never seen ANYTHING wrritten by George Washington, but he was in a book, said to be President at one time in US history and based on all the OTHER evidence, it's reasonable to conclude that the book was true.

Jesus has an insurmountable amount of proof for his existance, both early, late and independent of him or his followers.

So far as this Midrash thing. Like I asked Bart W. What's the problem with Midrash? All you can answer is like he did...NOTHING. Zugoth is another interpretive system that was in competetion during the time of Jesus, but Midrash was used for hundreds of years and as such highly developed in it's schems of interpretations and was used primarily y the commo man which Jesus and his followers were.

And so you'll know a little more about Oral Historicity, study this carefully:

Based on current interdisciplinary studies there is NO solid grounds for thinking that the Jesus traditions of he early church were purely oral

1- Contrary to Harris’s study on ancient literacy which implored a comparativist deductive methodology, (which most historical form-critics eagerly accept), current studies show that actual epigraphic evidence is also an indicator of literacy within ancient cultures and should be used in balance with the comparativist deductive method that has generally been accepted on it’s own.

2- Cost of materials as evidence for non-early origins has been determined to be a “unanswerable and a meaningless question” due to lack of objective criteria. ~ ‘Papyrus & Parchment’ “The Birth Of The Codex” [New York: Oxford University Press 1973],7

3- Evidence against the common assumptions of universally prohibitive costs of writing materials in the ancient world have been found as afar as Britain at Military Ft. Vindolanda (AD 100) The find was underscored with an abundance of both thin wood leaves (Their paper) and a type of ink pen. This removes the argument that “writing materials were only for the well to do” ~ Bowman, ‘Literacy in the Roman Empire’ 128

4- The vast amount of written materials such as legal deeds, writing of divorce, letters, writings on coins and ossuaries strongly suggest that literary levels were high and relatively wide spread during the time of Jesus. ~ Mallard, Reading and Writing 168

5- This is further evidenced by the amount of literary evidence recovered from Qumran, which cannot be excluded arbitrarily or considered an anomaly. ~ Snyder, Review Of Jewish Literacy 426.

6- “The very identity and continued existence of the people of Israel were tied to a corpus of written and regularly read works in a way that was simply not true of other peoples in the Mediterranean world of the first century…to be able to read and explain the scriptures was a revered goal for religiously minded Jews. Hence literacy held a special importance for the Jewish community.” ~ J.P. Meier, ‘A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus Vol. 1: The Roots of The Problem and Person (New York: Doubleday, 1991) 275

7- “The milieu in which Jesus and the original disciples ministered, and the milieu in which remembrances of Jesus life and teachings were passed on, was one that revered the written word and thus valued literacy.” ~ B. Gerhardsson, ‘The Gospel Tradition’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels ed. D.L. Dungan (Levin: Peters,1990) 538

In light of current findings it would be reasonable to assume that the followers of Jesus maintained a notebook of some sorts during their journeys so that certain things could be remembered. “There’s no need to think that this material [of Jesus teachings] was simply memorized by the disciples. ~ R.H. Stein, ‘The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids Baker Academic 1987)205

Coupled with the fact that Jesus displayed his literary awareness of the OT as well as the disciples, and it would seem that not only was Matthew (Tax Collector) but other of the disciples were literate including Judas who was held as treasurer.

In addition Eusebius later confirms that Mark (Peter’s Understudy) was literate, it then becomes highly plausible that there was an early circulation of written material available among disciples and whoever wanted to know.

This is what I mean by oral historicity not merely oral tradition as the western world comes to think of it. Further info can be found by reading C.M.Albl “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken” The Form and Function Of The Early Christian Testimonia Collections (Boston: Brille, 1999) The Oral Historicity (Tradition) of the Jews was very high and established early.

The Jewish community pre-100 was an oral community, It was, however, there was much more to the setting than traditional form-critics have allowed. Current scholarship is abandoning many form-critical assumptions that there was no story of Jesus prior to the written narratives. Why? Long oral narratives, some of which take multiple days and time spans in excess of 26 hours to complete, have been discovered and within those narratives are relationships between parts that create whole and complete historical stories such as we find within the Gospels. ‘The Jesus Legend’ Boyd/Eddy 2006 p.256

Final point here, most critics do as you've done, you remove their (The Biblical character's) Semitic standard from them in order to try to prove fallacious arguments. Accurate criticism DOES NOT involve deculturalization of the characters. The Greco-Roman oral tradition was VASTLY different than the Jewish tradition. to the Jew the tradition was their lifeline, therefore it was safeguarded more carefully than the critic will admit.

Peace Lee R.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Lee R. ~"There is no way the author of this could have just assumed that is there? Or no way he could have pulled a common trick of the illiterate and just repeat what they have heard while looking at the document"

Do you mean redaction? Where's the evidence for such in the passage I believe it was Luke 4:16-20 "And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read....."

What's your basis for a redacted passage? I'd like to know. Again, one of these posibly, probably, certainly situations I'm sure...

