Clergy Project Nearing Goal of 10,000 Signatures

Just sent this link to my sister--an ordained Methodist minister who ADORED (along with her clergy friends in the Twin Cities) the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I have had several members of the 'pro-evolution' clergy, who have signed the project, ask if we could get a list of those who have signed from each state or if a search function could be added for that purpose. I have e-mailed the originator of this valuable effort and made this suggestion, but have hadm no response. I hope others will make the same suggestion.

The clergy members who have asked for such a list wish to enlist members into the anti-ID efforts.

Searching through 10,000 names is a major task.

One, to not read the bible literally is to not take it seriously. For if words do not mean what they say, anyone can read anything into it. You cannot have it both ways.

Two, this sounds like the apologetics of folks who fear contradiction by science and have invented the great excuse for all such possible contradictions in the future. The Bible meant something else! These clerics truly lack faith. Let them just give it up and be done with it!

Three, with a little knowledge and discernment these faithless clerics would come to appreciate that the Bible CAN BE READ LITERALLY and still NOT CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE. As Judah Landa amply demonstrates in his IN THE BEGINNING OF, the original Hebrew Bible, when correctly and accurately translated, simply does not lead to any conflict with science. No word games, no twisted meanings, just correct translation. That's all it takes.

As Judah Landa amply demonstrates in his IN THE BEGINNING OF

And where is Carol's evidence that any of the clerics associated with the Clergy Project is "faithless"? I have no problem taking Matthew 7:1 literally. Most of the antievolution flamers act like it isn't even there.

Has the DI enlisted any more "scientists" to sign their "evolution skeptics" propaganda document?

I poked around on their website, but the only reference to the so-called "growing number of scientists" I could find was in their FAQ. They don't link to the document, but state a number around 300. Which is actually about 100 less than I remember reported earlier this year, so perhaps they are also attempting to redefine "growing".

Hey Wesley, do you believe in God? I'm a theistic evolutionist. Where's the thread by Henry?

Since Henry's comment and the reply did not follow the topic here, I moved them over to the After the Bar Closes thread for this post.

I express my ideas of classifying stances, and my position, in this essay, which has been up for about a decade, IIRC.

Bobby define God

Carol,

9919 religious leaders and scholars representing every *mainstream* religion in the United States either support the teaching of Evolution or do not find any conflict between teaching Science / Evolution and their religion.

Since you feel differently it could be because of one of these three reasons:
1) You don't belong to a mainstream religion. For more information read:
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
2) You misunderstand your religion's position regarding Science. For more information read:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp
3) You misunderstand Science's position regarding religion / a creator. For more information read:
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html

This boils down to either you belong to a fringe believe OR you're ignorant. In either case, this hardly supports the proposition that your ideas should be taught in school.

FYI, there are TWO creation stories in Genesis. If we are to read the Bible literally, then one of these must be wrong. Care to tell me which part of the Bible is wrong?

Carol
Science can't define faith.
Your faith is different to my faith and yours and my faith's are probably different to everyone else around here.
Faith is a totally personal experience it is your relationship with God and that is the point of the Open letter.
If you read the letter literally it is as plain as day they are not denying the existence of God. By literally I mean in a technical manner, it is an instruction on how to do something.

The Bible is a timeless and repeating tale that each generation can find meaning in, from ancient to modern. How timeless is that?
A story that will never wear out even if scientists are able to find a gene for God or a group of neurons for God
because it is the way we are. The story keeps repeating with each generation.

Do you read poetry ?
You should, because the bible is poetry of the highest order, it includes imagery ,allusion, metaphor and the meaning is not always obvious but once you get it it makes the heart sing.

Think of it this way suppose you took a technical book on how to build a 747 airplane; a book that must be read literally no allusion no allegory no metaphor back to the ancient biblical scribes and gave it to them and said this is how our modern world works, this is what we do. They would be fascinated I'm sure but it would not say one word to them about how we treat each other, what the love of life is, how to manage fear and doubt. But if you took back a story about you or a movie that that you think helped you or poetry that really sings to you or a modern Hymn.
Do you think they would understand that?

Why?

Remember timeless truths Carol, not nuts and bolts.

You sound like the Med. student who came home to her boyfriend and said "I found out today love is just a bunch of neurons firing in my head" and he said "See! I told it was real"

One, to not read the bible literally is to not take it seriously. For if words do not mean what they say, anyone can read anything into it. You cannot have it both ways.

Wow...the tortured faces of two thousand years of authors just flashed before my eyes.

People like you should not be allowed near TS Eliot or Kafka. I am filled with horror at the thought of 'literalists' trying to be get anything out of either.

-The Rev. Schmitt.

Good point The Rev. Schmitt
I'd personally like to thank the DI for renewing MY culture William Blake suddenly Makes sense.

[T]o not read the bible literally is to not take it seriously. For if words do not mean what they say, anyone can read anything into it. You cannot have it both ways. --Carol Clouser

Carol got her three swings but they didn't come anywhere near the ball. She's out.

She might try to open her eyes during here next at bat, but she sure comes across like a bench-polisher with maximum experience in the lumber business.

Brian
You have pointed out something I have long thought about the fundamentalism. Their purely mechanical and materialistic view of the world with no gaps at all for imagination.

It would seem their own inadequacy of understanding that there is more to life than material things and no value in art or creativity of the mind is projected onto scientists who they actually see as some sort of priestly caste in society. Thinking science is doing gods work with the simple task of finding a material god.

There seems to them a purity in seeking truth that is not available to them but is clearly available to science.

This seems like arrested development and they have postponed seeking truth. It is almost as though they are locked into a chasm between adolescence and adulthood. Controlled puerile and guilt ridden sexuality, no freedom of thought and most of all they won't forgive Jesus for dying.

One noticeable feature is the complete dichotomy of truth and Truth and word and Word- That is nothing more than schizophrenia.

"To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

Steve:-Just a minor nit-pick
Scaring fish is not an option for them.

It seems quite clear to me that the by declaring anything in the Bible to be amenable to the suggestion that it is not to be taken literally, these clerics have eviscerated the Bible of any value as a guide to proper and ethical living. After all, if Genesis does not mean what it says, perhaps the ban on homosexuality or the ten commandments or anything else also does not mean what it says? Where does it end?

Is it not clear that these clerics are acting out of fear that the Bible has been, and may repeatedly again be in the future, disproven by science or other forms of persuasive evidence, thereby cutting out the legs from under the foundation of various religions?

This is why the fundamentalists are fundamentalists. And I cannot blame them. Give them credit for honesty and real faith. The error they make is in not adequately questioning and probing into just what the original Bible really says, based on an honest application of the rules of literal translation of ancient Hebrew. The book I recommend (that is "recommend", Lenny, not "shill") is one of a few that could be of great assistance in this endeavor.

And Jim, there is only one creation story in Genesis. Read IN THE BEGINNING OF, among others and get an education.

Carol said It seems quite clear to me that the by declaring anything in the Bible to be amenable to the suggestion that it is not to be taken literally, these clerics have eviscerated the Bible of any value as a guide to proper and ethical living. After all, if Genesis does not mean what it says, perhaps the ban on homosexuality or the ten commandments or anything else also does not mean what it says? Where does it end?

Looks like Carol cant stop shilling even when its pointed out to everyone. The shamelessness of these fundies never ceases to amaze me.

Carol said,

"Is it not clear that these clerics are acting out of fear that the Bible has been, and may repeatedly again be in the future, disproven by science or other forms of persuasive evidence, thereby cutting out the legs from under the foundation of various religions?"

It seems quite clear to me that the by declaring anything in the Bible to be amenable to the suggestion that it is not to be taken literally, these clerics have eviscerated the Bible of any value as a guide to proper and ethical living.

— carol

::sigh:: I love the ignorance...

Carol:
...the original Hebrew Bible, when correctly and accurately translated, simply does not lead to any conflict with science. No word games, no twisted meanings, just correct translation. That's all it takes.

No. Now, see - I speak Hebrew. It's my mother tongue. I've been speaking it since I was 10 months old. And I am very sorry to tell you that even in the Holy Tongue there still are contradictions in the bible. The whole "double creation story" still holds in Hebrew, as well as Jehova's ridiculous zoological rant in Job.

Oh, speaking of "literal reading" - I take it you don't wear mixed wools and linens? 'cause that is literally forbidden in the Old Testament, and while many take Jesus' permission to eat non-kosher food to cover that as well...well, he doesn't literally say that shatnez is OK.

So?

Posted by jim on November 20, 2005 09:49 PM (e) (s) Carol, ... This boils down to either you belong to a fringe believe OR you're ignorant. In either case, this hardly supports the proposition that your ideas should be taught in school.

You had better make up your minds at T/O. One, someone obviously wishes all churches and all humanity to abandon Intelligent Design. That would make the Clergy all become atheists. Two, someone else wishes to enlist the Clergy's support for teaching Evolution - exactly which of the many ideas about evolution is not stipulated - thus drumming up moral support. Moral support for..... exactly what? Either there is a designer, and clergy can therefore offer legitimate support, or the clergy have all got there heads in pickle jars, and there is only a negative result in enlisting their support. (Reading history, enlisting the support of clergy in general regarding technical matters can be a real can of worms.) So, T/O has suddenly become pro- Design, because it places some credence in the Clergy. Or is this page yet another error?

Two technical questions: 1) Did the "Rev. Doctor" remember to sign; 2) Would an Alka-Setza assist anyone?

The good clergy will recognize the quote, "Many bore false witness against him; but their witness agreed not together". Chances are, your correspondent might well have been one of those bearing false witness. If he wasn't, it would only be by the grace of God.

OT/

Why would someone put a link to non existant web page on a Ukraine Telecom website ??
_christmas.seavenue.net_

82.207.80.94 RTT: 515ms TTL: 32 (evp.sf.ukrtel.net fraudulent rDNS)
82.207.80.2 RTT: 509ms TTL: 36 (www.seavenue.net ok)
OT/

Someone should find the mealy mouthed propaganda piece that the Discovery Institute got their 400 "scientists" to sign and compare it to the straight forward presentation of what the 9000 clergy have signed. It will be very apparent that the Discovery Institute is dishonest about what they are pushing.

The book I recommend (that is "recommend", Lenny, not "shill") is one of a few that could be of great assistance in this endeavor.

You had better make up your minds at T/O. One, someone obviously wishes all churches and all humanity to abandon Intelligent Design. That would make the Clergy all become atheists.

someone obviously wishes all churches and all humanity to abandon Intelligent Design

Heddle must contend with being mysteriously selected to compete in the prestigious Triwizard Tournament, a thrilling competition that pits him against older and more experienced students from Hogwarts and two rival wizarding schools. Meanwhile, supporters of Heddle's nemesis, the evil Lord Voldemort, send a shockwave of fear throughout the wizard community when their Dark Mark scorches the sky at the Quidditch World Cup, signaling Voldemort's return to power. But for Heddle, this is not the only harrowing news causing him anxiety -- he still has yet to find a date for Hogwarts' Yule Ball dance.

Where's Penn Jillette when you need him?

I just wish that the 10,000 clergy that have signed this letter would be more vocal especially in evangelical circles. Maybe they could form some sort of an organisation and try to gain access to some of the christian broadcasting stations like TBN, or UCB in this country and promote their message to other Christians in the same way that the many YEC's have done. This I feel is the only way to get their message across to the wider church. I'm sure that most evangelicals will not even have heard of this letter although something is bound to turn up on the AIG website over the next few days, once they get to hear of it, with the opening Lines "Sadly many christian ministers".

All I seem to hear in the evangelical church and christian broadcasting stations these days is young earth creationism. I've yet to listen to an evangelical who is a theistic evolutionist for example, put across their point of view about origins.

Re Carol; There are many verses in the bible that if taken literally are clearly wrong. For instance in Leviticus it states "The bat is an unclean fowl" when of course we now know that it is a mammal. Another good one, which in my opinion contradicts, young earther's insistence on a global flood is the use of the phrase all of the Earth. e.g In Chronicles it states that "All the kings of the Earth sought the wisdom of Solomon" Just think about it Carol. Does this mean that several thousand years ago there were North American Indian chiefs or Australian Aborigines in Jerusalem !Surely not. The words "All the Earth" can therefore be interpreted to mean just the local region (i.e. the middle east which was the known world at the time). The bible is littered with examples like this but I just wish that more Christians would point this out. It's not a case of reading meanings into things but pure common sense. Science has moved on a lot from 3,000 years ago ! I think that YEC's are just as good at selectively taking things literally or figuratively as everyone else.

ooops
Mr Heddle I owe you an apology.(mmmmmph).
My Last comment was directed to Philip Bruce Heywood

PBH do you like Monty Python ?

