The Mistakes in Genesis

[Hope]

And your 'point' is ?

I think BA's point is that Floo makes this assertion in some way almost every day, yet never provides any plausible evidence for the assertion.  Nor, for that matter. has any of the 'others' she refers to.

[Hope]

That was the 'loving creator' that wiped out humanity down to a single family, destroyed every living thing in Sodom and Gomorrah, arranged a situation to justify his slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt and created people with curiosity then turned people into pillars of salt for looking at something happening... that's the sort of 'love' that abusive spouses demonstrates. It might be a form of love, but it sure as hell isn't one you want to celebrate or be proud of.

O.

O, abusive spouses do not, in reality, punish their partners for anything that they have done; the perp. may think that they have when in the depths of alcohol-induced anger, depression or whatever.  Furthermore, they don't give the partner the opportunity to ask for forgiveness or to change their way of living if they have done something wrong.  In every occasion that you mention, bar the one about the innocents (which was purely Herod's fault anyway), God gave the wrongdoers the opportunity to repent and change their ways.  I think you will agree that parents who are worth their salt do the same, applying any ultimate punishment only if a child refuses to apologise/admit to something that they are clearly guilty of/etc.  Sometimes, some other degree of punishment, to get the child to accept the consequences of their action, also has to be administered.

[Outrider]

Maeght, I think the problem with the question is that science has to do with knowledge.  'Why' something happens is no less 'scientific' than 'how'.  Whilst the narrow understanding of science is adhered to by some, we will never gain any depth or breadth of 'knowledge'

Why something happens is begging the question. How something happens is not. Whilst people continue to presume there must be a 'why' in the absence of any justification, we will always be battling against superstition.

O.

[Hope]

As I have said on many occasions, and will continue to say, Satan couldn't be any worse than the oh so 'loving' deity in the Bible!

And I and others will continue to ask you for solid evidence that supports that continual assertion, Floo.

[Hope]

Why something happens is begging the question. How something happens is not. Whilst people continue to presume there must be a 'why' in the absence of any justification, we will always be battling against superstition.

I would disagree, O.  On the occasios I had to punish one or other of my daughters, I would rarely explain in detail how I was going to punish them.  I would, on the other hand, explain why I was punishing them - and in detail - so that they understood the reasoning behind the punishment.

Clearly, if one's philosophy of life doesn't include a reason for human life, the whole concept could be deemed to be 'begging the question', but then I suppose why would have to regard anything one does as having no real reason and therefore your having no real answer to anyone who asks why you do something.

[Outrider]

O, abusive spouses do not, in reality, punish their partners for anything that they have done; the perp. may think that they have when in the depths of alcohol-induced anger, depression or whatever.

And the firstborn of Egypt had done something wrong? Not, of course, that ANYONE had done anything punishable, given that god forces Pharaoh to hold out until he has an excuse for the slaughter.

Furthermore, they don't give the partner the opportunity to ask for forgiveness or to change their way of living if they have done something wrong.

Why do they need to seek forgiveness for not having done anything wrong?

In every occasion that you mention, bar the one about the innocents (which was purely Herod's fault anyway), God gave the wrongdoers the opportunity to repent and change their ways.

1. Nothing has established these people had done anything wrong.
2. Even if some of them had, there is no way the children of Sodom and Gomorrah, the firstborn of Egypt or every child on the planet that wasn't the son of Noah had perpetrated sufficient crimes to warrant punishment
3. What crime justifies capital punishment by drowning?

I think you will agree that parents who are worth their salt do the same, applying any ultimate punishment only if a child refuses to apologise/admit to something that they are clearly guilty of/etc.

Really? I think, increasingly, people realise that there is less and less need for 'punishment' in any real sense, clearly expressing disappointment and reinforcing good behaviour is far more effective.

Sometimes, some other degree of punishment, to get the child to accept the consequences of their action, also has to be administered.

How much better is the behaviour of dead people after that level of sanction?

O.

[Gordon]

I would disagree, O.  On the occasios I had to punish one or other of my daughters, I would rarely explain in detail how I was going to punish them.  I would, on the other hand, explain why I was punishing them - and in detail - so that they understood the reasoning behind the punishment.

Not a valid example: in this scenario you had a reason (a 'why') to administer whatever form of punishment you decided upon.

Clearly, if one's philosophy of life doesn't include a reason for human life, the whole concept could be deemed to be 'begging the question'.

Yep - as you so ably and regularly demonstrate, asking 'why' in some circumstances is begging the question.

but then I suppose why would have to regard anything one does as having no real reason and therefore your having no real answer to anyone who asks why you do something.