Peace.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Harvey,
first off, this thread is about adam and eve. Jesus is irrelevant if adam and eve didn't exist, so this is all i have to say about Jesus. After this I'm done with Jesus in this thread. The important point of the article is since there doesn't seem to be anywhere to reasonably place adam and eve in history, and I've decided to dismiss it out of hand until there is new evidence for consideration, the questions become,
* where did it come from?
* why is it there?
* what was the motivation to create it?

These questions are answered by behaviour of groups of people in the ancient near east, which I'll get into later. stick around.

So you'd rather have a handwritten note so you could say it wasn't the handwriting of Jesus

this is a misrepresentation and a slippery slope. Thats not what i said, and you are assuming that the evidence I asked for would not convince me.

There are 66 books called the Bible and his fingerprints are all over that but the human LAB can decipher the print...

This is just rhetoric and domonstrably false.

How about independent witness

usually, and there are precedents, witness testimony should collaborate significantly to be as compelling as you seem to think the gospels are it is.

and those dreaded manuscripts that keep growing and growing all of them attesting to a real, not mythic person

It doesn't make a bit of difference to me if he was real or imagined, what does matter is if he was god. Being strung for being a rabble rouser is different that being strung up for being the prophesied human sacrifice that reconciles people to thier loving god.

I hope Socrates was real, but its possible he only existed in the imagination of plato. I hope the Buddha was real too. The difference is that I don't go to hell for not believing in Socrates or the Buddha. But you know what? We're both doomed to drift aimlessly through one life after another until we start following the Vedas. ;-)

Jesus has an insurmountable amount of proof for his existence

This is more rhetoric and loaded language. Only you know what insurmountable is in this context. I know you can't help it cause you're a preacher.

What's the problem with Midrash?

Nothing as long as you don't go around saying it is more factual than it actually is. Its the metaphor thing. You know, where does it begin and end?

Based on current interdisciplinary studies there is NO solid grounds for thinking that the Jesus traditions of he early church were purely oral

This is another strawman, I never said that. I merely proposed an alternate hypothesis. I don't care if jesus could read or not. I only care if he was god or not. And i intend to iterate through the verses of genesis to show that if we say that genesis is the word of god, then we have no other choice but to say that Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Hindu scriptures are the word of god as well because most of them predate, not just parallel Genesis. If geneis is not the word of God, then jesus was just another one of those passover rabble rousers that pushed through the envelope. Unless I'm mistaken, it was paul that linked jesus to the story of Adam and Eve. Why do you trust Paul? He wasn't even there. Sheesh. Get a clue.

there was an early circulation of written material available among disciples and whoever wanted to know.

There is no doubt there was a wealth of material its just that you don't accept things like the book of enoch, or the gospel of thomas or Judas, or the stories of jesus as a kid or with a twin etc.....

you remove their (The Biblical character's) Semitic standard from them in order to try to prove fallacious arguments.

This is another stawman, because I don't remember getting that deep into the woods with my questions. It seems to me that nothing I said would contradict any semitic standard.

Accurate criticism DOES NOT involve deculturalization of the characters. The Greco-Roman oral tradition was VASTLY different than the Jewish tradition. to the Jew the tradition was their lifeline, therefore it was safeguarded more carefully than the critic will admit.

I am trying to be very careful to keep my perspective on the ancients. In fact, I consider the Jews to be experts on thier scripture but you don't. If you did, you wouldn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

and last but not least


What's your basis for a redacted passage? I'd like to know. Again, one of these posibly, probably, certainly situations I'm sure...

Knowing that there were four gospels, all significantly different, and the fact that "mark" was written up to twenty years after the fact, and the others came later, yada, yada, using precedent and principle, it is likely and probable that these passages do not record factual events, but contrived analogous events that are MEANT to REPRESENT what the author wants you to believe happened.

So now, how do you know those events happened exactly as they say they did, more probably, possibly, certainly? I'd like to know. I'm sure, though, that you'll take the unshakeable position that its in the bible so its real, with no regard for external verification.

But I can show you a mechanism, with precedents, for how this all came about, stay tuned.

You don't have any mechanism and precedents. You only have a story, very similar to other Near Eastern folklore, that you say is unique.

Chris said...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett:

It's strange how the language issue always seems to offend people so much.

But here's the thing, if you're reading the translation, you're at the mercy of the translator. You don't know and will never know (unless you go ahead and learn the original language) if the translator made mistakes, or missed important nuances in a work.

This is true not only with the Bible, but with Plato's Republic, Machiavelli's The Prince, etc.

If you know more than one language, you know that there are many words that can't be translated directly word-for-word into another language. I like to use the French example "debrouillier". It means to solve a problem or untangle a mess, but it also means to do something clever; it also is used to say you're going to occupy yourself in the meantime. (i.e. We're going to out, would you like to come along? Non, non, je me debrouille)

These books are not straight-forward easy reads that can be absorbed and completely understood in one go, or even after a couple reads. There are people who spend their lives studying these kinds of works -- not because they are stupid, but because the material is hard.