"Many bore false witness against him; but their witness agreed not together".

Posted by steve s on November 21, 2005 07:09 AM (e) (s) Posted by jim on November 20, 2005 09:49 PM (e) (s) Carol, ... This boils down to either you belong to a fringe believe OR you're ignorant. In either case, this hardly supports the proposition that your ideas should be taught in school.

Just for the new folks who showed up only recently and who may not have seen Carol's posts before, she works for the publisher of Judah's book, and is just here shilling it.

thanks Steve ;-)

All I seem to hear in the evangelical church and christian broadcasting stations these days is young earth creationism. I've yet to listen to an evangelical who is a theistic evolutionist for example, put across their point of view about origins.

From the totals, it looks as though the clergy signatures project will get their 10,000th signature sometime today, November 21. If your pastor-rabbi-imam-sensei-clergy hasn't signed yet, send them a note now!

One, someone obviously wishes all churches and all humanity to abandon Intelligent Design.

That would make the Clergy all become atheists.

Two, someone else wishes to enlist the Clergy's support for teaching Evolution

- exactly which of the many ideas about evolution is not stipulated - thus drumming up moral support. Moral support for..... exactly what?

Either there is a designer, and clergy can therefore offer legitimate support, or the clergy have all got there heads in pickle jars, and there is only a negative result in enlisting their support.

Mr. Henderson, for all their blather about freedom of speech and censorship, the owners of the broadcast outlets who cater to nominally Christian interests do not allow access to the airwaves to evangelicals who understand evolution and do not reject it.

Anti-science stuff flourishes among the fundamentalists for the same reasons non-affiliated congregations do: Standards bother them. Having to do the hard academic work to fathom faith is something they prefer to avoid, particularly if they can make more money with a guy with a guitar asking everybody to raise their hands and sing.

I love singing, but I don't confuse the benefits of singing with what is necessary to understand physics, chemistry and biology, and I never confuse an hour with a guitar for the many hours of observation necessary to, say, understand how the ivy twines.*

* One of Darwin's more interesting monographs was on how vines actually climb. To figure it out, he grew vines in his lab, and spent hours literally watching them to see how the tendrils "figured out" how and where to attach themselves. It's a brilliant case of Darwin's having done the hard work to see how plants simulate design by application of simple algorithms. I have yet to meet a creationist who is familiar with the paper.

Carol said:

(quote)And Jim, there is only one creation story in Genesis. Read IN THE BEGINNING OF, among others and get an education.(/quote)

Carol,

There are TWO creation stories in Genesis. Trying reading the BIBLE and get an education.

Carol

Jim is right, there are two creation stories in Genesis. Proper educated theologians will also tell you that the creation stories came from the Babylonians, and that Moses never wrote Genesis.

Posted by steve s on November 21, 2005 07:09 AM (e) (s) Posted by jim on November 20, 2005 09:49 PM (e) (s) Carol, ... This boils down to either you belong to a fringe believe OR you're ignorant. In either case, this hardly supports the proposition that your ideas should be taught in school. Please to note: this is not an Exclusive OR.

look at it any way you want,no Adam and Eve, no original sin,no original sin,no need for Jesus

Jim and Renier,

Some scholars think they see two creation stories in Genesis based on stylistic and other spurious considerations. But these folks must assume that the Bible was composed by different people at different times and is therefore highly unlikely to be the word of God. A careful reading of the original Hebrew however reveals that it is just as sensible to see one creation story. Besides Judah Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF you may also wish to read Robert Alter's THE FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES, and others. Since the perceived conflict with science is only meaningful if the Bible is considered to be the word of God, it is with that in mind that my comments were motivated.

Peter Henderson,

The pertinent phrase in the Bible regarding the flood is (in Hebrew), "kol ha-aretz", which does not generally mean "all the earth" but "all the land". Which land? the one being discussed, in context. In the case of the flood it refers to where the previous stories in Genesis were located - generally assumed to be Mesapotamia or Sumeria. The Bible delineates where it is by four rivers, we just don't know where those are probably because the rivers have changed course over time or don't exist anymore. A similar phrase is used at the plague of darkness to strike Egypt - kol ha-aretz - all the land (of Egypt) became dark, not all the earth. All this is LITERAL and just another example of common sloppy translations of the Hebrew original.

As far as bats being fowl or mammal, surely you know the Bible does not need to follow scientific classifications but goes by human everyday observations. As the rule in the Talmud states - the Bible was written in the language of ordinary, everyday conversation.

Lenny,

To insinuate that I may somehow profit indirectly from my company's possible sales on this misreable blog is a sick joke.

Butterfingers,

You do realize that observant Jews today do observe "shatnez" regulations, that is, they do not mix wool and linen in their garments. What I personally do is not pertinent to this conversation. I would only caution you not to jump to conclusions about my religious beliefs, of which you know not a whit.

Heywood wrote : That would make the Clergy all become atheists.

I don't mind people claiming inerrancy for the Bible - after all, people can believe what they like. Likewise, if others want to claim inerrancy for the Quran they're at liberty so to do. Like people who dress up as Klingons to see Star Trek movies, such a public stance helps save time when I'm trying to decide how assiduously I wish to seek their acquaintance.

But before either try to convince me of their position, they ought to realise that no matter how flexible one's logic is there is no way that two mutually contradictory books can both be inerrant. (I'm talking about Bible vs Quran here, rather than TNG vs TOS, but there are parallels.)

It would be doing everyone a great service if the various inerrantists sorted out this major problem between themselves before they started to bother us with their childish claims. Out here in the real world, where inerrancy is as likely as a decent alcohol-free malt whisky, it just makes them look even sillier.

And as for the 'if you don't believe it absolutely, it's worthless' stance - honestly. Isn't that up to me? Are my critical faculties _so_ useless that I cannot make value judgements on each part of a book based on experience, logic and intelligence? Why did God/Allah/Roddenberry bother giving them to us, then?

So much ridiculousness, and for what - a frail shell of certainty that breaks up and flies away like dandelion seed at the first gentle zephyr of enquiry. No wonder fundies spend so much time trying to prevent criticism being heard rather than answering it.

R

Heywood wrote : That would make the Clergy all become atheists.

Is there any way to find out how many of the 10,000 clergy are named Steve?

You do realize that observant Jews today do observe "shatnez" regulations, that is, they do not mix wool and linen in their garments. What I personally do is not pertinent to this conversation.

— Carol

Lenny, To insinuate that I may somehow profit indirectly from my company's possible sales on this misreable blog is a sick joke.

— Carol

Carol:This is exactly why the bible, in my opinion, should not be viewed as a science book or even as the literal history of the world. Even as recently as 150 years ago, for example, most people probably saw naturally occurring events such as earthquakes etc. as "Acts of God". We now know of course that they (earthquakes) are caused by plate tectonics, something that was discovered only relatively recently in modern science.

Proper educated theologians will also tell you that the creation stories came from the Babylonians, and that Moses never wrote Genesis.

I have no problem taking Matthew 7:1 literally. Most of the antievolution flamers act like it isn't even there.

So, jonboy, other than sex, you think there's not enough sin in the world to merit salvation from Jesus?

I suppose that's another real difference between the students of evolution on one side and creationists on the other: We who study evolution get in the habit of seeing things as they are, and we see plenty of evil and sin that needs correction, quite apart from sex.

The notion that there is no sin without Adam is silly, bizarre, not Christian in theology, and unworthy of discussion.

The old canard that Genesis 1 and 2 are in conflict has been rigorously refuted for so long (as in millennia) that I am amazed that anyone still brings it up.

— Heddle

a select set of...theologians with whom I agree say that...

— Heddle

Wislu:

touché!

To Carol

Fine, I will play your little game. You want to take the Bible in the most literal way, have it your way.

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

So Carol, how many scientists have you killed lately, since it seems clear that you think scientists are all just dishonest liers, to turn people away from your God?

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" "Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13: 6-9)

Carol, I hope there are no Humanists, Evolutionary scientists, Atheists, pagans, Hindus, Buddhists in your family, because your Bible is clear on what to do, and the law is not going to like it.

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

I hope you don't mind killing children, ESPECIALLY children of scientists.

"The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance. He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked." (Psalms 58:10)

Sounds like you Carol?

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

Go and find a prostitute with a pastor for a father, and do your deed.

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

Find a slave... Oh wait, your country is against that. And you?

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

If you say that literal translations is not appropriate for some of these verses, or tell me that it is "out of context" then your whole argument on the literal reading has fallen.
This is literal.

"therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jerobo'am, and will cut off from Jerobo'am him that pisseth against the wall..." (I Kings 14:10)

Thank your lucky stars you are a woman!!! I am in real trouble here...

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

Are you taking this as literal Carol? Is it mistranslated, out of context, not understood in the way that YOU would like it understood? Sure...of course it is dear... When it suits YOU.

Having said all that, I would respectfully suggest that your statement "to not read the bible literally is to not take it seriously" would be better expressed as "to not read the bible as inerrant is to not take it seriously." Inerrancy and literality are two different things. An obvious example is that we don't take it literally when Christ says "I am the vine."

It seems quite clear to me that the by declaring anything in the Bible to be amenable to the suggestion that it is not to be taken literally, these clerics have eviscerated the Bible of any value as a guide to proper and ethical living.

How many times needs Carol be told that her ceaseless shilling for Landa's absurd book is annoying? Likewise, Heddle's endless posts wherein he stubbornly tries to impose his beliefs on PT visitors are boring and annoying. Can't you take your screeds to some other site where they will be welcome?

All the same, David, I prefer the traditional Christian interpretations of "inerrancy" --- and the traditional Christian interpretations of the various different creation stories of the Bible --- to the sub-modern/postmodern claim that the Bible is absolutely correct and opposes science.

Most of us Christians understand that the message of the creation stories of the Bible has nothign at all to do with denying evolution, and not much to do with the origins of sin.

'm glad you take it literally but I wonder if you take it in context? For it does not mean: never ever make any sort judgment about other people. It is about forgiveness. A few verses later, Jesus tells us not to give what is holy to dogs and not to cast pearls before swine. That is hard advice to follow if there is a universal prohibition against judging---for how then can we decide who are dogs and who are swine? (In Matt. 7:16 Jesus gives the basis for the discernment.)

— David Heddle

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

The point I was tying to make is not my own,this is the argument I receive from Fundies when talking about why they have a hard time accepting evolution,it seem to refute their basic doctrines
Who said sex is a sin?

Heddle said My position is: the Bible is absolutely correct and supports science

Good God, fundies are a hoot! You all probably still think Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch. REAL biblical scholars, ones who study, meet and discuss this stuff with other scholars, like Richard Friedman, know that there ARE two of MANY of the stories in Genesis. And they also know that their were probably separate texts, one from the Kingdom of Judah and one from Israel that were threaded back together into ONE text at some point after the fall of the northern kingdom.

Keep drinkin' the kool-aid, fundies!

Jonboy said The point I was tying to make is not my own,this is the argument I receive from Fundies when talking about why they have a hard time accepting evolution,it seem to refute their basic doctrines Who said sex is a sin?

The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism Sexuality has been transformed into the festering wound out of which resentment is born. For every time desire rises up one experiences again one's powerlessness to break the strangle-hold the super-ego has over one's sexuality. A jaundiced eye then casts its gaze on all who have succeeded where one failed Envy rises up, offering one the only exit from inner conflict--hatred of the sexual and an unending war upon it

Carol Two, this sounds like the apologetics of folks who fear contradiction by science and have invented the great excuse for all such possible contradictions in the future. The Bible meant something else! These clerics truly lack faith. Let them just give it up and be done with it!

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47) Find a slave... Oh wait, your country is against that. And you?

— Renier

Wesley,

I was clearly referring to what I discerned as a lack of faith in the Bible's ability to stand the test of time. And I derived that lack of faith on the part of the clerics from their blanket statement that "the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally". I see that as a built-in excuse to save the Bible from any possible conflict with the evidence. I was not accusing them of a lack of faith in God or in their religious principles or in having produced no "fruits".

Besides, by publicly issuing that statement they invite public comment and discussion. And by your posting that letter here you too invite such discussion. It makes no sense for you to then accuse me of being judgemental when you don't find my comments to your liking.

Many folks here would actually descibe my "accusation" as a compliment paid to the clerics. That they "see the light" and to once and for all save the Bible from any present or future conflicts with science they take the only effective course available - render its words meaningless by turning them into flying targets.

My additional point was that all this fear of science is so unnecessary. And the clerics ought to know better.

I stand by my comments.

Renier, slavery is one of Carol's favorite topics. She believes that slavery is noble (since it is mentioned in the Bible) and can be ethical if managed by Old Testament principles. She believes that bankrupcy laws could benefit by re-adopting slavery. She opposes the fourteenth amendment along with the Establishment Clause.