Nope - in some cases 'why' is a valid question and in other cases it is the fallacy of begging the question: the key thing is to only ask 'why' when it is an appropriate question to ask.

[Outrider]

Why something happens is begging the question. How something happens is not. Whilst people continue to presume there must be a 'why' in the absence of any justification, we will always be battling against superstition.

I would disagree, O.  On the occasios I had to punish one or other of my daughters, I would rarely explain in detail how I was going to punish them.  I would, on the other hand, explain why I was punishing them - and in detail - so that they understood the reasoning behind the punishment.

However, the punishment was clearly happening, and you had reason to think there was a reason. There is no reason to think there is a 'reason' for creation.

Clearly, if one's philosophy of life doesn't include a reason for human life, the whole concept could be deemed to be 'begging the question', but then I suppose why would have to regard anything one does as having no real reason and therefore your having no real answer to anyone who asks why you do something.

As a conscious agent there are reasons for much of what I do (and some other things for which there is no conscious reason). In the absence of any evidence for a creator or a conscious element to 'creation' ...

O.

[~TW~]

Having looked at JP's insane 1st post which is pure nonsense and having noticed Gordon chipping in and I notice he failed miserably to reply to my post on the other thread.

 I will dismiss this thread as total delirium and let you get on with it.

  ~TW~

[Maeght]

So is it scientifically accurate?

Maeght, I think the problem with the question is that science has to do with knowledge.  'Why' something happens is no less 'scientific' than 'how'.  Whilst the narrow understanding of science is adhered to by some, we will never gain any depth or breadth of 'knowledge'

Yes, science has to do with knowledge. The thread is about the idea that Genesis is scientifically accurate i.e. the information conforms with our knowledge which has been derived from scientific study. My point in re asking the question is that other aspects of interpretation are not related to the very specific point made in the OP about claims made by TW and others. The thread todate doesn't seem to be addressing that but drifting off on a tangient.

[Maeght]

Having looked at JP's insane 1st post which is pure nonsense and having noticed Gordon chipping in and I notice he failed miserably to reply to my post on the other thread.

 I will dismiss this thread as total delirium and let you get on with it.

  ~TW~

Would be better to explain why the OP is insane and pure nonsense.

[SqueakyVoice]

Having looked at JP's insane 1st post which is pure nonsense and having noticed Gordon chipping in and I notice he failed miserably to reply to my post on the other thread.

 I will dismiss this thread as total delirium and let you get on with it.

  ~TW~

Would be better to explain why the OP is insane and pure nonsense.

Judging by TW'S standards anything that's clearly expressed, grammatically correct and spelt properly qualifies as pure nonsense.

[floo]

As I have said on many occasions, and will continue to say, Satan couldn't be any worse than the oh so 'loving' deity in the Bible!

And I and others will continue to ask you for solid evidence that supports that continual assertion, Floo.

And I will keep asking you and others like you what is 'loving' about the Biblical deity? If any human behaved in the way it is supposed to have behaved, they would be roundly condemned by all right minded people, and steps would be taken to eliminate them.

[BashfulAnthony]

As I have said on many occasions, and will continue to say, Satan couldn't be any worse than the oh so 'loving' deity in the Bible!

And I and others will continue to ask you for solid evidence that supports that continual assertion, Floo.

And I will keep asking you and others like you what is 'loving' about the Biblical deity? If any human behaved in the way it is supposed to have behaved, they would be roundly condemned by all right minded people, and steps would be taken to e...

I think you've been asking that silly question now for about ten years:  so maybe you're wasting your time.  No, you're wasting your time

[Maeght]

Having looked at JP's insane 1st post which is pure nonsense and having noticed Gordon chipping in and I notice he failed miserably to reply to my post on the other thread.

 I will dismiss this thread as total delirium and let you get on with it.

  ~TW~

Would be better to explain why the OP is insane and pure nonsense.

Judging by TW'S standards anything that's clearly expressed, grammatically correct and spelt properly qualifies as pure nonsense.

There will never be a chance of having a sensible discussion if people just make little unnecessary digs all the time though.

[Hope]

And the firstborn of Egypt had done something wrong? Not, of course, that ANYONE had done anything punishable, given that god forces Pharaoh to hold out until he has an excuse for the slaughter.

Yet he had given Pharoah several chances to let the people of Israel go, before getting to this final stage.  Pharoah had chosen not to.

Why do they need to seek forgiveness for not having done anything wrong?