Again, if you want to learn the truth of the existence of God (and then the truth of whether or not the Bible lays out the will of God) you have to first understand what the reasoned arguments are for this ! If you don't understand those arguments, how can you refute them? If you don't understand those arguments, how can you know whether or not there's a better argument out there that refutes a disproof of the existence of God that you think is sound?

And then on top of that, if you're truly interested in learning truth (instead of arguing to support your own prejudices), you need to see if *you* can strengthen or fix an argument that you think is broken or unsound. That's philosophy, and it's hard.

Who cares if Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible? Shakespeare had many of his plays take place in real places, should I take them as literal histories? (I like Shakespeare for this example because his plays have lots of allegorical content).

It's true, I don't know if there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be taken literally. I'm not a huge biblical scholar. The thing you have to realize is, if the Bible were so easily refuted (and it would be if taken literally -- two different, contradictory creation stories in the first book!) the matter would have been settled a long time ago. The Bible has had atheist foes for as long as it's been around. St Augustine spent the first half of his life debating against Christians. He only converted after making an effort to learn what Christianity was actually about, when he started asking educated priests about it. Not all who support the Bible do so out of some unreasoned faith. Those are the people you have to learn from and those are the people whose arguments you have to defeat.

But perhaps one's goal shouldn't be to defeat this or that argument, but instead should be to learn the truth of the matter.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Chris ~ Thanks for the answer and don't think I was offended. I'm sorry if I put it that way. I was curious as to your reasoning process.

So far as the "language thing", I understand it...especially with the language you refrenced, It says "Je t'aime" (long time I forget) translated as I love you, but in French it's actually literally "I You Love" (based on word placement) But, in order to understand this I need not necessarily know the complete language to have fruitful understanding.

That's what we're talking...am I able to understand what is being said fruitfully?

2 things. 1-God didn't check your brain at the door. "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim. 2:15, now do I need to be a scholar or linguist to do so...By no means. I can stand on the shoulders of otherwise reputable scholarship until I come into a more full and comple knowledge and understand through growth, maturity and research.

To the extreme critical mind this is anathema and ridiculous but this is something we do everyday without exception. Example:

I sold cars some years ago shortly after fuel injection got popular. I remember they had a system called "Multiport Sequential FI" I sold a slew of casr based on that feature...I still don't know how it worked mechanically and out of all the people that bought the cars, there was NOT ONE that asked for a detailed mechanical overview or an interview with the service manager to deatil how it worked before they made the purchase.

Now I'm sure that most of them went on to learn what it was all about but knowing it was not esential to accepting the fact that "it worked" whether they knew all the details or not.

Did that make my customers uneducated...HECK NO! They trusted what they purchased.

2- As I view this sight, I wonder is the atheist problem simply an inability to trust? Covered up with words such as anti-supernaturalism, freethought, skepticism, textual criticism etc...Then I wonder how far that goes into their personal lives? What is the line of demarcation? and why is there a line?

Most of them will trust in corporations, governments, other types of systems that have failed in an unapologetic manner. In fact when the S&L's went bankrupt years ago that didn't defer anyone reading this from opening an account in a bank...Why? because there's a trust factor that is a natural part of life and everyday living.

The ultra or extreme critic can be nothing more than a miserable person, if they apply the same method of ultra critique to every aspect of life. They will never develop the ability to trust anyone or anything completely or adequately enough to make a decision.

You also said this: "It's true, I don't know if there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be taken literally. I'm not a huge biblical scholar. The thing you have to realize is, if the Bible were so easily refuted (and it would be if taken literally -- two different, contradictory creation stories in the first book!)"

I don't know where the different stories of creation are so please share that with me if you would, but the key is context.

The Bible should be taken in the context and sense in which it was intended, many times it's literal and the path is clear when it is. Proper study using accepted methods of reason and sound principles dispells any ambiguity.

The ultra critic, such as these on this sight, do not understand that each part moves to create the whole and any apparent contridiction in parts are just that, apparent. In fact the Bible is the worst thing to use to disprove it. I haven't seen an argument yet that hasn't been turned down including this Adam and Eve one. In fact all that Lee is saying in the end is that he doesn't believe it...That's OK, but even that in and of itself is not a reason to disbelieve God and the Bible.

Anyway, hope I didn't offend, you at least seem reasonable. I don't mind challenging some of these extremeists. Thanks for the history on St. Augustine also.

Later!

Don said...

Chris said: "But here's the thing, if you're reading the translation, you're at the mercy of the translator. You don't know and will never know (unless you go ahead and learn the original language) if the translator made mistakes, or missed important nuances in a work."

Let's also not forget that Jesus and crew spoke Aramaic, which was translated into Greek for those original manuscripts. With few exceptions, nobody knows what Jesus really said.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus actually existed, it strikes me as extremely ironic that the best example of his actual words translate to "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?".