The serpent is an interesting Mythical archetype.

In the west the serpent is depicted in creation stories and has some bad PR in the East the snake represents the gaining of knowledge- on going renewal during life, the death and rebirth of Ego as one matures.
look up serpent Mythology.
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/serpent.html

Derwood,

I read and studied extensively Richard Friedman's works and those of others with similar views and have found them VERY wanting.

James Taylor,

Shame on you! How dare you so grotesquely distort my views and put words into my mouth?

One last tip Heddle and Carol
Fundamenatlist don't like Evolution/Science/Darwin for the one simple dichotomy.

Which came first the Chicken or the Egg, Man or God?

Hint:
There's a cartoon in an old Playboy of a chicken and an egg lying on a bed together with the chicken smoking a cigarette.
The caption reads

"Well that settles that question"

Or maybe RENÉ MAGRITTE

"If the spectator finds that my paintings are a kind of defiance of 'common sense', he realises something obvious. I want nevertheless to add that for me the world is a defiance of common sense." René Magritte.

have a look at 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe'

http://www.articons.co.uk/magritte.htm

David Heddle,

I see your distinction between inerrancy and literalism. I find it somewhat difficult to put words together in these posts with the same degree of precision as I would in other formats.

But the twin concepts are also inter-related. For how can you know what exactly to be certain about if the words are pliable enough to fit anyone's whim?

I do not support extreme or childish literalism. Phrases like "the eyes of God" or "the outstretched arm of God" are obviously meant to be interpreted liberally. Such departures from strict literalism are self understood by all and therefore are acceptable. "An eye for an eye" has traditionally been interpreted by the ancient Jewish sages (the greatest experts in Biblical interpretation, bar none) to mean "the value of an eye for an eye". But that does not bestow license for anyone to read anything they see fit into the words of the Bible. There are reasonable rules.

I cannot but wonder... reasonable according to whom?

For how can you know what exactly to be certain about if the words are pliable enough to fit anyone's whim?...that does not bestow license for anyone to read anything they see fit into the words of the Bible. There are reasonable rules.

There are reasonable rules

Carol, I did not notice where you addressed those questions about whether you gave equal literal weight to all the parts of the bible - the stoning of disobedient kids and such.

I reread the comments but I just could not find your response. Could you try posting again or include the comment # where you address that? Thanks.

You claim that calling these 10,000 clergy "faithless" is not an accusation but a compliment because you leave in the chance that they may see the light. If someone called you senseless (hypothetically) but said that it was not too late for you to educate yourself, would you feel complimented?

I think your comments on slavery speak for themselves but I did notice that when you were making them you were also putting in a plug for IN THE BEGINNING OF. Do you ever not plug that book when you post?

which, of course, everyone makes up for him/herself.

Of course, we no longer have that problem since the bible was proved correct.

Mr. Heddle,

you choose to read the Bible one way. Carol chooses to read it another way. I choose to read it in yet another way.

Doesn't this tell you anything?

Don't you realize that every one of us chooses how to read the Bible, regardless of how many categories one makes up?

"The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole."

Let's see, hard to give a precise date but I would choose 1978 when Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, the best proof of the big bang and the death of the steady-state model (which contradicted the bible.)

Mr. Heddle,

fine, let's confine ourselves to the three categories you have arbitrarily (here we go again!) defined:

Individual 1 chooses to side with Side 1; Individual 2 with Side 2; Individual 3 with Side 3;... Individual n with Side 1; Individual n+1 with Side 3; Individual n+2 with Side 2;...

Would you mind explaining me how this is not every individual choosing his flavour of inerrancy?

Ah, so you're just referring to the steady state controversy and not saying (here at least) that the whole Bible was 'proved correct' scientifically?

Aureola,

In that sense I agree. There are a small number of theological schools that affirm inerrancy for which virtually all Christians (who affirm inerrancy) would belong. If that is your point, then we are in agreement. My original comment in this subthread was in reply to Russell who wrote "which, of course, everyone makes up for him/herself." I took this to mean that he was arguing that everyone or even nearly everyone would essentially create their own theology. If I misinterpreted, then I apologize.

Flint

We'll just have to wait and see if your hypothetical situation materializes. Happily I don't have to worry about that at the moment.

Actually, Mr. Heddle, since Christians belong to way, way more than the three sides you identified, I think that it is a safe bet that one can self-identify as a Christian and choose practically any combination of literal/inerrant/allegorical/whatnot reading of the Bible.

And none of them can demonstrate the superiority of their choice over those of anybody else, as the Rev. Dr. never fails to remind you.

Re "To figure it out, he grew vines in his lab, and spent hours literally watching them to see how the tendrils "figured out" how and where to attach themselves."

Sounds a bit like watching grass grow. :)

I think he's saying something very different. Let's suppose that, a few years down the road and with some clever satellite-based tools and a dollop of dumb luck, we find some completely different interpretation of the available evidence (as required by the discovery of something completely unanticipated). And let's say that the NEW "best-fit" explanation requires a more-or-less steady state universe. Now, do you suppose Heddle (who wrote "there would be no way to reconcile cosmology with the bible without extreme violence to the text, because the bible irrefutably and clearly teaches of a beginning to time and space") would REJECT the bible as being false? Or would he instead find that the bible is STILL inerrant, if we just look at it the right way? Heddle doesn't "find" that the bible is inerrant, he STATES that it's inerrant. The question is, which should we reinterpret, the evidence or the scripture?

Seems to be up to 9,945 signatures now.
There also apears to be a listing by state.

The "by state" list deals in numbers only.

If anyone has any doubts about bible errancy, go to Dennis McKinseys site Members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.ktml his work is outstanding and he has debated(and won)with the best.

Do you assume the bible is inerrant? For those who do not, there truly are no rules, you can just pick the parts you like and ignore the rest.

Apesnake,

I have not responded to that nonsense about the stoning of the "disobedient" child and the rest of that post by Renier. I generally choose not to respond to folks who deliberately persist in distorting my words or not reading them carefully, as your most recent post (#59181, third paragraph) has once again demonstrated. If that means you and your ilk remain in your ignorance, so be it.

If you don't know Hebrew, you do not know the Bible. You may know OF the Bible, or ABOUT the Bible, but you do not know THE Bible (referring to the so called old testament).

Rupert,

You made my point. How can you argue that what I said: "For those who do not (accept inerrancy), there truly are no rules, you can just pick the parts you like and ignore the rest" is untrue and then immediately:

1) Deny inerrancy
2) Accept what you like (the Golden Rule)
3) Deny what you don't like (Methuselah's age)

You provided a perfect example of what I claimed.

And then the gratuitous likening to the Taliban. Man, you're good.

1) Deny inerrancy 2) Accept what you like (the Golden Rule) 3) Deny what you don't like (Methuselah's age) You provided a perfect example of what I claimed. And then the gratuitous likening to the Taliban. Man, you're good.

Yes

And then the gratuitous likening to the Taliban. Man, you're good.

Yes.

Posted by David Heddle on November 21, 2005 06:01 PM (e) (s) Rupert, You made my point. How can you argue that what I said: "For those who do not (accept inerrancy), there truly are no rules, you can just pick the parts you like and ignore the rest" is untrue and then immediately: 1) Deny inerrancy 2) Accept what you like (the Golden Rule) 3) Deny what you don't like (Methuselah's age) You provided a perfect example of what I claimed. And then the gratuitous likening to the Taliban. Man, you're good.

Methinks this is appropriate for this thread, too:

Gee, whenever I ask an IDer to tell me what the scientific theory of ID is, all I get is thundering silence. But give them chance to tell us all about their religious opinions, and the IDers can't seem to shut up.

Odd, if ID isn't really about religion.

Unless, of course, IDers are simply lying to us about that.

But hey, Heddle, Donald, and everyone else who wants to regale us with your religious opinions ---- I have a simple question for you. Why, exactly, are your particular religious opinions any better than anyoen else's? Why should anyone pay any more attention to your particualr religious opinions than they should to, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car mechanic's or my veterinarian's or the kid who delivers my pizzas? Other than your say-so?

(Note: this question doesn't really apply to Carol, since she's just here to shill for her employer's book.)

Just out of idle curiosity, if Carol Clouser is still following this, would reading The (i.e. Hebrew) Bible lead us to conclude that Methuselah's life spanned 969 revolutions of the earth around the sun? And do I infer correctly that you are only speaking of the Jewish bible - not what Christians call the New Testament?

Do you assume the bible is inerrant? For those who do not, there truly are no rules, you can just pick the parts you like and ignore the rest.

Lenny,

I'll answer your questions (again) when I see evidence that you have some integrity. What I am looking for is consistency. Wesley has given his exegesis of Matthew 7. I am waiting for you to pose your question to him, in the same manner.

A few comments,if anyone is still about. (The sun is up here - it may have sunk where you are). Science is in a spot of bother just now, and T/O is one of the few science or religion publications actually fostering public free speech! That's rather sobering for the 21st Century, but humanity doesn't change much. I am a part of humanity.
Most contributors/viewers probably know the following, but some of the positive input above suggests to me that some contributors to this page may find some value in the following;
1). Technology has ended the debate. It is now possible to (dimly)discern the events involved in species actuation. (Various people are in denial mode, but technology has spoken, and is speaking louder every day.) To get the latest, you could press my link, or discern it yourself from the latest research.
2). These technological advances enable the teaching and reasearch of Origins Science without imposing on the average man's credulity or beliefs. If information technology is a major factor in species actuation, the source of the information may be left to the beliefs of the individual. (YEC is TECHNICALLY -NOT PERSONALLY- both unscientific and unscriptural.) Richard Dawkins saw information as a product of random processes; on the other hand, we may rest assured that information technology in nature is not contrary to most world religions. It also happens to make parts of the Bible much clearer, ONLY in a TECHNOLOGICAL sense.
3). Here lies the root of this matter. You see from this page, many of us struggle to divide technological fact from personal religion. Neo-Darwinism failed in this and the technical advances show that only remnants of it can be salvaged. We must not repeat those mistakes - for the sake of Democracy, we must get it right. It's up to people like you. Sincerely, P.H. (WWW.CREATIONTHEORY.COM ,on behalf of mainstream science.)

Carol, I would like to ask how you can reconcile 6 day creation with science that clearly shows that this is false from a scientific stand point. Some say that "yom" in the original texts does not mean a 24 hour day and I'm just wondering what your standpoint is on this issue. To be candid I'm just starting at the beginning of the bible where I see conflicts if you have a literal reading of the bible.

Looking forward to your answer where I probably will pose another simple question to you.

Lenny, I'll answer your questions (again) when I see evidence that you have some integrity. What I am looking for is consistency. Wesley has given his exegesis of Matthew 7. I am waiting for you to pose your question to him, in the same manner.

— David Heddle

I'll answer your questions (again) when I see evidence that you have some integrity.

I would argue that my view is reasonable, but not that everybody else has to adopt it, which seems to be what other people do who attract Lenny's attention with the questions. So, just to answer Lenny's favorite question ahead of time, no, my views on theology don't carry any special privilege or authority.

What on earth is Heywood yammering about . . . . . .?

Wesley,

Fair enough! (Although, as you know, I wanted to see if Lenny would ask--but you preempted that--very clever!)

1) Why, exactly, are your particular religious opinions any better than anyone else's?

In a sense, I think this is not a serious question, but I'll try to answer. It's a bit like asking why you think your political views are better than anyone else's. Well, if you didn't think so, you'd change them--it's a sort of genetic algorithm. Anyway, I was an agnostic who really started thinking about God from some early forms of fine-tuning arguments I heard in College. I tried Roman Catholicism. Then I was in a fundamentalist, dispensationalist church for a while. Finally I ended up in a Reformed Presbyterian (PCA) church. PCA churches are big on education--the sermons are like college lectures at times. I loved it. I learned a great deal of theology and was convinced by the writings of Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and others that Reformed theology was biblically sound. So I think my opinions are better because I've studied a great deal. Having said that, I recognize that there are dispensationalists and Catholics and many others who would give the same reason for why they think their opinion are better. Again, isn't this question sort of self-evident, and doesn't it apply to anyone, including you, Lenny?

2) Why should anyone pay any more attention to your particular religious opinions than they should to, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car mechanic's or my veterinarian's or the kid who delivers my pizzas? Other than your say-so?

They shouldn't. If they have an interest in theology, they should study the bible and the major theologians and reach their own conclusions.

Len, you're the life of the party. Cheers. P.H..

In a sense, I think this is not a serious question, but I'll try to answer. It's a bit like asking why you think your political views are better than anyone else's.

