There is no health in us.

[Sassy]

And you know all that for a fact do you? GET REAL , Sass!

Of course, I know all that for a fact... but tell me why you question it when you have no idea as to what is fact and isn't when it comes to the bible?

[Leonard James]

We just go round in circles, Sass. We both think we are right, and there is no way of proving that either of us is. 

[floo]

And you know all that for a fact do you? GET REAL , Sass!

Of course, I know all that for a fact... but tell me why you question it when you have no idea as to what is fact and isn't when it comes to the bible?

The less than credible is unlikely to be factual where that book is concerned!

[Leonard James]

Of course, I know all that for a fact... but tell me why you question it when you have no idea as to what is fact and isn't when it comes to the bible?

Nor do you or anybody else. The Bible contains fact and fiction and nobody, but NOBODY knows which is which in every verse.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course, I know all that for a fact... but tell me why you question it when you have no idea as to what is fact and isn't when it comes to the bible?

Nor do you or anybody else. The Bible contains fact and fiction and nobody, but NOBODY knows which is which in every verse.

That sounds like a ''Jamesrelisation''.

What do you mean by it? How can you tell your statement is true?

[Leonard James]

Of course, I know all that for a fact... but tell me why you question it when you have no idea as to what is fact and isn't when it comes to the bible?

Nor do you or anybody else. The Bible contains fact and fiction and nobody, but NOBODY knows which is which in every verse.

That sounds like a ''Jamesrelisation''.

What do you mean by it? How can you tell your statement is true?

Elementary, my dear. Tell me somebody who knows (rather than thinks he knows) exactly which verses are true and which aren't.

[2Corrie]

If you don't know which verses are fact or fiction, how can you then state that the Bible contains fact and fiction.?

[Leonard James]

If you don't know which verses are fact or fiction, how can you then state that the Bible contains fact and fiction.?

Because there are contradictions in it, and Science has proven Genesis the story to be wrong.

[floo]

If you don't know which verses are fact or fiction, how can you then state that the Bible contains fact and fiction.?

Easily, in my opinion there is a lot more fiction than fact!

[Alien]

If you don't know which verses are fact or fiction, how can you then state that the Bible contains fact and fiction.?

Because there are contradictions in it, and Science has proven Genesis the story to be wrong.

Really?

[Alien]

If you don't know which verses are fact or fiction, how can you then state that the Bible contains fact and fiction.?

Easily, in my opinion there is a lot more fiction than fact!

It's your opinion because it is your opinion?

[floo]

If you don't know which verses are fact or fiction, how can you then state that the Bible contains fact and fiction.?

Easily, in my opinion there is a lot more fiction than fact!

It's your opinion because it is your opinion?

Yes it is my opinion. As there is not the slightest bit of evidence to back up the less than credible stories, the surmise that they are most likely fiction, or at best highly exaggerated, has to be the default position, unless evidence to back them up is discovered.

[Leonard James]

If you don't know which verses are fact or fiction, how can you then state that the Bible contains fact and fiction.?

Because there are contradictions in it, and Science has proven Genesis the story to be wrong.

Really?

Yes, really! You can come out with all the contra arguments you like, but the universe wasn't created in seven days, each with its morning and evening.

[Alien]

If you don't know which verses are fact or fiction, how can you then state that the Bible contains fact and fiction.?

Because there are contradictions in it, and Science has proven Genesis the story to be wrong.

Really?

Yes, really! You can come out with all the contra arguments you like, but the universe wasn't created in seven days, each with its morning and evening.

Yes, I know the universe was not created in seven days (or even six). And?

[Leonard James]

Yes, I know the universe was not created in seven days (or even six). And?
[/quote]

You asked for something the Bible says which was proved wrong. I gave you something.

[Alien]

Yes, I know the universe was not created in seven days (or even six). And?

You asked for something the Bible says which was proved wrong. I gave you something.

No, you didn't.

[floo]

Yes, I know the universe was not created in seven days (or even six). And?

You asked for something the Bible says which was proved wrong. I gave you something.

No, you didn't.

Yes he did!

[Alien]

Yes, I know the universe was not created in seven days (or even six). And?

You asked for something the Bible says which was proved wrong. I gave you something.

No, you didn't.

Yes he did!

No, he did not.

Have you never taken part in any discussions on Genesis on this board or the BBC boards, Floo?

[BashfulAnthony]

Yes, I know the universe was not created in seven days (or even six). And?

You asked for something the Bible says which was proved wrong. I gave you something.

No, you didn't.

Yes he did!

No, he did not.

Have you never taken part in any discussions on Genesis on this board or the BBC boards, Floo?