Rotten Arsenal said...

DS Harvey B:

I don't know where the different stories of creation are so please share that with me if you would, but the key is context.

I actually included that information in an earlier post to this thread, at
9:13 PM, April 17, 2008.

At any rate, Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:3 gives one account where God (with an apparent unnamed group as 1:26 has God saying "Let us make humankind...") creates in this order:
-heavens and earth
-wind and waters
-light
-day and night
-a dome in the middle of the waters to separate the waters that were under the dome and the waters that were above the dome, the dome was called "sky" (does this mean that space is actually water?)
-all the water was gathered together and then then dry land showed up and were named "Earth" and "Seas" (I guess God couldn't tell the difference between bodies of water surrounded by land and bodies of water that surrounded land)
-seed and fruit yielding vegetation (I guess carbon dioxide is in there somewhere)
-then, he creates more lights (this time in the "dome") to separate the day and night and help differentiate seasons, days and years. One of these lights is the "great light" that lights the day, presumably the sun, and then a "lesser light" to rule the night... which I guess is the moon... except that the moon isn't a light source. It just reflects light.
-aquatic animals and birds
-cattle, creeping things, and wild animals,
-man and woman (no mention of separate creation

Then, in Genesis 2:4, there is this slightly less detailed creation where God creates Adam, but creates him alone and apparently before plants and animals. God creates Adam to tend the plants that he creates next and then creates animals so that Adam won't be alone. Then God creates Eve from one of Adam's ribs and they go from there.

The way it's presented, it COULD be interpreted as one long single account of creation with the second part just more focused on the creation of humans and the Garden of Eden. But they were pretty clearly written down by two different people (known as authors "P" and "J") because of style differences which means it's more likely that the accounts come about separately and represent different stories and were combined later into one disjointed semi-narrative.

Shygetz said...

I can stand on the shoulders of otherwise reputable scholarship until I come into a more full and comple knowledge and understand through growth, maturity and research.

Uh, I hate to tell you this, but everyone who looked into it pretty much agreed with how Multiport Sequential FI works. Few if any reputable scholars agree with what truth lies in the Bible (if any). Assuming you have insufficient expertise yourself to form an independent opinion (and if you had such expertise, you would not be forced to rely upon other experts), you are forced to choose among the experts based on something other than the quality of the scholarship (which, as a non-expert, you are not qualified to judge). So, you choose your interpretation based on whatever you like for whatever personal reasons. I hate to tell you this, but the "higher criticism" that has been used to cast doubt on most of the traditional interpretations of the Bible was simply an application of the same principles that had been applied to non-Christian historical texts for decades--it wasn't something just thought up to discredit traditional Christianity. So, if I rely on the "otherwise reputable scholarship" that has the least apparent biased motivation, that would lead me to scepticism regarding the traditional interpretations of the Bible.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi harvey,
But, in order to understand this I need not necessarily know the complete language to have fruitful understanding.

This principle should extend to evolution and the fossil record. But you won't will you?

You won't because you'll lose Adam and Eve and then Romans 5:1-5:21 will become irrelevant.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Rotten ~ Thanks for the info. I wasn't understanding it in those terms. I've studied the similarities between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 but not as 2 different creation accounts. Anyway look at this please:

1- Genesis 2 is not an account of creation, it’s a "family history" of the first men in creation. Anyone who reads Genesis 2 as a rehash of the creation accounted in Genesis 1 has missed the point of Genesis 2.

2- It is quite unlikely, there is what is called a parallel toledot structure, that the author of Genesis is repeating himself. Evidence lends itself to the idea that Genesis 2 is of an entirely different genre and approach than Genesis 1, and that any supposed contradiction between them needs to be understood in that light.

3- Since Genesis 2 is not a "creation account" to begin with; and this leads to the next question, of whether a single author is responsible for both. As you suggested someone else other than Moses may have written Gen. 2.

4- In that regard, the evidence indicates a very close unity between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 in purpose. With that in mind it indicates either a single author. Both are chapters are linked by a detectable and obvious pattern as follows:

1:1-2 Introduction
2:4-6 Introduction
1:3-5 Light/Darkness
2:7 Man/Dust
1:6-8 Firmament in Heaven
2:8 Garden on Earth
1:9-13 water and land, plants
2:9-15 plants, water and land
1:14-19 luminaries separated
2:16-17 two trees separated
1:20-3 first creation of animal life
2:18 first concern for man's companionship
1:24-31 creation continues
2:19-22 concern continues
2:1-3, 2:23-4 internal patterns

end of process

divine involvement

separation of Sabbath/separation of couples from parents

blessing of Sabbath/unity of couple

[Compliments of J.P. Holding]

Given these internal clues, it would be more plausible to conclude that if any contradiction is found between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, it is intentional...and serves a rhetorical or polemical purpose.

Because of this there is no contradiction that exists between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Therefore I would reject a 2 creation account of Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 based on a more plausible system and basis of understanding.