Why should anyone pay any more attention to your particular religious opinions than they should to, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car mechanic's or my veterinarian's or the kid who delivers my pizzas? Other than your say-so?

They shouldn't.

If they have an interest in theology, they should study the bible and the major theologians and reach their own conclusions.

James Taylor,
Some time ago you asked for a reference from AR concerning old testament accuracy. A book you may wish to read is:
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts

At Amazon here,
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684869136/104-1550619-1113547?v=glance&n=283155
New York Times Book Review,
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/02/04/reviews/010204.04triblet.html
The first chapter,
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/finkelstein-bible.html

The reviews at Amazon were sprinkled with the usual 'it's all liberal lies' type comments but I think it is pertinent that both authors are Jews, one of whom actually lives in Israel. Fundies living in the US might not like their conclusions but I doubt any fundie living in this country is competent to do such work themselves. I very much enjoyed the book.

Please forgive the OT post.

Sincerely, Paul

I generally choose not to respond to folks who deliberately persist in distorting my words or not reading them carefully, as your most recent post (#59181, third paragraph) has once again demonstrated.

Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

— God

Deuteronomy 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

— God

Russel,

The Hebrew term employed in the case of methusela is "shana" which must mean "year". The only way I see for a reasonable human being to accept those ultra long life spans is that it was a miracle. There is of course nothing in science to preclude the intervention of the creator of the universe and the laws of nature to effectuate some alteration in His handiwork for some divine purpose. Whether one believes this or not depends on one's overall view of God, religion, the universe and the Bible and their relationship to each other. But to interpret these verses in the Bible in a manner that excludes the plain meaning of the words is, it appears to me, dishonest. It is an attempt at having it every which way - preserving the Bible as the word of God yet not accepting the possibility of miracles.

When I speak of the original Hebrew Bible I refer to what most people call the "old testament", an appelation I and most Jews avoid. For it implies the existence of a "new testament", a proposition we do not accept.

Wayne Francis,

The translation of the Hebrew "yom" is of course, as you indicate, only the tip of the iceberg. Which is why books have been written on this subject. Hebrew is particularly difficult to translate accurately because it consists of few words, many with multiple and borrowed meanings. But the short answer to your question is this: yom is used hundreds of times in the Bible. About ten percent of these it refers to an "era", a period of time characterized by some development or feature. Other times it refers to a period of daylight and yet other times it refers to a 24 hour cycle of day and night. We cannot take a vote here and follow the majority because it may very well be that the Bible had no need to talk about eras as frequently as ordinary days. It helps if the context leads us to one translation or another. And in the story of Genesis there are quite a few "yoms", besides the first seven at the beginning, that MUST refer to eras. Landa also cites other considerations that point in this direction. So the preponderance of the evidence leads to the yom in creation as era.

There was some discussion above, between Heddle and others, about the rules of interpretation of Biblical verses. In addition to the obvious rules of grammar and linguistics, an important role must be played by how we find words and phrases used in other areas of the Bible. Is there a trend? Can we compare certain phrases to others? Such tools are indispensable with an ancient language that has evolved over time and is no longer spoken today in quite the same way as it used to be.

Looking forward to any other pertinent issues you may wish to raise.

Heddle,

The reason Lenny purposely excludes me from his favorite question (#59259) is that I actually made the effort to answer him on a different thread. After turning the tables on him he realized that the underlying premise of the question has been utterly demolished. Yet he has no shame in repeating the question, hoping others will not remember or notice its demonstrated vacuity.

Apesnake,

Go ahead now and compare your paragraph to my posts. Of course you will HAVE TO READ to do so. When you recognize the three substantive distortions you have perpetrated (none of which involve the trivial stuff you mention), describe them and explain why you ordained to commit them, apologize, repent and beg forgiveness, then perhaps we can renew out conversation.

In Judaism, unlike Christianity, offenses perpetrated against fellow human beings are forgiveable by God only after the victim has been made whole again, has been apologized to contritely and sincerely and has provided his genuine forgiveness. In other words, one is reponsible for one's actions. Somebody else's death two thousand years ago does provide automatic relief.

Is Carol referring to this comment?

If so, that (and Carol's further comments in the thread) doesn't look like anything that invalidates the question being asked itself. Therefore, Carol has got to be referring to some other comment(s), right?

Many folks here would actually describe my "accusation" as a compliment paid to the clerics. blah blah blah

In Judaism, unlike Christianity, offenses perpetrated against fellow human beings are forgiveable by God only after the victim has been made whole again, has been apologized to contritely and sincerely and has provided his genuine forgiveness. In other words, one is reponsible for one's actions.

— Carol Clouser

I think that the clergy who signed on to the Clergy Project letter demonstrate courage, as it has become apparent that those holding to "evolutionary creationism" or "theistic evolution" are going to be denigrated rudely by those who have liked getting away with telling the fiction that there must be an irreducible conflict between science and religion over evolutionary biology. Anyone who dares tell the truth, that faith and science can co-exist, becomes a target of those antievolutionists who like to play on the fears of believers. Plus, apparently, people who have a (profitable?) axe to grind.

Generally Carol, when someone feels they have been misread or purposefully distorted they will be specific about it so that the person they accuse will not need to sort through over one hundred posts to find there error. Luckily for me, the Computer wizes have that search function but it still is kind of annoying to have the "well if you don't know what you said, I'm not going to tell you" treatment from someone I am not married to.

By the time you read this you will have read the part where I apologize for mis interpreting your statement. As far as repenting, begging forgiveness, slaying a lamb or anointing my head with ashes and such, I think I will just consider it a mistake and move on if you don't mind. It seems a lot more... sane.

As far as the other two distortions you will need to clue me in because I seem mainly to have only asked questions:

Is it not true that you work for the company which profits from the sale of the book which you keep mentioning in various threads?

Is it not, despite what you say relevant that you would be asked whether you see all the words of God (And I am not talking about the "arms of God" lines that you say are obviously meant to be metaphorical but the direct declaratives of God) as literal?

If the Bible on the shelves is substantively different than the Hebrew scriptures is that not a problem. If the vernacular version is making God look like a nut why should people be blamed for not taking it literally?

Apesnake,

You consider adding insult to injury an apology?

Why don't you also inspect what you said I said about the clerics "seeing the light" and what I actually said about that.

You still don't get it.

Wesley,

I would gladly apologize, right here and right now, if I were guilty of offending anyone. But for the apology to be meaningful I need to understand the offense. At the risk of beating a dead horse, let us recapitulate. I stated that the clerics demonstrated a lack of faith in the ability of the Bible to stand the test of time (present and future conflicts with science, for example). That is why they prefer a malleable Bible that need not be taken at its word. Now, since when is lacking such faith a slur on panda's thumb? I dare say most folks prowling the corridors of this blog take pride in their lack of such faith. They actually consider it "enlightened" ("seeing the light", Apesnake, get it?) to be lacking such faith.

I think your baseless accusations and hints of accusations are leading you to the point where you will owe me an apology.

So that was an apology ???

......nchttt I get it

Fundamenatlist Apologetics!

Carol Who was Adam's daddy?

Carol wrote : I have not responded to that nonsense about the stoning of the "disobedient" child and the rest of that post by Renier. I generally choose not to respond to folks who deliberately persist in distorting my words or not reading them carefully

Carol wrote One, to not read the bible literally is to not take it seriously. For if words do not mean what they say, anyone can read anything into it. You cannot have it both ways.

Plenty of evidence that attempts to read the "Bible" literally lead only to bad ends. When someone introduces their "religion" w/o cause into the conversation, I balance myself on the balls of my feet, since however harmless most crazy people are, it's best not to take chances.

(While DH is simply an obscene bore, CC should really wipe the foam off her mouth. It really is a dead giveaway. Why would any "God" want believers like them?)

I know the initiator and director of the Clergy Letter Project, Dr. Michael Zimmerman, well, and have been peripherally involved with the effort to collect signatures. I would like to thank Wesley for his kind post and all the commenters for engaging in a vigorous and fascinating discussion. We are progressing rapidly toward our goal, and need only about 15 signatures to reach 10,000. Anything you can do to get the word out to American Christian clergy members would of course be much appreciated.

In response to vhutchison (comment number 59024) who asked for a search-by-state function on our website, we do have a page set up at http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/rel_clergy_by_state.htm which shows the breakdown by state. We have signatures from every state and the District of Columbia; our largest state is unsurprisingly California with 763 signatures while our smallest is Nevada with 13. At this time we do not have the capability to run an automated search for individual pastors by state or denomination, although this is something we may implement in the future. This whole process has, of course, been very time consuming and we have had to expend most of our energy towards gathering the signatures.

As for Heddle, you make a statement that science proves the Bible. Any comment on the text that a bat is a bird? The Bible is after all "inerrant". Is science wrong when it does not agree with the Bible? After all Heddle, in your little world, a Bat is a bird...

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. Deal with it!

Carol:If you don't know Hebrew, you do not know the Bible. You may know OF the Bible, or ABOUT the Bible, but you do not know THE Bible (referring to the so called old testament).

Carol, cut the bull####. I read Hebrew, and everything Mr. Heddle says holds true in tha language as well. I don't think this interface will support Hebrew fonts, or I'd match his translated quotes with the original ones and show where and if the translation is missing something...and it really doesn't miss - certainly it doesn't change the meaning of all those stoning and burning instructions.

If someone can tell me how to post images here, I'll put in JPGs of the Hebrew quotes for the delectation of Hebrew readers - and Carol.

Heddle:said But if it is inerrant, then what it contains in its original form cannot be inconsistent with science.

k.e.,

I'm trying to understand the point of the "Adam's last name" question. You do realize, of course, that even if Adam and Eve popped out of the vacuum at God's command (that's not my view, but let's go to the extreme to make a point) that it would not be a violation of science?

Miracles (there are about ~100 of them in the bible) are by definition excluded. If miracles could be explained by science, they wouldn't be miracles. That is why even Renier, above, did not bring up Jesus walking on water or feeding the 5000. Most people understand that, even if they don't believe the miracles, they have to be exempt from this argument. If you take out the miracles--it would be maybe 15 or so pages in the typical bible, there is still plenty of text left to hunt for scientific error. (Oh, and when it talks about the sun rising and setting, that doesn't mean it is claiming the sun rotates around the earth.)

As for Genesis 2, it does not give the creation order. It does not teach that God created the animals and then brought them to Adam. It merely says that God brought them to Adam, and reminds us that he created them. You can google for more complete explanations--as I understand it, it is even clearer in the Hebrew--maybe Carol can comment.

Wesley, I would gladly apologize, right here and right now, if I were guilty of offending anyone. But for the apology to be meaningful I need to understand the offense. At the risk of beating a dead horse, let us recapitulate. I stated that the clerics demonstrated a lack of faith in the ability of the Bible to stand the test of time (present and future conflicts with science, for example). That is why they prefer a malleable Bible that need not be taken at its word. Now, since when is lacking such faith a slur on panda's thumb? I dare say most folks prowling the corridors of this blog take pride in their lack of such faith. They actually consider it "enlightened" ("seeing the light", Apesnake, get it?) to be lacking such faith. I think your baseless accusations and hints of accusations are leading you to the point where you will owe me an apology.

— Carol Clouser

Two, this sounds like the apologetics of folks who fear contradiction by science and have invented the great excuse for all such possible contradictions in the future. The Bible meant something else! These clerics truly lack faith. Let them just give it up and be done with it!

— Carol Clouser

Carol, so you say that you believe the days of creation in Genesis refer to era? Do I understand you correctly? How do you reconcile this with the fact that Genesis 1:5-1:23 constantly use "veyhe erev" "veyhe voker" near yom indicating that it is talking about a 24 hour cycle by refering to morning and evening?

Heddle wrote: My position is: the Bible is absolutely correct and supports science.

Heddle wrote: Of course it is not a science textbook. Nobody said it was a science textbook. It actually says very little about science.

Heddle wrote: If the bible stated that the earth was the centre of the cosmos, that would be a violation of science.

Heddle wrote:Really now, what's next---will it be the rabbit chewing cud

Heddle wrote : If you'd like some biblical questions that are real conundrums for biblical inerrancy, I'll provide you some---then at least you won't look so silly.

The reason Lenny purposely excludes me from his favorite question (#59259) is that I actually made the effort to answer him on a different thread.

We know the above was the belief (earth at the center of the cosmos)of every Christian for many years, at one stage, and that is was an interpretation from the Bible

then it's a good thing you are not a teacher.

David,

We really would prefer to hear your explanations for these problems (pi=3, insects with 4 legs, bats are birds, two Genesis stories, et al).

Then you can back up your arguments with references to the places that you researched the topics.

No one here claimed that the ancient jews were "stupid", we're claiming that they were scientifically sophisticated AND therefore their religious text is likely to be scientifically invalid.