She might be able to bring a few hundred to mind...       

[floo]

Yes, I know the universe was not created in seven days (or even six). And?

You asked for something the Bible says which was proved wrong. I gave you something.

No, you didn't.

Yes he did!

No, he did not.

Have you never taken part in any discussions on Genesis on this board or the BBC boards, Floo?

Plenty I suppose, I really don't remember as they aren't exactly memorable!

[Alien]

Yes, I know the universe was not created in seven days (or even six). And?

You asked for something the Bible says which was proved wrong. I gave you something.

No, you didn't.

Yes he did!

No, he did not.

Have you never taken part in any discussions on Genesis on this board or the BBC boards, Floo?

Plenty I suppose, I really don't remember as they aren't exactly memorable!

But you are aware that many Christians (who see themselves are holding to the inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures), from at least as far back as Origen, have understood the early chapters of Genesis to include symbolism?

[floo]

Yes, I know the universe was not created in seven days (or even six). And?

You asked for something the Bible says which was proved wrong. I gave you something.

No, you didn't.

Yes he did!

No, he did not.

Have you never taken part in any discussions on Genesis on this board or the BBC boards, Floo?

Plenty I suppose, I really don't remember as they aren't exactly memorable!

But you are aware that many Christians (who see themselves are holding to the inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures), from at least as far back as Origen, have understood the early chapters of Genesis to include symbolism?

I am aware that many, probably most Christians aren't Biblical literalists. I am also aware that some Biblical literalists will play the allegory/symbolism card when it suits!

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes, I know the universe was not created in seven days (or even six). And?

You asked for something the Bible says which was proved wrong. I gave you something.

No, you didn't.

Yes he did!

No, he did not.

Have you never taken part in any discussions on Genesis on this board or the BBC boards, Floo?

Plenty I suppose, I really don't remember as they aren't exactly memorable!

But you are aware that many Christians (who see themselves are holding to the inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures), from at least as far back as Origen, have understood the early chapters of Genesis to include symbolism?

But I'm afraid Leonard's post below still holds true: 

Leonard wrote:

Nor do you or anybody else. The Bible contains fact and fiction and nobody, but NOBODY knows which is which in every verse.

The fact that Origen's approach involved a multi-layered approach to the scriptures, often involving several levels of symbolism*, and the fact that this in turn reflects a long-established rabbinic approach to scripture, does not in itself tell us definitively that that is how the original writer of Genesis 1 intended the original text to be interpreted. We simply cannot know - neither you nor I nor anybody were there looking over the scribe's shoulder and holding daily conversations with him as to what he meant.
You know there is a field of scholarship that refers to this writer as the Priestly Author, who is also thought to have written most of Leviticus. This author shows an intensely pedantic approach to times and dates and every other bloody thing concerning Jewish life - so there exists the strong possibility that when he said "Days", he meant days, not vast periods of time.
However, as I said - we can't possibly know for sure. What we do know is that the religious troglodytes out there who think the world and life on it was created in six days are totally wrong.


*This 'symbolic' approach of course can go on endlessly, and is very useful if you take an inerrant view of scripture, and you have to explain away  certain passages which appear to have a 'scientific' feel to them. When the findings of science eventually do away with any possibility that such scriptures could have any literal sense to them - just say "It's all symbolic" - and hey presto! the authority of scripture is rescued yet again.

Better to admit that perhaps this is what those ancient peoples thought then, and that in these respects they were wrong. That is not to say there are not other things to be learned still from ancient scripture.

[Alien]

...

But I'm afraid Leonard's post below still holds true: 

Leonard wrote:

Nor do you or anybody else. The Bible contains fact and fiction and nobody, but NOBODY knows which is which in every verse.

And so what. I don't know how to understand every verse in the bible and neither do you or Len (I know you wouldn't claim it either). Does that mean you and I have no idea of what it teaches? Are we to say that Genesis 1 does not teach that God created the universe, inc. the heavens and the earth, that he created man in his own image and so on?

The fact that Origen's approach involved a multi-layered approach to the scriptures, often involving several levels of symbolism*, and the fact that this in turn reflects a long-established rabbinic approach to scripture, does not in itself tell us definitively that that is how the original writer of Genesis 1 intended the original text to be interpreted. We simply cannot know - neither you nor I nor anybody were there looking over the scribes shoulder and holding daily conversations with him as to what he meant.
You know there is a field of scholarship that refers to this writer as the Priestly Author, who is also thought to have written most of Leviticus. This author shows an intensely pedantic approach to times and dates and every other bloody thing concerning Jewish life - so there exists the strong possibility that when he said "Days", he meant days, not vast periods of time.
However, as I said - we can't possibly know for sure. What we do know is that the religious troglodytes out there who think the world and life on it was created in six days are totally wrong.