Shygetz~ I understand what you're saying. The Form criticism is a product of the 1700's but there are 2 things to say regarding that:

1- Higher form criticism is not the problem, in my mind that's what Bible study has been about for centuries. It's the Ultra or radical or extreme form criticism that deliberately excludes facts while claiming the the bible is wrong, that's the problem.

If The Bible is wrong one does not have to withhold truths that conflict with the presupposition. I find over and over a deliberate withholding of truth in modern form criticism. Too many "supposed" form critics are given to patently false assumptions, deceit and unfair dealing with the texts.

Once such example is John Loftus' hero Bart D. Ehrman. Ehrman deals with Mt. 24:36 in 'Misquoting Jesus' saying the "nor the son" phrase in that verse is disputed and we can't know what Jesus really said. He goes to great lengths to say "look, these words can't be known...we don't know what Jesus said."

But the 6 times he deals with the subject he NEVER mentions that Mk. 13:32 (the parrallel account) is UNDISPUTED, has the exact same phrase "nor the son" and clarifies with CERTAINTY what was originally said. Yet he never mentions this little material fact that TRUE scholars would not exclude.

That's what I call an extreme, radical form critic. Not only will they examine and scripture, they hide evidences that go against what they want to prove. That's incredulous.

2- Accuracy takes ALL facts into account not simply parrallels or isolated events.

To me, that's what differentiates scholars. Some are given to more thorough and complete analysis some are given to more flash and sensationalism because they know "sex sells".

Personally, I have no fear of finding what does not seem to fit in my world view. My trust or faith is on a solid foundation and when ALL facts are included I'm miles ahead of the fray.

Thanks.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Lee~ "This principle should extend to evolution and the fossil record. But you won't will you?"

Forget that, there are all kinds of problems with the fossil record. Not a good place to start, but that doesn't scare me at all, neither does the scientific age of the earth because to me Science IS NOT my God as it is to you.

My God is greater than science, he created it and all the things that you will NEVER know about science. Scientists CANNOT disprove God in any manner for they are in a constant process of self discovery.

So back to your original point, it's easy for me to believe that God Created Adam and Eve who were not beings produced by some primordial slime that experienced an abiogenesis which science says can't happen to begin with...

I'll be looking for your next try.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Harvey,
I see you keep clinging to this mantra
So back to your original point, it's easy for me to believe that God Created Adam and Eve who were not beings produced by some primordial slime that experienced an abiogenesis which science says can't happen to begin with...

like its a life preserver, but even granting special creation just like the bible says, where would you predict we would find adam and eves fossils among the fossil record?

Harry McCall said...

SHB: “Jesus has an insurmountable amount of proof for his existance, both early, late and independent of him or his followers”

Jesus is a common name in Greek from Joshua and would be as common in the Hellenistic Diaspora of the Jews as the Greek name of James, Peter, John, Andrew and Thomas are today. However, one thing is for sure, this Jesus had not yet evolved into the Christ of the Creeds. So, was there a historical Jesus? There were thousands! Two are even recorded in the New Testament: Matthew 27: 17 “Jesus Barabbas” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament”, 2 ed., by Bruce Metzger, p. 56) and again in Acts 13:6 where on Paphos the Jewish magician is called the “son of Jesus”. Paul calls the “son of Jesus” “a son of the devil”. So, at least one of Jesus’ son was demon possessed! Did Jesus exist? Yes, about several thousand existed…so what! Will the real Jesus please stand up!

SHB: “An ILLITERATE Jesus TEACHES...WOW! Opens a CLOSED book....oOH NO! He even finds a scripture...GASP! Then HE READS! What is the illiterate world coming to????”

And then you go on to state: “Final point here, most critics do as you've done, you remove their (The Biblical character's) Semitic standard from them in order to try to prove fallacious arguments. Accurate criticism DOES NOT involve deculturalization of the characters. The Greco-Roman oral tradition was VASTLY different than the Jewish tradition. to the Jew the tradition was their lifeline, therefore it was safeguarded more carefully than the critic will admit.

So we see you juxtaposed the “Semitic standard” was to use the “sepher” or scroll into a “book” in Luke 4. Book (biblios is used in the accusative from “biblion”) is used 4 times in Luke 4: 17 - 20. So just why were the Jews in a synagogue in ancient Palestine using a codex or “Book” in their services? Why, SHB, did Jews, who spoke Aramaic along with Jesus, read from the Greek LXX of Isaiah here? And just why are most all quotations of the Hebrew Bible citied directly form the LXX by all the Aramaic Semitic followers of Jesus in the Gospels? Talk about “deculturalization of the characters”, Jesus and the Jews of the Palestinian are now Hellenistic Jews straight from Alexandria, Egypt or Asia Minor!