You claimed that the Bible shouldn't be used as a scientific text. I think everyone here agrees with that. I would extend that caution to state that we shouldn't rely on it for anything related to science and therefore we should not interpret it literally in regards to scientific topics.

Since you already agree with much of what I've said, you should seriously consider the last sentence of my previous paragraph.

Heddle

I did google the rabbit cud error, eh, mistranslation thing and it came up wanting. Saying that actually the rabbits eat their own crap, and that cud could have meant crap...

David, you do realise that I might just perceive you as justifying things that appears to most people as outright errors. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong? If these errors are actually errors, and not because of translation problems but because they ARE simple errors, then it could be that your PERCEPTION is wrong. Trying to get rid of these little problems, by playing with the original text, MIGHT just be a dishonest attempt (although a very sincere one) to cover up. Are you 100% sure that youre interpretation is correct, that it is beyond a doubt, not an error?

Lets then, for argument sake, accept that the rabbit cud thing is an error, a real one, not an imaginary one. Would it have any affect on your belief system?

Nobody said it was a science textbook. It actually says very little about science. But if it is inerrant, then what it contains in its original form cannot be inconsistent with science.

Wesley,

If we had a statement signed by 10,000 evangelicals supporting intelligent design and criticizing evolution this thread would be dripping wet with ridicule, sarcasim and insults directed against those clerics much milder than what I said here and nobody, including yourself, would even have raised an eyebrow. Now that you think you have found new allies in the battle against the great enemy of intelligent design you have developed an inflated sensitivity to the feelings of the clerics issuing the statement.

I am not impressed.

Heddle said: The faulty assumption was that, as the pinnacle of God's creation, surely He would place us at the center of the cosmos.

Wayne Francis,

Let me first ask you not to jump to conclusions about what I believe, of which I spoke not at all.

As far as the Bible's "there was evening, there was morning" phrase and how that works for the Hebrew "yom" as "era" interpretation, we take into account that the Bible very many times employes the literary device of using the singular as an understated exageration to represent an enormous plurality. Such as the patriarch Jacob telling his brother Esau, "and I have earned an ox, and a donkey, etc." when he was really saying that he had so many of them that he can readily afford to give many to his brother as a gift and still be left with plenty of assets. There are very many such examples. In the story of creation the Bible is trying to convey the idea that the "era" represents a huge amount of time, such that many "an evening" and many "a morning" could have elapsed during each of them.

At least that is the interpretation provided by various scholars looking into these issues, such as Landa, Alter, Aviezer, and others.

Hope this helps.

Aureola Nominee (interesting moniker, that; wonder what its significance is? ...but I digress) on "humanocentrism":

EXACTLY. I think you hit the nail on the head. But I think "anthropocentrism" sounds better, and - while purists may complain that it mixes Latin and Greek roots - is parallel in that way to "geocentrism" and "heliocentrism".

Russell
(doing his best to fill in for William Safire, who doesn't seem to read Panda's Thumb).

David Heddle and k.e.,

Yes, David, the Hebrew is very clear. The story of creation in Genesis presents six overlapping eras of development specifically described in a manner designed not to be understood as chronological.

Besides, the entire Bible is not organized chronologically. There are hundreds of examples of this. Not to say that it is disorganized or chaotic. Just that the order is dictated by considerations other than the chronological.

Hope this helps.

Wesley, If we had a statement signed by 10,000 evangelicals supporting intelligent design and criticizing evolution this thread would be dripping wet with ridicule, sarcasim and insults directed against those clerics much milder than what I said here and nobody, including yourself, would even have raised an eyebrow. Now that you think you have found new allies in the battle against the great enemy of intelligent design you have developed an inflated sensitivity to the feelings of the clerics issuing the statement. I am not impressed.

— Carol Clouser

Russell:

I prefer humanocentrism exactly because it doesn't mix Latin and Greek roots. See, I've never studied Greek, but I endured seven gruesome years of Latin, and despite my best efforts some of it stuck...

But of course anthropocentrism is fine too. "Pinnacle of Creation", indeed!

Carol

I know you love Jesus, but who do you love Jesus against?

Comment #59363 Posted by Carol Clouser on November 22, 2005 10:29 AM (e) (s) Wayne Francis, Let me first ask you not to jump to conclusions about what I believe, of which I spoke not at all. ...

— Carol Clouser

Comment #59275 Posted by Wayne Francis on November 21, 2005 08:17 PM (e) (s) Carol, I would like to ask how you can reconcile 6 day creation with science that clearly shows that this is false from a scientific stand point. Some say that "yom" in the original texts does not mean a 24 hour day and I'm just wondering what your standpoint is on this issue. To be candid I'm just starting at the beginning of the bible where I see conflicts if you have a literal reading of the bible. Looking forward to your answer where I probably will pose another simple question to you.

— Wayne Francis

Comment #59311 Posted by carol clouser on November 21, 2005 11:17 PM (e) (s) ... Wayne Francis, The translation of the Hebrew "yom" is of course, as you indicate, only the tip of the iceberg. Which is why books have been written on this subject. Hebrew is particularly difficult to translate accurately because it consists of few words, many with multiple and borrowed meanings. But the short answer to your question is this: yom is used hundreds of times in the Bible. About ten percent of these it refers to an "era", a period of time characterized by some development or feature. Other times it refers to a period of daylight and yet other times it refers to a 24 hour cycle of day and night. We cannot take a vote here and follow the majority because it may very well be that the Bible had no need to talk about eras as frequently as ordinary days. It helps if the context leads us to one translation or another. And in the story of Genesis there are quite a few "yoms", besides the first seven at the beginning, that MUST refer to eras. Landa also cites other considerations that point in this direction. So the preponderance of the evidence leads to the yom in creation as era. ...

— carol clouser

And in the story of Genesis there are quite a few "yoms", besides the first seven at the beginning, that MUST refer to eras.

— carol clouser

Comment #59344 Posted by Wayne Francis on November 22, 2005 06:40 AM (e) (s) Carol, so you say that you believe the days of creation in Genesis refer to era? Do I understand you correctly? How do you reconcile this with the fact that Genesis 1:5-1:23 constantly use "veyhe erev" "veyhe voker" near yom indicating that it is talking about a 24 hour cycle by referring to morning and evening?

— Wayne Francis

Comment #59363 Posted by Carol Clouser on November 22, 2005 10:29 AM (e) (s) Wayne Francis, Let me first ask you not to jump to conclusions about what I believe, of which I spoke not at all. ...

— Carol Clouser

Carol

I'll see you on the dark side of the moon. - Pink Floyd

Man if they get the keys we are in trouble.

Wayne Francis,

I did not take your question as referring to my personal beliefs but rather that you were asking me, perhaps based on my experience as scholarly books editor, how the issue of the six days and the Hebrew "yom" is dealt with vis-a-vis the potential conflict with science. I am sorry for misreading your question. I meant no harm. I was trying to be helpful.

You are of course entitled to accept or reject the "an evening, a morning" interpretation I provided. Just keep in mind that it is an anomolous phrase if taken to mean one real morning and one real evening because there supposedly was no sun in existance yet (during the first few "days"). And the Bible expects that the intelligent reader will keep this in mind and operate on the assumption that the author has not lost its mind. In other words, the author expects that you might seek an alternate interpretation, other than one real evening and one real morning. I would not conclude therefore that the phrase could only come to confuse.

Carol Clouser wrote: Wesley, If we had a statement signed by 10,000 evangelicals supporting intelligent design and criticizing evolution this thread would be dripping wet with ridicule, sarcasim (sic) and insults directed against those clerics much milder than what I said here and nobody, including yourself, would even have raised an eyebrow. Now that you think you have found new allies in the battle against the great enemy of intelligent design you have developed an inflated sensitivity to the feelings of the clerics issuing the statement. I am not impressed.

Apesnake, You consider adding insult to injury an apology?

— carol

I stated that the clerics demonstrated a lack of faith in the ability of the Bible to stand the test of time

— carol

These clerics truly lack faith. Let them just give it up and be done with it!

— carol

Why don't you also inspect what you said I said about the clerics "seeing the light" and what I actually said about that.

— carol

Many folks here would actually describe my "accusation" as a compliment paid to the clerics. That they "see the light" and to once and for all save the Bible from any present or future conflicts with science they take the only effective course available - render its words meaningless by turning them into flying targets.

— carol

When you recognize the three substantive distortions you have perpetrated...

— carol

I really feel sorry for Carol and all biblical apologists,they refuse to accept the fact that the bible has errors.Once you concede that it does ,you open Pandoras Box,how do you know what parts are true and which are false? If there is just one mistake there may as well be a thousand,it did not come from a God of truth. Quoting from a work is fruitless unless you first prove the book is valid,truthful and reliable,evidence shows the Bible fails this test,mere assertions prove nothing

Once you concede that it does ,you open Pandoras Box,how do you know what parts are true and which are false? If there is just one mistake there may as well be a thousand,it did not come from a God of truth.

Flint you are missing the point,you cannot apply the same critical evaluation to the Bible as you can any other books.This book was directly inspired by God through the Holy Spirit(what ever that may be)God is perfect, his works are perfect, the Bible has to be perfect or it is invalid.Gould and Dawkins are not Gods,(well not in the true sense of the term.)Let me say I would agree with your excellent fair points, but most Fundies would not

David, you do realise that I might just perceive you as justifying things that appears to most people as outright errors.

Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong? If these errors are actually errors, and not because of translation problems but because they ARE simple errors, then it could be that your PERCEPTION is wrong.

Trying to get rid of these little problems, by playing with the original text, MIGHT just be a dishonest attempt (although a very sincere one) to cover up. Are you 100% sure that youre interpretation is correct, that it is beyond a doubt, not an error?

Lets then, for argument sake, accept that the rabbit cud thing is an error, a real one, not an imaginary one. Would it have any affect on your belief system?

Because if the bible is wrong in one part, how do I know that its promise of eternal life is not also wrong?

I should add that I'd consider it dangerous to invest too much in the inerrancy of ANY book. A man should never gamble more than he can stand to lose. And when the book turns out to be the local folk tales of ancient goat herders, who were profoundly ignorant and guessed consistently wrong, I'd be obliged to protect my investment by engaging in special pleading beyond all recognition. I'd be very hard pressed not to realize this was what I was doing. And for what? Maybe I could "pull a Heddle" and *pretend* to others that my rationalizations are fully plausible, but I'd know myself that I was not playing straight with myself. Why run such a silly risk?

Posted by Flint on November 22, 2005 05:33 PM (e) (s) ... And when the book turns out to be the local folk tales of ancient goat herders...

Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?

At least that is the interpretation provided by various scholars looking into these issues, such as Landa, Alter, Aviezer, and others.

And the rain was upon the land forty days and forty nights, and the waters surged up and carried the ark, and the ark rose above the land.

— Text From 1,100BC

And the flood was upon the land for 40 days. And the waters became great, and grew very, very much on the earth, and the ark was carried along on the waters. And the waters increased very greatly on the land, and the covered all the high mountains which were under all the heavens. The waters rose till they were 15 cubits above the mountain tops

— Text From 600BC

And Elohim said to Noah: "The end of all flesh has come before me, because the land is filled with violence because of them, so I'm going to wipe them off the earth. Make for yourself an ark of gofer wood, with rooms shall you make it, and cover it inside and out with pitch. You are to make it this way: The ark will be 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. You will make a roof for the ark and complete it a cubit above, and you shall make a door of the ark in its side. Make it with a lower, second and third deck. And as for me, I am bringing the flood of water upon the land to destroy all flesh that has in it a living spirit under the whole heavens. Everything that is on the earth shall die. And I will raise up my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark, you and your sons and your wife, and your sons' wives

— Text From 600BC

Wayne,

Your claims, even if they were true (which they are not) are irrelevant. I have no doubt that the bible I read every day contains errors. (As a Protestant, I can't even claim with absolute certainty that it contains the correct books, since we believe in sola scriptura, and the table of contents was not inspired--but that's a separate story.) Biblical inerrancy does not guarantee that copies of manuscripts and translations are 100% accurate, it claims that the original, inspired writings were inerrant. How much faith can we have in the modern translations? Quite a bit, which you'd know if you studied the history of the bible--but again that's another story.

Carol Clouser and David Heddle say the bible is the word of god and can't be wrong.

it claims that the original, inspired writings were inerrant.

I've heard that the proper translation and interpretation of mythological religious texts is done with your face in a hat. It works for the Mormons. ;)

it claims that the original, inspired writings were inerrant.

Carol and David (If we were god for day, BOY WOULD WE FIX THINGS UP!!)

I know you love Jesus, but who do you love Jesus against ?