So, to use your term, "we can't possibly know for sure" so that means Len has not proved Genesis 1 to be wrong. To be able to prove that he would need to be able to show that it should be taken entirely literally, as if it were a scientific text.

*This 'symbolic' approach of course can go on endlessly, and is very useful if you take an inerrant view of scripture, and you have to explain away  certain passages which appear to have a 'scientific' feel to them.

Which ones would those be, please?

When the findings of science eventually do away with any possibility that such scriptures could have any literal sense to them - just say "It's all symbolic" - and hey presto! the authority of scripture is rescued yet again.

Well, I don't claim that the Scriptures teach any science. Neither did people like Calvin, who wrote in his commentary on Genesis 1, "He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere..."

Better to admit that perhaps this is what those ancient peoples thought then, and that in these respects they were wrong. That is not to say there are not other things to be learned still from ancient scripture.

So we are to say they were wrong when "we can't possibly know for sure". That would not be a logical thing to do, surely.

[Dicky Underpants]

...

But I'm afraid Leonard's post below still holds true: 

Leonard wrote:

Nor do you or anybody else. The Bible contains fact and fiction and nobody, but NOBODY knows which is which in every verse.

And so what. I don't know how to understand every verse in the bible and neither do you or Len (I know you wouldn't claim it either). Does that mean you and I have no idea of what it teaches? Are we to say that Genesis 1 does not teach that God created the universe, inc. the heavens and the earth, that he created man in his own image and so on?

The fact that Origen's approach involved a multi-layered approach to the scriptures, often involving several levels of symbolism*, and the fact that this in turn reflects a long-established rabbinic approach to scripture, does not in itself tell us definitively that that is how the original writer of Genesis 1 intended the original text to be interpreted. We simply cannot know - neither you nor I nor anybody were there looking over the scribes shoulder and holding daily conversations with him as to what he meant.
You know there is a field of scholarship that refers to this writer as the Priestly Author, who is also thought to have written most of Leviticus. This author shows an intensely pedantic approach to times and dates and every other bloody thing concerning Jewish life - so there exists the strong possibility that when he said "Days", he meant days, not vast periods of time.
However, as I said - we can't possibly know for sure. What we do know is that the religious troglodytes out there who think the world and life on it was created in six days are totally wrong.

So, to use your term, "we can't possibly know for sure" so that means Len has not proved Genesis 1 to be wrong. To be able to prove that he would need to be able to show that it should be taken entirely literally, as if it were a scientific text.

*This 'symbolic' approach of course can go on endlessly, and is very useful if you take an inerrant view of scripture, and you have to explain away  certain passages which appear to have a 'scientific' feel to them.

Which ones would those be, please?

Joshua making the sun stand still, Isaiah referring to "the circle (not sphere) of the earth" - that sort of thing.

When the findings of science eventually do away with any possibility that such scriptures could have any literal sense to them - just say "It's all symbolic" - and hey presto! the authority of scripture is rescued yet again.

Well, I don't claim that the Scriptures teach any science. Neither did people like Calvin, who wrote in his commentary on Genesis 1, "He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere..."

I'm very glad to hear it, and so long as Christians stick with the interpretation of  Genesis simply expressing the idea that God is the source of everything, I've nothing to gripe about. Nonetheless, you yourself have been known to go to extreme lengths to explain what the nature of the Flood may have been. Now this may not be taking the view that Bible actually teaches any science, but your approach certainly takes in modern views of geology and knowledge of the material world to demonstrate that the traditional literal approach is not true. And this is still to rescue some truth from scripture, rather than saying "I'm afraid this did not happen". It's just a funny old story, trying to make the point that if you do bad things, you'll get it in the neck - and in this respect, the writer of Job (for instance) was much more realistic and sophisticated, since he knew that this simple moral equation was not true.

Better to admit that perhaps this is what those ancient peoples thought then, and that in these respects they were wrong. That is not to say there are not other things to be learned still from ancient scripture.

So we are to say they were wrong when "we can't possibly know for sure". That would not be a logical thing to do, surely.

It depends whether one considers there's anything worthwhile to be learned from these ancient texts, or whether one just treats them as worn-out old stories. I'm not one to reject the lot of them, as you probably know. Job and Ecclesiastes are much more worthy of reflection. And occasionally, one gets some strange little nuggets of psychological insight, like the story of the rape of Tamar.....