Other than the Greek word “grapha / writing (from the verb to write)” denoting scripture, the Greek word “biblios” is now used to refer to Semitic Jewish books. And in this context of the Greek New Testament you state: “Accurate criticism DOES NOT involve deculturalization of the characters. The Greco-Roman oral tradition was VASTLY different than the Jewish tradition. to the Jew the tradition was their lifeline, therefore it was safeguarded more carefully than the critic will admit.”

Hell SHB, you’ve got an Aramaic Jesus speaking and reading Greek (Hellenistic Greek as spoken in Asia Minor and Egypt). Plus using the LXX and not the Hebrew or Targums! Then you want to claim these GREEK Gospel texts are not the creation of the western expansion of Christianity! Get real here.

After the aftermath of the Maccabean revolt where the Greek pagan Antiochus IV has Jewish sacrifice was forbidden, sabbaths and feasts were banned and circumcision was outlawed. Altars to Greek gods were set up and animals prohibited to Jews were sacrificed on them. The Olympian Zeus was placed on the altar of the Temple. Possession of Jewish scriptures was made a capital offence. Antiochus defiles the Temple with pig blood and has Jews killed who circumcise their sons and forces Greek culture (unclean foods) and Greek polytheistic gods on the Jews and forces the Jews into a war in which hundreds died fighting in the Maccabean revolt. And your view is that the Jews of ancient Palestine (along with Jesus) now loved the Greek culture and language sooo much that all they wanted to do is read from the Greek codex / book and speak the Greek language, plus ONLY read the Old Testament in Greek / LXX? Fact is the Gospels are NOT history, they are Western ecclesiastical creedal statements in Greek. To get Jesus and the apostles literate, you got to have them using Greek codex books, reading Greek as if it’s their native tongue and Jesus reading Luke 4: 17 - 20 straight form the LXX and the Jewish listeners understanding his rapid Greek reading! I’ll tell you whose is literate; the creative minds of the Western churches of Asia Minor.

This latter redactions of the western Church has its “finger prints all over” the Greek Gospel texts. And even if, as you claim, the disciples followed Jesus around and wrote down what we have recorded in the New Testament, these illiterate apostles would hardly be able to write Aramaic must less the Greek language with its new alphabet along with its hard and strange verbal forms which are totally different form Semitic verbal forms!

SHB, get a copy of Metzger’s “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament” and run some references to the New Testament you find the “finger prints” of creative men all over it.

Harry McCall said...

Major problem here SHB. You claim: "1- Higher form criticism is not the problem, in my mind that's what Bible study has been about for centuries. It's the Ultra or radical or extreme form criticism that deliberately excludes facts while claiming the bible is wrong, that's the problem."

Do you know what you are even talking about? Higher form criticism was used by Rudolf Bultmann to demythologize the Gospels. Check out his “Jesus Christ and Mythology”.

If you want textual criticism (what does the Ur Greek say), you want Lower Criticism and not Higher Criticism!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry~ "Do you know what you are even talking about? Higher form criticism was used by Rudolf Bultmann to demythologize the Gospels. Check out his “Jesus Christ and Mythology”."

Harry DO YOU EVEN know what you're talking about? That's the question. Bultmann's theories are OLD HAT and have been put down quite superlatively by better and more reputable information...so GET YOUR FACTS STRATIGHT...Old presuppositions DO NOT make good form criticism.

TO EDUCATE YOU...J.G. EICHHORN in the 1787 AS I SAID was the FIRST to apply the SCIENCE of higher form criticism to the Bible in his 'Old Testament Introduction'.

NOW, WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT??? OBVIOUSLY not YOU!

As for the rest of your poor, pitley, borrowed, and WEAK dissertation...The Jews spoke both Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. There's not a conflict with recording any event in either language of the day because each book was written for specific purposes and particular audiences.

If you want a Hispanic to read and understand something, what language do you write it in? The Gov.'t has that much sense by creating and sending out a high amount of literature in Spanish...Like I said your criticisms are RIDICULOUS and standards are IRRATIONAL because you're and EXTREMEIST like the rest.

You go through a rant and tyrade regarding the historical Jesus and believe you make some sort of poit with flash point criticisms like this,

"So, was there a historical Jesus? There were thousands! Two are even recorded in the New Testament:"

SO WHAT? NONE of those other Jesus's were the focus of NT Christology and NONE were the focus of extrabiblical historicity of Josephus who by the way DESCRIBES IN GREAT DETAIL EXACTLY WHO HE WAS TALKING ABOUT or even other historicans of the day.

In fact IF YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT...you'd also find that to place Jesus in ANY OTHER time frame is the WORST move any critic can make...the evidence is EARLY AND OVERWHELMING for physical, life death and resurrection in the time frame and region contended, this is further confirmed and verified by extrabiblical, historical accounts, the biblical historical accounts which are without impunity, and the archaeological records which have confirmed MUCH of what the HISTORICAL record of the Bible declares RIGHT DOWN to the existence of CITIES, that DID NOT EXIST in ANY OTHER HISTORICAL TIME FRAME.