Apesnake,

The number of your distortions of my words has grown from 3 to 12, and you have added a few fabrications to the lot.

I give up. I am done with you. Be well.

David Heddle,

It is quite problematic to count Hebrew words because words are formed in Hebrew by adding letters to other words. Much therefore depends on the rules adopted for such a count. 10K sounds too much for the number of root words in Biblical Hebrew.

One of the most difficult and uncertain translations pertain to the Hebrew names for many of the creatures enumerated in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The Hebrew "arneves" is generally translated as "the rabbit" which in turn leads to the rabbit cud problem. But that translation is extremely uncertain.

As far as the flood is concerned, I have posted previously that the phrase "kol ha-aretz", usually translated as "the whole earth", is almost certainly incorrect. That phrase is used repeatedly in the Bible in other contexts to mean "all the land", such as the land of Egypt, the land of the Israelites, and so on. In the story of the flood it almost certainly refers to the land described a few verses earlier where Adam and Eve first are located. The flood was therefore a local phenomenon in the flat plains of Sumeria (present day Iraq). To make a long story very short, this helps resolves all the discrepencies associated with the Flood.

Comment #59473 Posted by David Heddle on November 22, 2005 08:13 PM (e) (s) Wayne, Your claims, even if they were true (which they are not) are irrelevant. ...

— David Heddle

Comment #59473 ... I'm sure you'll ignore or hand wave away clear evidence like this as meaning nothing. ...

— David Heddle

Wayne Francis,

I don't want to speak for David, Wayne, but I am quite certain that he, like myself, are not persuaded with the premise upon which your question is based. You state that you have studied the history of the Bible. Well, then you certainly know that the "scholars" are all over the place with speculation and mere hunches and guesses based on flim-flam and smoke and mirrors. I don't know for a fact that anything in particular was added or subtracted, here or there, over the years before the printing press arrived on the scene, and neither can any scholar make that claim with certainty.

What I do know is that my people have cherished a core document with their very lives for thousands of years. The dead sea scrolls of about two thousand years ago reveal a Bible remarkably identical with what we have today (in the Hebrew, of course) despite 1500 years since their creation of nothing but hand-written copies, in an atmosphere of crusades, blood libels, expulsions, inquisitions, pogroms, exile and whatever else our Christian neighbors ordained to commit in the name of the prince of peace. Can we be certain of the authenticity of every word from before the dead sea scrolls? Not if we need evidence for every word, since that evidence is not available (until the next archeological find). But I rest my case on the dedication of my people that a core is traceable all the way back to Moses. And I give every word the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Carol
Do you think you could get 500 Rabbi's to back you up on that.

Wayne,

So the onus is on me to prove that you do not have access to a 3100 year old manuscript of Genesis?

Posted by carol clouser on November 20, 2005 09:25 PM (e) (s) One, to not read the bible literally is to not take it seriously. For if words do not mean what they say, anyone can read anything into it. You cannot have it both ways. Two, this sounds like the apologetics of folks who fear contradiction by science and have invented the great excuse for all such possible contradictions in the future. The Bible meant something else! These clerics truly lack faith. Let them just give it up and be done with it! Three, with a little knowledge and discernment these faithless clerics would come to appreciate that the Bible CAN BE READ LITERALLY and still NOT CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE. As Judah Landa amply demonstrates in his IN THE BEGINNING OF, the original Hebrew Bible, when correctly and accurately translated, simply does not lead to any conflict with science. No word games, no twisted meanings, just correct translation. That's all it takes.

Posted by carol clouser on November 23, 2005 02:25 AM (e) (s) Wayne Francis, I don't want to speak for David, Wayne, but I am quite certain that he, like myself, are not persuaded with the premise upon which your question is based. You state that you have studied the history of the Bible. Well, then you certainly know that the "scholars" are all over the place with speculation and mere hunches and guesses based on flim-flam and smoke and mirrors. I don't know for a fact that anything in particular was added or subtracted, here or there, over the years before the printing press arrived on the scene, and neither can any scholar make that claim with certainty.

So the onus is on me to prove that you do not have access to a 3100 year old manuscript of Genesis?

Well, then you certainly know that the "scholars" are all over the place with speculation and mere hunches and guesses based on flim-flam and smoke and mirrors.

Both yourself and David Heddle come across as intelligent, well educated people. Dodging questions makes you appear dishonest.

Wayne,apology accepted, I am an atheist and a active member of the
N.C.S.E,I just like to play Devils advocate.Regardlng the biblical flood myth, it was obviously copied from the Babylonian (Epic of Gilgamesh)as are so many bible stories.Check out the parallels between Jesus and Mithras.

Lenny,

I am talking here about the history of the Bible, not about its interpretation or translation. Read carefully and stop seeking opportunities to repeat your mantra at every corner.

Stephen Elliott,

I also said that I give every word the benefit of the doubt.

I never even implied that the clerics ought to give up their avocation. My point was that they ought to either take the Bible or leave it. That is, they either take the Bible as we have it today (in its most original and authentic form, that is the Hebrew or ACCURATE translations of it) at its word and defend and support it as a document that says what it means and means what it says and can therefore be used as a meaningful guide to proper living, or they stop treating it as that very unique and special work, the handiwork of God. Instead they try to have it both ways. The Bible is this work of God yet its words can mean anything anyone wants it to mean.

All this sounds quite simple, sensible and logical to me. Why do some folks here have so much difficulty understanding this?

OK Carol I think I've got it.
A household guide to growing stuff,eating,animal husbandry,fix taps D'OH

OK I'll have another go sorry
A village guide to running temples, collecting donations, keeping kids indoors and making sure they blow their pocket money on drugs and porn D'OH

Ok OK OK I'll try again
The Infallible guide to living a decent life except for homosexuals, atheists, and scientists D'OH D'OH D"OH

OKOKOKOKOKOKOK

The world was created in 4 and sixty days and bless all those who sail in her.

The

Carol. How can the Bible be a meaningful guide to proper living,yet its words can mean anything anyone wants it to mean?If the Bible is Gods word to us, why would God make it so ambiguous and hard to understand,is God deliberately trying to confuse us? Have you ever considered that the difficulty in understanding may be on your part.
Your arguments seem subordinate to your own personal convictions and as simple and logical it may seem to you,it does not appear that way to others

Carol. How can the Bible be a meaningful guide to proper living,yet its words can mean anything anyone wants it to mean?

— JONBOY

Apesnake, The number of your distortions of my words has grown from 3 to 12, and you have added a few fabrications to the lot.

— carol

they either take the Bible as we have it today (in its most original and authentic form, that is the Hebrew or ACCURATE translations of it)...

— carol

Wislu,You are right Carol is right, Ive been wrong all these years,Im off to the nearest church to get saved, see you all in heaven

Posted by Carol Clouser on November 23, 2005 08:34 AM (e) (s) Stephen Elliott, I also said that I give every word the benefit of the doubt. I never even implied that the clerics ought to give up their avocation. My point was that they ought to either take the Bible or leave it. That is, they either take the Bible as we have it today (in its most original and authentic form, that is the Hebrew or ACCURATE translations of it) at its word and defend and support it as a document that says what it means and means what it says and can therefore be used as a meaningful guide to proper living, or they stop treating it as that very unique and special work, the handiwork of God. Instead they try to have it both ways. The Bible is this work of God yet its words can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. All this sounds quite simple, sensible and logical to me. Why do some folks here have so much difficulty understanding this?

Posted by carol clouser on November 20, 2005 09:25 PM (e) (s) One, to not read the bible literally is to not take it seriously. For if words do not mean what they say, anyone can read anything into it. You cannot have it both ways. Two, this sounds like the apologetics of folks who fear contradiction by science and have invented the great excuse for all such possible contradictions in the future. The Bible meant something else! These clerics truly lack faith. Let them just give it up and be done with it! Three, with a little knowledge and discernment these faithless clerics would come to appreciate that the Bible CAN BE READ LITERALLY and still NOT CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE. As Judah Landa amply demonstrates in his IN THE BEGINNING OF, the original Hebrew Bible, when correctly and accurately translated, simply does not lead to any conflict with science. No word games, no twisted meanings, just correct translation. That's all it takes.

Carol namaste
I sense a certain anxiety over the potential of the fundamentalist project to loose steam and thus some fulfillment of an undesirable prophesy, on your and your tribes part. Particularly since one of those prophesies was self fulfilling, and holds long term hope; The creation of the state of Israel.

On a personal note when my father, who grew up in the Republic of Ireland, was around 18yrs old "ran away" with a friend to Join the French Foreign Legion (true). They told them to get lost, so they joined the British PALESTINE POLICE FORCE and he was there in '46,'47. It must have been quite exiting to go to the 'Holy Land' for him but what he saw there turned him off all religion for good. He did have a lot of admiration for G_Meir and so on and I wish you the best in your travels.

I perceive however a lack of trust in humanity on your part that may be a projected self doubt.
I can't help you there, sorry. Maybe someone professional ?

I can help you with making sense of poetry. Point you in the right direction so to speak.
Ever wondered how "Timeless Tales" are created in situ
Just how did those ancient scribes dream all that stuff up and why does _some_ of it make sense now?
What tricks and techniques do poets and sages use in their creative construction ?
It is a craft that can be developed and refined to a high order with very predictable results just like any other human endeavor.
And yes there is a method, a 'science', a technique an objective process to extract subjective meaning.
It takes training and development of skill plus time and effort.
You seem to completely miss this as everyone here equally seems to be pointing out.
Unless you are running some sort of political campaign your reasoning appears to lack an honest motive.

If you really want to learn to subjectively read meaning in the Bible and I 100% assure you that is all you can ever do no mater how much you protest. Then how you integrate that into your way of life or construct a world view is of course completely up to you.

I suggest you start with gaining an understanding of Poetry and Literature and the process of deconstruction of meaning and pray for guidance on the model you create in your mind . As I will.

Look up the meaning of these words
Synecdoche
Anteriority
mythopoetics
entelechy
irony
metonymy
hyperbole
metaphor
transumption
psychological
reactionformation
reversal
regression
repression
introjection
projection

Do you like Harold Bloom ?
Start here
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/hopkins_guide_to_literary_theory/harold_bloom.html

Stephen Elliott,

The statement I made about the signing clerics "not having faith" and "let them just give it up" referred to their lack of faith in the Bible's ability to stand the test of time, that is, the challenges from science and other evidence. I proposed that they give up the Bible, as the word of God, and be done with it, rather than render the Bible meaningless in its defense. Anyone reading my statements IN CONTEXT would see it that way and I repeatedly explained this over and over again. But some folks here are as closed minded as the fundamentalists. I try to approach religious issues intellectually and dispassionately, as a scientists should. But many folks here are anything but scientific. They react viscerally and emotionally to religious matters just as the fundamentalists do. It is all rather discouraging.

I made about the signing clerics "not having faith" and "let them just give it up" referred to their lack of faith in the Bible's ability to stand the test of time

The statement I made about the signing clerics "not having faith" and "let them just give it up" referred to their lack of faith in the Bible's ability to stand the test of time, that is, the challenges from science and other evidence. I proposed that they give up the Bible, as the word of God, and be done with it, rather than render the Bible meaningless in its defense. Anyone reading my statements IN CONTEXT would see it that way and I repeatedly explained this over and over again. But some folks here are as closed minded as the fundamentalists. I try to approach religious issues intellectually and dispassionately, as a scientists should. But many folks here are anything but scientific. They react viscerally and emotionally to religious matters just as the fundamentalists do. It is all rather discouraging.

Stephen Elliott,

When you say "a clergyman without faith" what precisely do you mean? Faith in what? The Bible as the word of God? The existance of God? The inherent godliness of human beings? Other religious principles? I can see how a quick and non-careful reading of my original post could be misconstrued even by well intentioned individuals. But after I rephrased my thoughts and elaborated on them repeatedly (such as in #59138 and #59327), making it crystally clear that I was referring narrowly to faith in the Bible's ability to stand up to potential conflicts, folks here still persisted in either distorting or misunderstanding what I was saying.

Is a clergyman without faith a charlatan? Depends. Is he deceiving his flock and the establishment of his religious organization (his employers)? Is he working from within to refine his organization's views? In what sense is the word "faith" being used?

Let me turn the tables on you, if you don't mind. Is a clergyman who preaches the Godliness of the Bible and how important a role it is to play in our lives, and then claims that the words of the Bible are pliable enough to accomodate any need, that the plain meaning of the words are not to be taken seriously, a charlatan of sorts? Does that not open the door to that clergyman's reading his own notions into the Bible, then proclaiming those ideas to be sanctioned by God?

Perhaps I should have used "confidence in the Bible" instead of "faith in the Bible" in my original post, considering that the word "faith" is such a lightning rod, causing folks to jump up and down in delirium at the slightest whiff of an opposing opinion. But I thought I was entitled to better on a blog of supposedly thoughtful scientists. I guess I was wrong about that.

Yes, Carol, many fundamentalists think that the Bible must be taken at face value or be discarded entirely.

Some fundamentalists dismiss evidence in favour of a literal reading of (their pet version of) the Bible; some other fundamentalists even try to claim that evidence does not conflict with a literal reading of (their pet version of) the Bible.

Imagine: there are fundamentalists who even discard all previous translations of the Bible and all rabbinical tradition about the Torah in order to read their specific interpretation as "the REALâ„¢ Bible".

And all of them think everybody else is "faithless"; some, when called on that, make up complicate excuses to pretend that "faith" is just the same as "confidence" or "trust".

Yes, Carol, we get it.

Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible --- the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark --- convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation."

Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth

Heddle wrote: Actually, I agree with what Carol wrote...

Posted by carol clouser on November 23, 2005 02:39 PM (e) (s) Stephen Elliott, When you say "a clergyman without faith" what precisely do you mean? Faith in what? ... Let me turn the tables on you, if you don't mind. Is a clergyman who preaches the Godliness of the Bible and how important a role it is to play in our lives, and then claims that the words of the Bible are pliable enough to accomodate any need, that the plain meaning of the words are not to be taken seriously, a charlatan of sorts? Does that not open the door to that clergyman's reading his own notions into the Bible, then proclaiming those ideas to be sanctioned by God?...

Is a clergyman who preaches the Godliness of the Bible and how important a role it is to play in our lives, and then claims that the words of the Bible are pliable enough to accomodate any need, that the plain meaning of the words are not to be taken seriously, a charlatan of sorts? Does that not open the door to that clergyman's reading his own notions into the Bible, then proclaiming those ideas to be sanctioned by God?

— carol

David Heddle,

Now be careful there or Wesley is coming after you in a far bigger way than he came after me.

Stephen Elliott,

If you believe in God and think that the Bible ought not be construed literally, then by your definition you are a person of faith. And I would consent to that description of you in a very limited sense, although I am not sure most people would agree. Nor am I certain the dictionary would agree. Since I never claimed that the 10,000 clerics don't believe in God, it follows then that I would describe them too as persons of faith in this limited sense - that they are not atheists. Whether they are making a living by lying depends on what exactly they make of their positions. But they do not have faith in the Bible, that it is the word of God and can therefore stand up to all challenges from science or other venues.

Regarding your question re how I know every single word was retained, see my post #59510.

Regarding your opinion re the Flood, see some of my previous posts in this thread in which I show that the original Hebrew states that the flood was local.

Regarding death for working on the Sabbath, a few points here. First, the sabbath in the Bible is a covenant between God and "the children of Israel". If you are not Jewish, either by birth or legitimate conversion, you need not be concerned since it does not apply to you. The definition of "work" is limited to 39 particular tasks, such as plowing, seeding, making fire,
etc., it does not necessarily relate to doing one's job. The death penalty for violating this decree, and this applies to all penalties of the Bible, are applicable only if two witnesses see the act, they warn the perpetrator that it is a forbidden act of rebellion against God, and the perpetrator MUST RESPOND to them that he knows that is the case and that is why he is perpetrating the act. In other words, the penalty is applicable to deliberate acts of rebellion against God, usually performed in public. All these conditions are derived from the Bible by the ancient Jewish sages.

The net result is that these panalties were applied extremely rarely. According to the Talmud, if the Sanhedrim put one person to death in 70 years it was labeled "a murderous" court. The general understanding in Judaism is that the Biblical penalties are there to indicate the severity with which God views the offense, not as a program of action to be readily applied.

Climb into my machine so we can cruise on out I know a swingin' little joint where we can jump and shout It's not too far back off the highway, not so long a ride You park your car out in the open, you can walk inside A little cutie takes your hat and you can thank her, ma'am Every time you make the scene you find the joint is jammed Oh Carol, don't let him steal your heart away I'm gonna learn to dance if it takes me all night and day

Posted by David Heddle on November 23, 2005 02:50 PM (e) (s) Actually, I agree with what Carol wrote, or at least what you think Carol wrote. I think these clergy lack faith, period... Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth

Are you being serious? They may both be trying to deal with universal truths; but they are hardly going about it the same way.

Posted by David Heddle on November 23, 2005 07:11 PM (e) (s) Stephen,...

I try to approach religious issues intellectually and dispassionately, as a scientists should. But many folks here are anything but scientific. They react viscerally and emotionally to religious matters just as the fundamentalists do. It is all rather discouraging.

Does that not open the door to that clergyman's reading his own notions into the Bible, then proclaiming those ideas to be sanctioned by God?

Oh Lenny,

I really should not bother responding to your repetitive nonsense which is as relevant to the discussion here as last year's weather. But other folks are reading these posts. So I am animated to clarify one key point.

The issue here is not interpretation of the Bible, nor one of religious opinion. We are discussing translation of the original Hebrew. Based on objective standards of linguistics and analytic study of language patterns in the Bible, there exist translations of Hebrew words that are extremely likely to be incorrect, there are others that are highly likely to be correct, and there are words that can technically be translated in more than one manner. In a very small number of cases there may be some dispute among scholars but generally the words have widely agreed upon meanings and uses.

Let us get something very straight. There are no translations in Landa's work that is considered questionable or challengeable by any scholar of Hebrew in the world. Lenny, you can jump up and down and sideways, repeating ad nauseum your silly mantra, but it will not and cannot change a thing about the meaning of Hebrew words. Yes, a small but impportant set of words at issue can linguistically be translated in two or more ways. In those situations, Landa presents the options and discusses why he thinks certain approaches are more reasonable than others. At no point does he, or will I ever contenance, the twisting of a translation to accomodate some outside imperative, such as mitigating a perceived conflict with science or removing items some people find objectionable.

The conclusion Judah Landa arrives at in his IN THE BEGINNING OF is that it is reasonably possible to translate the original Bible's story of creation (Genesis, chapters one thru eleven) such that there is no conflict with any tenet of science. I said TRANSLATE, not interpret, got that Lenny? The Bible is interpreted LITERALLY, based on the reasonable rules of such literacy, and yet there IS NO CONFLICT. Sounds surprizing and unbelievable. That is why I bring it up occassionally here. The 10,000 clerics could have signed their pro-evolution letter without casting aspersions on the meaning of the Bible's words. That was just not necessary.

One other point, Lenny. I brought up Landa's book in this thread once, and you followed that by bringing it up ten times. Now I am responding to your bringing it up yet again. Get this straight now for I will not repeat it again - I bring up Landa's book when and if I think it should make a contribution to the discussion. And I shall continue doing so for as long as I please, whether or not this is to your liking. There are no other motives, financial or otherwise, despite your Mengalic approach of "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth".

Oh Carol: Translate it however you want, we still have no reason to believe that the Bible represents God's ineffable dictation beyond the say-so of whoever wrote it.

Likewise, we still have no reason to believe that that person or persons (or, if you like, entity or entities) deserves any more respect for his, her, its, or their religious beliefs than does anyone else.

(For example, Lenny's poor overworked and undertipped Pizza Guy.)

And that's what we've been discussing here.

The issue here is not interpretation of the Bible, nor one of religious opinion.

I bring up Landa's book when and if I think it should make a contribution to the discussion. And I shall continue doing so for as long as I please, whether or not this is to your liking.

it is reasonably possible to translate the original Bible's story of creation (Genesis, chapters one thru eleven) such that there is no conflict with any tenet of science. I said TRANSLATE, not interpret, got that Lenny?

Since I do not want to buy the whole book, I am going to have to go down to the library and browse through IN THE BEGINNING just to find out what the actual literal Hebrew translation says about disobedient children and wearing two types of fabric. Great. Now I have to walk downtown just because Carrol won't spill the beans. Its supposed to rain and or snow tomorrow too. Of course, it will not answer the question of why all the English books claiming to be translations of the Bible say "no" to the two fabrics deal and "yes" to the stoning thingy. Nor will it explain why these wildly - I mean wildly inaccurate translations are not being protested by the clued in Christians.

I especially want to see what the story with the talking donkey really says. I mean we can assume that it could not be an accurate Hebrew translation because it seems so pointless to include unless:

1) It is a myth and the author wanted everyone to know it.
or
2) God does not want smart people to believe in his word.

This ON THE BEGINNING OF, it is well indexed right? Has anyone but Carrol read this thing?

David Heddle wrote : If I became convinced that the bible contained a real error---that could not be attributed to translation error, cultural misunderstanding, interpretation error, etc., it would have a devastating effect on my belief system. Because if the bible is wrong in one part, how do I know that its promise of eternal life is not also wrong?

Read the four resurrection stories in Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Then tell me how many angels were at the resurrection? Then tell me, were they inside the tomb or outside? Then tell me who saw Jesus first, after the resurrection?

Posted by Renier on November 24, 2005 05:33 AM (e) (s) ... To me it is pretty clear. If one book says there was one angel, and another book says there were two angels, then one book must be wrong, because 1 = 2 is a false statement. If you have found one error, then realise PEOPLE wrote the book, and people make mistakes. It is better, even before your God, to be honest than to be right.

I will have a bash at that one. They could all be right, but told from a different perspective.

Renier,

That would be (e) other, as in: there is no conflict.

One account focuses on the angel who spoke. The other focuses on the actual number of angels present. No account says there was only one angel present. We do the same thing in modern English. Suppose there were fifty angels, but only one spoke, or one was the clear spokesman who did most of the talking. One eyewitness might say: "There was an angel (or even one angel) there, he looked dazzling, and he said..." Another person relating the same event might focus on the angels as a group, and say "There was a group of angels there, and they said..."

So this makes sense even in English. Whether it has an even lesser appearance of being a problem in Greek, I don't know.

Are you sure you don't want examples of the really hard ones? Then I could say "I don't know, that does appear to be a real problem" and you could declare victory.

I have the PERCEPTION that you are moving the goal posts. To me, it seems like clear discrepancies. Maybe God did not "focus"? What if this focus theory were applied to other texts? I also know there are loads of other discrepancies. I also know the Bible has the problem of interpolations, done by the catholic church.

What would you count as evidence that the Bible contains errors (apart from your center of the cosmos, that you already KNOW is not clearly stated there, just implied)? This evidence that you would require must also not be able to be reasoned away with the common cop-outs:
a) Translation error
b) Cultural misunderstanding
c) Interpretation errors?
d) Focus (recently added - compliments of DH)

I think that you don't want to see any errors, therefore you wont, no matter what other people say. Heck, if there is a loud voice booming out of the clouds saying "David, chill out, it has errors" you would rebuke the Devil.

Posted by Renier on November 24, 2005 07:54 AM (e) (s) I have the PERCEPTION that you are moving the goal posts. To me, it seems like clear discrepancies. Maybe God did not "focus"? What if this focus theory were applied to other texts? I also know there are loads of other discrepancies. I also know the Bible has the problem of interpolations, done by the catholic church...

Renier,

Here are some examples of real problems, as far as I am concerned.

Biblical genealogies are demonstrably not accurate chronologies. X begat (or "was the father of") Y does not always imply a one-generation relationship between the two. This both solves and creates problems. And while it is virtually meaningless in terms of the old/young earth debate, it does mean that accountings of the time since Adam roamed the earth are bound to contain errors.

On example we see is in Christ's genealogy in Matthew, where we read:

Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah. (Matt. 1:8)

which one can compare with

11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son,
12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, (1 Chron 3:11-12)

In this geneology (Azariah is the same person as Uzziah) we see that there are three generations missing from Matthew's account, which makes Uzziah appear to be Joram's son rather than his great-grandson. That is all fine and dandy considering Matthew's purpose was to explain Christ's Davidic (legal) bloodline. Nevertheless it calls into question the precision of Matthew's concluding:

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the (10) deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the (11) deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations. (Matt. 1:17)

I don't know a resolution to this issue.

For a more striking example, we read:

Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was officer over the treasures. (1 Chron. 26:24)

Shebuel is of the time of David, and yet Gershom is a true next-generation son of Moses (Ex. 2:22) . Thus there are 400+ years between Gershom and his "son" Shebuel.

It is also well known that if genealogies are also chronologies then there are a whole host of additional problems, such as Noah not dying until Abraham was in his fifties. It is possible that the bible uses genealogies as historic flows rather than generationally precise family trees. (We all are sons of Father Abraham.) But I don't know.

Stephen, my whole argument (and all the ones above) was not against the view that you have, but against a literal and infallible view. Your explanation of course make sense, because you bring human nature (with all it's errors) into the picture.