Now Who knows what they are talking about HARRY? NOT YOU!

So far as your redaction garbage, any redaction is rooted out by the overwhelming abundance of texts and codexes found in different groups and families some dated as early as First century AD. There is a method to rooting out redactions and THE FEW that we know does not take away and doctrine or effect any fundamental belief and DO NOT IN ANY WAY effect what the scriptures teach about the DIETY of or historicity of Jesus!

Now, temper your comments because you have and obvious inability to interpret commentaries.

Please read my previous post on CURRENT STUDIES on Biblical literacy and oral historicity...

To place a finer point on it, A TAX COLLECTOR (MATTHEW) was in no way ILLITERATE. In fact Mt. was one of the MOST maticulous writers and Luke courtesy of Peter was THE MOST EXACT which includes distances, locations and places that existed during the time frame. Further even Judas could count and tell the different values of money because he held the bag, along with the obvious fact that Jesus disputed and regularly engaged with the religious authorities of his day...they would not engage ANYONE (such as yourself) who didn't have a rudimentary understanding of what they read. The scripture records that they were AMAZED at his understanding and often asked him questions about the scriptures which he interpreted for them to their dismay. To say they were Iilliterate goes against ALL EVIDENCE to the contrary. So PROVE otherwise based on historical facts (Any facts other than because you said it, or read some FOOL who says the same thing WITHOUT support...You GOD wanna be!)

So get a CLUE before you ask me do I know what I'm saying...I most certainly do. I could name a whole BUNCH of CURRENT and Scholarly sources for you but obviously it's a waste of time.

Thank you, you radical extreme anti-Christ advocate!

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"1- Genesis 2 is not an account of creation, it’s a "family history" of the first men in creation. Anyone who reads Genesis 2 as a rehash of the creation accounted in Genesis 1 has missed the point of Genesis 2."

Holy Scripture would say otherwise:

Genesis 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

I see someone being radical and extreme, and really liking the capital letters.

"So get a CLUE before you ask me do I know what I'm saying...I most certainly do. I could name a whole BUNCH of CURRENT and Scholarly sources for you but obviously it's a waste of time.

Thank you, you radical extreme anti-Christ advocate!"


Is this the brood of vipers technique? If name calling was good enough for Jesus...

Aside from the NT and the obviously falsified references by Josephus, there is little to no evidence for Jesus Christ as he is accepted by orthodox Christianity.

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

Harry McCall said...

SHB stated: “TO EDUCATE YOU...J.G. EICHHORN in the 1787 AS I SAID was the FIRST to apply the SCIENCE of higher form criticism to the Bible in his 'Old Testament Introduction'.

NOW, WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT??? OBVIOUSLY not YOU!”

One question: Where the hell are you getting you misinformation from?!

Lets quote some references: The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, “Literary Criticism” page 547 and I quote: “In biblical scholarship, literary criticism became intertwined with historical or Higher Criticism, since the prevailing desire was to write the biblical history the way it “really happened.”

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p 648 “The critical study of the literary methods and sources used by the authors the Books of the OT and NT, in distinction from Textual (Lower) Criticism, which is concerned solely with the recovery from extant MSS. and other evidence of the text of the Books as it left their authors’ hands.

As for your total misinformation about Johann G. Eichhorn, he was one of frist to reject the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and “He was also among the earliest critics to divide Genesis between the ‘Jehovist’ and ‘Elohist’ sources, and to distinguish the priestly law in Exodus - Leviticus-Numbers from the popular code in Deuteronomy.”
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p.449.

Check out your statements with some facts will you?! Harvey, not everyone, unlike you, believes the Bible is divine.


SHB also stated: “As for the rest of your poor, pitley, borrowed, and WEAK dissertation...The Jews spoke both Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. There's not a conflict with recording any event in either language of the day because each book was written for specific purposes and particular audiences.”

You know Harvey, I’m sure the Jew picked up Latin as fast as the picked up Greek as soon as the Romans took over Palestine! So we now have Jesus whom the Jews describe with a Biblical statement that Jesus was uneducated (“The Jews therefore were marveling, saying; ’How has this man become learned, having NEVER been educated?’” John 7: 15) and his disciples in Acts 4:13 “Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.” We now have the uneducated Jesus and his disciples fluent in four languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek (and if we continue with your apologetic reasoning) Latin!

Harvey, I would suggest you spend less time in useless prayer and more time in something REAL: Scholarly objective Books!

My next post will be dedicated to you. I’m writing it now about lies in the Bible. If you hate what I’ve written thus far, you are really going to ‘blow a gasket” on this next post!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry~ "My next post will be dedicated to you. I’m writing it now about lies in the Bible. If you hate what I’ve written thus far, you are really going to ‘blow a gasket” on this next post!"

Write what you will you INTERNET misinformed anti-christ advocate! Love to see it and love EVEN more to put the garbage where it belongs...BACK IN HELL!

This further shows how completely OFF YOUR ROCKER YOU ARE:
"As for your total misinformation about Johann G. Eichhorn, he was one of frist to reject the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and “He was also among the earliest critics to divide Genesis between the ‘Jehovist’ and ‘Elohist’ sources, and to distinguish the priestly law in Exodus - Leviticus-Numbers from the popular code in Deuteronomy.”
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p.449.

Check out your statements with some facts will you?!"

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID... Didn't I say this, "TO EDUCATE YOU...J.G. EICHHORN in the 1787 AS I SAID was the FIRST to apply the SCIENCE of higher form criticism to the Bible in his 'Old Testament Introduction'."

It just makes it MORE believeable to you when someone else says it huh?

What a WASTE!

By the way I'm glad I'm making friends like this, lets me know I'm on the right path! Yessss!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Monolithtma ~ As for your refrence, NOT Quite. KING J is a little better in this respect:

Gen 2:4- "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

GENERATIONS baby. Towledah- escendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies
1a)account of men and their descendants 1a1)genealogical list of one’s descendants.

As I SAID...The point of Gen. 2 should be VERY clear.

Thanks.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry ~ By the way you also show your MASS uneducation in the very core of Jewish life pre AD 100 by continuing to assert that the scriptures you MISINTERPRET means that Jesus was illiterate...Each scripture you assert taken IN CONTEXT point to the fact that JESUS did not Matriculate through the Normal channels of religious AFFIRMATION...The same equivalent of someone not going to SEMINARY today. That's the ONLY thing that point to.

His childhood required that he learn the Torah and complete Old Testament just like ALL OTHER Jewish childern growing up...Only Professional zealots, and extreme anti-Christ dogmatics (such as yourself) believe otherwise.

C U soon Harry!

Harry McCall said...

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID... Didn't I say this, "TO EDUCATE YOU...J.G. EICHHORN in the 1787 AS I SAID was the FIRST to apply the SCIENCE of higher form criticism to the Bible in his 'Old Testament Introduction'."

Since he (Eichhorn) denied the Mosaic authorship of the Torah, then Jesus and the Jews were totally WRONG to think Moses wrote the Law (Matt. 8: 4, 19: 7 & 8, Mark 7; 10, 10:3 & 4, 12: 19 & 20, and many more references in Luke and John.

So, Harvey, then you agree with Eichhorn that Jesus did not know what he was talking about in ascribing the Torah to Moses!

PS: Where the Jews also "Anti-Christ"?

richdurrant said...

Hi Harry,

Jesus did not know what he was talking about in ascribing the Torah to Moses!

Even though the actual Torah wasn't penned by Moses, does that really discount him as the source of the laws within the Torah? Moses was the Prophet of his time. Those commandments came from God through Moses to Israel. So for Jesus to say the Moses commanded this or that, like many of those scripture references that you provided, is not Jesus not knowing what he was talking about. And Moses may have written down the commandments he was given but never had the assembled into the Torah.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

NASB

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

New King James Version

4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Pick a version, some say history, some say account, some say generations, but all say of the heavens and the earth and then proceed to give an account focusing on humans, which is done in a different order than the account just one chapter before. Whether the point of Genesis 2 is clear or not, it still botches details from a few pages before.

Did you really just say the KJV was a little better? Certainly an argument could be made that in many places the KJV is more beautiful, but as a translation it is definitely the worst of the lot.

It's funny, one of the bibles I pulled out to investigate this verse was my main study bible with notes dating back 20 years. I was making some of the same arguments you are. It's quite refreshing to not feel the need to make the bible fit orthodoxy.

Harry McCall said...

Thanks for your comment richdurrant.

Judaism has always held that Moses received from God , that is wrote down The Law (The books of the Bible we call the Torah) and received the Oral Law (Mishnah) on Mt. Sinai. For it to have come any other way would prove an invention of man and, thus corruption.

I will post my next topic here at DC tonight which may interest you tentatively entitled: Lying, Salvation and the Word of God: Proselytizing with False Scriptures in Judaism and Christianity

richdurrant said...

It does sound interesting Harry and I'll have a look when you post it.

Judaism has always held that Moses received from God , that is wrote down The Law (The books of the Bible we call the Torah) and received the Oral Law (Mishnah) on Mt. Sinai. For it to have come any other way would prove an invention of man and, thus corruption.

I see your point. However, even if we show that someone else did the actual writing that also could just show that their long held belief was inaccurate only in the sense that someone other than Moses did the writing but that doesn't really rule out the possibility that it came from God through Moses and written down by some other person. Or even written down by Moses but we have a copy that someone else wrote. There are a few possibilities.

Shygetz said...

TO EDUCATE YOU...J.G. EICHHORN in the 1787 AS I SAID was the FIRST to apply the SCIENCE of higher form criticism to the Bible in his 'Old Testament Introduction'.

Actually, Erasmus is usually the one credited as the first to apply higher criticism to the Bible (early 16th century). I will let you return to your incoherent ranting.