As for your argument of "slight" variation. I am only mentioning a few here, but there are others. How many variation would the police need to start saying that someone is talking BS?

Person A : "Officer, at 10:00, he had two guns and I caught him outside the house, as he was speaking to Jenny"

Person B " Officer, at 10:00, he had one gun and was inside the house, talking to Patrick"

Person C : "Officer, at 10:00, he had one gun and was not there, talking to anyone, but was three blocks down the road talking to Santa"

Person D : "Officer, at 10:00, he had two guns and was inside the house talking to the Tooth Fairy"

And the irony that Metusalah was the oldest man in the Bible, but died before his father.

Anyway, I used to believe in the Bible, as infallible AND literal. Now I don't believe any of it, except that a Bat is a bird and cud could be crap ;-)

As for science, the Bible has had no contribution to science at all.

Actually, there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed. But hey, belief is required where there is a total lack of evidence.

One account focuses on the angel who spoke. The other focuses on the actual number of angels present.

Hey Renier... I think that there is evidence Jesus existed.
There may be no "scientific evidence Jesus was the son of God"
But I am pretty sure there is plenty of historical evidence that he lived...
To be continued.

Stephen

Whoa there. There is the Bible that says Jesus existed. There is the Iliad that says Zeus existed. There is the Elder Edda that says Odin exists. There is Magician that says Pug exists. Apart from the Bible, what historical evidence (Bible is subjective, not objective) are you referring to? Josephus? We have historical evidence that Julius Ceaser existed, various accounts ...

Nope..not sure yet but I think that Roman records mention Jesus.
Possibly also Sanhedrin ones.
I think maybe that there is a rebuttal of Jesus by contemporary religious figures.

I still need to check, but I think there may be historical evidence for Jesus...way beyond what you'd expect for a peasant carpenters cuckolded son to a young wife.

Will take me a few days or weeks...but I will look into that.

Nope..not sure yet but I think that Roman records mention Jesus. Possibly also Sanhedrin ones.

And the Koran mentions Jesus.

Stephen I know of two sources that may be cited as talking about Jesus. Josephus and of course Tacitus. But reading the references by these two historians, it is a bit of a far shot to conclude that it is evidence for Jesus.

Anyway, it is hard to prove it either way. There is just not enough evidence ;-)

Remember that if you read the one side of the story, to research the rebuttals (the other side of the story). I know it is fairly detailed on both sides, so enjoy!

Oh yes, also remember that Jesus was a very common name in those days, so it will be even harder to prove that secular records mentions THE Jesus. There is also mention (in secular records) of another Jesus that was quite an upstart and caused some problems for the Romans, but a comparison will show you it was not (and could not have been) the same Jesus as the one in the Bible.

I think www.infidels.org has some transcripts of formal debates on the issue...

Heddle wrote: And the Koran mentions Jesus

And the Koran mentions Jesus.

Renier, I do believe Tacitus was 1 of them.
To be continued...

However I see the clergy statement has now exceeded the 10,000 target.

BTW Renier I am no ID person, but I believe that Jesus does have some reasonable amount of proof. I am not talking about the miracle side; just the history. No Lenny I do not mean the Koran. I still need to check (TBH I am a tad drunk atm). Better order a pizza. Apparently I can go easy on the tips.

Stephen,

have you read anything by the late Hyam Maccoby?

For instance, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, or Revolution in Judaea?

Personally, I find his reasoning quite convincing. He argues for a historical Jesus as the leader of a spiritual sect of Pharisees, fully convinced of being the Messiah and carrying his belief to the extreme consequence of being executed by the Romans for rebellion against the Empire.

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 24, 2005 03:18 PM (e) (s) Stephen, have you read anything by the late Hyam Maccoby? For instance, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, or Revolution in Judaea? Personally, I find his reasoning quite convincing. He argues for a historical Jesus as the leader of a spiritual sect of Pharisees, fully convinced of being the Messiah and carrying his belief to the extreme consequence of being executed by the Romans for rebellion against the Empire.

Re "And the irony that Metusalah was the oldest man in the Bible, but died before his father."
Really? Couldn't have been much before, since if Methusalah didn't drown he didn't miss it by much. (That is, if one takes the implied timeline literally.)

Henry

Need to look when I am sober.

Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud. Since many of the editions of the Talmud over the centuries were censored by the authorities and they did not like what the Talmudists were saying about Jesus, these statements did not appear in many printings of the Talmud. This includes the dominant version known as the Vilnius Edition. Most versions of the Talmud around today are copies of the Vilnius. But other editions exist that do contain these statements.

Josephus does mention Jesus but considering Jesus' activities at the time it is truly amazing that Josephus would spare only one or two sentences, out of the multitude included in his extensive writings, to Jesus. Many scholars are therefore convinced that these sentences were inserted later into Josephus' writings in order to make Jesus appear real.

Many scholars are therefore convinced that these sentences were inserted later into Josephus' writings in order to make Jesus appear real.

Renier your inspiration prompted me to do a search on "Female Gnostic Pope"

here is what came back :)

The Roman Catholic Church has this official position on the subject of women as priests:
"The female sex is in some respects inferior to the male sex, both as regards body and soul. ... If the two sexes are designed by nature for a homogeneous organic co-operation, then the leading position or a social pre-eminence must necessarily fall to one of them. Man is called by the Creator to this position of leader, as is shown by his entire bodily and intellectual make-up."

In other words, "We've got the penises, so f*ck you."

K.E,You assumption is correct. It's very much like that in Islam and other Christian denominations (demoninations) too, and it is a view derived from the Bible. The Bible is clear on it, in MANY places. But fret not, I am sure Heddle will convince them that it is Translation problems, or Cultural misunderstanding, or faulty Assumptions or Focus problems.

Lenny, wassat Viking Piss? Mead?

The real role of women depicted in the real Bible is not at all as described by the twin ignaramuses
above.

ignaramuses

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 25, 2005 09:03 AM (e) (s) Lenny, wassat Viking Piss? Mead? No, Porter. I like dark beer, and got tired of not being able to find any decent commercially-brewed porter, so I decided to brew my own. :) I have brewed lots of mead, though. When I was in high school, a friend of mine's father used to keep bees, so we got all the free honey we wanted. We used to mix it up with water in a plastic garbage can, drop in some baker's yeast, cover it with a cloth to keep the bugs out, and let it sit for a week or so. Tasted awful, but it had the desired effect. :>

Hey Carol
Harold Bloom recons Women wrote the OT
By the way womem were not allowed to go to stonings
is that right ?
Bag of gravel please.

WOW! Now I am impressed. A yank that likes real beer! Come over to England, we have so much; the pubs sell it.

No one has the slightest evidence that Jesus ever existed,no artifacts,dwellings, self written manuscripts, nothing.Not a single contemporary Roman record of his death. No eye witness accounts,all documents were authored long after Jesus alleged death,hearsay provides no good evidence.Such writtings as Pliny Tacitus Suetonius and Josephus are either vague or are in Josephus case are obvious interpolations.As far as the Talmuds evidence for Jesus,the Yesua that is mentioned actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben Perachia,at least a century before the Xtian Jesus.Considering the Palestinian Talmud derived from the 3rd to 5th century CE and the Babylonian Talmud from the 3rd to 6th century CE,it cannot serve as any evidence for the historical Jesus.Facts do not require belief,facts depend on evidence,the evidence for Jesus simple does not match the criteria

No one has the slightest evidence that Jesus ever existed

There is no doubt that all the three major western religions have little basis in fact,relying on tradition and myth,but faith requires no evidence.The last recourse of apologist is to fall back on allegory,when confronted with the many problems in the Koran or the Bible, allegory permits one to interpret anything however one might please

Indeed. Allegory works quite well for Aesop's Fables, for example.

Carol Wrote : The real role of women depicted in the real Bible is not at all as described by the twin ignaramuses above.

Dr. Frank remarks "Of course, there is MASSIVE contemporary evidence that Mohammed existed." Well, actually there isn't. The Byzantines and Persians who were overrun by Arab armies didn't leave any mention at the time of Mohammed, and the Muslim sources on the history of the earliest period of Islam were put together well after the events they narrate. While scholars have been examining Jewish and Christian scripture skeptically for something over 400 years now, serious philology on the Koran and other Muslim writings is in a much more primitive state. There are lots of unsolved problems over which a host of ill tempered academic debates are currently raging.

Perhaps people tend to credit the sacred history of Islam because it doesn't feature very many impossibilities like the virgin birth or the ressurection, but the plausibility of a story isn't evidence that it is true, just evidence that it isn't false, quite a different thing. Maybe all that stuff happened in Mecca just as they wrote it down 200 years later, but my guess is that at a minimum the tale has been drastically improved after hundreds of retellings.

How true is this...

Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless unless one also claims inerrancy in one's interpretation of it.

Thus...

To claim that a particular interpretation of any part of the Bible is inerrant is to claim that you yourself are inerrant.

Posted by Renier on November 28, 2005 04:06 AM (e) (s) How true is this... Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless unless one also claims inerrancy in one's interpretation of it. Thus... To claim that a particular interpretation of any part of the Bible is inerrant is to claim that you yourself are inerrant.

but my guess is that at a minimum the tale has been drastically improved after hundreds of retellings

The first new testamanet book could not have been written less than 70 years after the claimed death of Christ

This would be akin to multiple Jewish writers penning a history of the twentieth century without mentioning the Holocaust.

How true is this... Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless unless one also claims inerrancy in one's interpretation of it. Thus... To claim that a particular interpretation of any part of the Bible is inerrant is to claim that you yourself are inerrant.

Lenny,

No it wouldn't be anything like that. Do you ever think before you post? Your "counterexamples" might (were they valid, which they are not, but let's grant that) be reasons why one should not believe biblical accounts of Moses and the birth of Christ.

But to assume the gospels and the epistles, even if they are fiction, were written around AD 100 and didn't bother to weave in the destruction of Jerusalem, an event known from independent accounts to be factual, is an entirely different argument. The only argument you could make is that the writers conspired thusly:

1) Let's write a history of events from seventy (or more) years ago, so that we can have cushy ecclesiastical jobs, all that pesky persecution being little more than an annoyance.

2) Oh, let's not mention our holocaust of AD 70 so that it will look like we wrote these before that event.

3) Oh, just for kicks, lets put fake prophecy about AD 70 into the mouth of our invention, Jesus.

4) Oh, but lets be very clever and make it vague. Not in the sense of the Oracle of Delphi, but so that in the distant future, many people will think it refers to a still future event, so that our descendants can continue to milk the same prophetic text as referring to a rapture and great tribulation.

And then you'd have to get Clement of Rome, just for another example, to insert into his writings of that era fictional references to Paul's nonexistent letters to the Corinthians.

And of course, the failure to mention the events of AD 70 is just one reason why the late date is nonsense.

Carol
I think you might need to update with this latesest news...
The real reason why the Christians still owe the Jews a heap.
http://humorvault.tripod.com/moses/moses_2.html

WAit a minute, I thought we were talking abotu Christianity here. Why would Christians want to talk about nasty things happening to Jews, given that part of the point of christianity is that it superseded Judaism?

Guthrie,

Christianity's demarcation as a completely separate religion was not instantaneous. Early Christians still went to the Jerusalem temple. Christianity's long and ugly period of anti-Semitism would not begin until the fourth century. Paul, Peter, James (not to mention Jesus) considered themselves (and in fact were) Jews. Now if they are all fictions, then they were portrayed as being Jews, and in-character they would have certainly commented on the 1st century holocaust---if those ghostwriters knew about it---which they would have if they were they writing after AD 70.

Do you ever think before you post?

Your "counterexamples" might (were they valid, which they are not, but let's grant that) be reasons why one should not believe biblical accounts of Moses and the birth of Christ.

1) Let's write a history of events from seventy (or more) years ago, so that we can have cushy ecclesiastical jobs, all that pesky persecution being little more than an annoyance. 2) Oh, let's not mention our holocaust of AD 70 so that it will look like we wrote these before that event. 3) Oh, just for kicks, lets put fake prophecy about AD 70 into the mouth of our invention, Jesus. 4) Oh, but lets be very clever and make it vague. Not in the sense of the Oracle of Delphi, but so that in the distant future, many people will think it refers to a still future event, so that our descendants can continue to milk the same prophetic text as referring to a rapture and great tribulation.

David

So you believe that the 4 gospels were written by the authors your Bible claim? Or is it possible that it was patchwork from hear-say?

If it was not written by the claimed authors, then it must have been from hear-say. This would explain the little errors found in comparison. There would have been no reason to mention the holocaust really, would there, since they were recording events PRIOR to it. They would have been really stupid if they did mention it. Unless of course, a little sneak prophecy, just to add some spice.