Read my post again; I didn't said that they had to.

1. Nothing has established these people had done anything wrong.
2. Even if some of them had, there is no way the children of Sodom and Gomorrah, the firstborn of Egypt or every child on the planet that wasn't the son of Noah had perpetrated sufficient crimes to warrant punishment
3. What crime justifies capital punishment by drowning?

O, I should have pointed out that, since the Flood story occurs within the first 11 chapters of Genesis, it is a theological treatment, not a historical account.  My apologies, though I would hope that most people here would have been aware of this undertanding in view of the various occasions I've pointed it out.

Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, they are considered to be pretty horrendous places even outside of the Biblical record, so I suspect that there are things that we have little of no knowledge about now.

Egypt: If one thinks about punishment, it only really works when it impacts on something that the person being punished holds dear.  In the Ancient Middle East, the first-born was probably the most important thing for a family.  There had been a steadily escalating degree of punishment for every time that Pharoah, as the representative of his nation, refused to release the Jews.  Sometimes he would agree, only to retract his agreement; sometimes, he simply refused.  In the particular circumstances, it was the norm that the nation shared the 'punishment' suffered by a defeated leader.

I think you will agree that parents who are worth their salt do the same, applying any ultimate punishment only if a child refuses to apologise/admit to something that they are clearly guilty of/etc.

Really? I think, increasingly, people realise that there is less and less need for 'punishment' in any real sense, clearly expressing disappointment and reinforcing good behaviour is far more effective.

Can't say that I've noticed this, let alone ever reading any evidence to support this idea.  Reinforcing good behaviour only works when it goes hand in hand with allowing a child to experience the consequences of their wrong-doing.

How much better is the behaviour of dead people after that level of sanction?

I didn't realise that Pharoah, for instance, died with his first-born.

[Hope]

I think you've been asking that silly question now for about ten years:  so maybe you're wasting your time.  No, you're wasting your time

BA, I think that Floo hopes that, by constant repetition of her assertion, she'll come to believe its truth.   

[Gordon]

Having looked at JP's insane 1st post which is pure nonsense and having noticed Gordon chipping in and I notice he failed miserably to reply to my post on the other thread.

 I will dismiss this thread as total delirium and let you get on with it.

  ~TW~

TW

You referenced a religious book that is over a century old, isn't a science book and where Outrider pointed out that what page 261 says (the page you specifically mentioned) is plain wrong - not much more need be said.

If you want to talk about the science I'd say you need to at least reference genuine up-to-date science literature from professional scientists, and not this type of old religious nonsense or modern creationist drivel.

[BashfulAnthony]

I think you've been asking that silly question now for about ten years:  so maybe you're wasting your time.  No, you're wasting your time

BA, I think that Floo hopes that, by constant repetition of her assertion, she'll come to believe its truth.   

You'd think she'd try and understand what the Gospel's true message is.

[floo]

I think you've been asking that silly question now for about ten years:  so maybe you're wasting your time.  No, you're wasting your time

BA, I think that Floo hopes that, by constant repetition of her assertion, she'll come to believe its truth.   

Hope one day you might  actually answer the much asked question, "what is loving about the Biblical deity." I won't hold my breath though, because you can't!

[Outrider]

Yet he had given Pharoah several chances to let the people of Israel go, before getting to this final stage.  Pharoah had chosen not to.

1 - yet when Pharoah was ready to submit God 'hardened his heart'.
2 - in what way does anything Pharoah does justify killing (other people's) children?

Why do they need to seek forgiveness for not having done anything wrong?

Read my post again; I didn't said that they had to.

Your post implies that they could have avoided punishment by seeking forgiveness, at least that's how it reads to me.

1. Nothing has established these people had done anything wrong.
2. Even if some of them had, there is no way the children of Sodom and Gomorrah, the firstborn of Egypt or every child on the planet that wasn't the son of Noah had perpetrated sufficient crimes to warrant punishment
3. What crime justifies capital punishment by drowning?

O, I should have pointed out that, since the Flood story occurs within the first 11 chapters of Genesis, it is a theological treatment, not a historical account.  My apologies, though I would hope that most people here would have been aware of this undertanding in view of the various occasions I've pointed it out.

I get that it's not, in your opinion, a literal account - I'm still curious as to what the object lesson is supposed to be. I'm struggling to find the 'morality' of an implicit threat to entire communities for the actions of some, to the veneration of a man that would offer up his own children for rape to avoid homosexual activity, that posits lethal punishment for either curiosity or disobedience.

Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, they are considered to be pretty horrendous places even outside of the Biblical record, so I suspect that there are things that we have little of no knowledge about now.

Perhaps, but surely a lesson about 'rescuing' the good and/or innocent from the dens of iniquity would have been a better moral lesson than their destruction in entirety? Even if it's a post hoc rationalisation for a previous war/natural event a tale that spoke of the innocent being rescued or at least mourned would speak better?

Egypt: If one thinks about punishment, it only really works when it impacts on something that the person being punished holds dear.  In the Ancient Middle East, the first-born was probably the most important thing for a family.  There had been a steadily escalating degree of punishment for every time that Pharoah, as the representative of his nation, refused to release the Jews.  Sometimes he would agree, only to retract his agreement; sometimes, he simply refused.  In the particular circumstances, it was the norm that the nation shared the 'punishment' suffered by a defeated leader.

Why is a god limited by the savagery of the human cultures of the time? Why is god not setting the example we'd expect now, or better the one we can only dream of in the future?

Can't say that I've noticed this, let alone ever reading any evidence to support this idea.  Reinforcing good behaviour only works when it goes hand in hand with allowing a child to experience the consequences of their wrong-doing.

Consequences of actions, yes, but punishment isn't an intrinsic consequence, it's a choice on your part.

How much better is the behaviour of dead people after that level of sanction?

I didn't realise that Pharoah, for instance, died with his first-born.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of Sodom and Gomorrah, but even if we're talking Pharoah and it was effective, that still doesn't even come close to justifying the idea of the slaughter of even Pharoah's child, let alone anyone else's.

O.

[ippy]

And your 'point' is ?

I think BA's point is that Floo makes this assertion in some way almost every day, yet never provides any plausible evidence for the assertion.  Nor, for that matter. has any of the 'others' she refers to.

You're off on one again Hope; once you manage to establish in an incontravertible way that your, at present only an idea of, god exists perhaps you might then be able to explain to Floo how you've managed to come to a conclusion that she has got it wrong.

Remember Hope it's you that are referring to a god thingy that you have, to date, been unable to come up with credible evidence that would support your god idea/belief/faith, define the soppy idea however you wish to.

You and your fellow reliosos came up with the god idea so it's for you and yours to justify it, before there is any need for  any kind of argument about whatever it is your god idea is supposed to have done or not.

I can't think why it is that you seem to be so totally unable to understand the above Hope, is it because you suspect somewhere in the deepest corner of your mind that the the god idea is in fact a load of old tripe, which it more than likely is, so you feel there is a need invite others to to prove something that, could if evidence of god was found, would remove this nagging thought in that darkest corner of your mind where you have this alarming, to you, thought, that these atheists might have got it right?   

ippy

[DaveM]

From the point of view of the author of the Pentateuch, the light on the first day probably came from God Himself. The pillar of fire (Exodus 13:21) that provided light for the Israelites is an example. Exodus 14:20 shows how, during the night, it brought darkness to the Egyptians and light to the Israelites. So it was effectively "separating  light and dark" like in Genesis 1:4.

I would agree with that and it is a view which I think finds support right at the end of Scripture.  In the description of the new Jerusalem in Rev 20:22 we read, 'And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of the Lord gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb'.  Interesting that right at the beginning of time and again right at the end there is light but no sun.  If the Lord is the light right at the end then it is fair to conclude that He is also the source of light right at the start. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

I would agree with that and it is a view which I think finds support right at the end of Scripture.  In the description of the new Jerusalem in Rev 20:22 we read, 'And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of the Lord gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb'.  Interesting that right at the beginning of time and again right at the end there is light but no sun.  If the Lord is the light right at the end then it is fair to conclude that He is also the source of light right at the start.

It's interesting isn't it this phenomenon - that you can take any data, ignore its plain meaning and then reinterpret it to fit any set of observable facts you like. I did it once on the old BBC Board by using premier league stats to "predict" whatever happened to be in the news that week. Sadly I've long since lost it, but I'm pretty sure there's a word for the process of doing it. Does anyone here know it?

Clearly the moment you fall into the trap of TW-ism and decide that Genesis is an accurate scientific description then reality will smack you in the face because the facts contradict pretty much everything it has to say. If you don't overreach though and take it as merely one of many early and crude attempts to explain the otherwise inexplicable, then it's interesting enough in its own right as a piece of folklore.

And that's the problem here I think - overreaching: social anthropology, yes; science, no.       

[Gordon]

It's interesting isn't it this phenomenon - that you can take any data, ignore its plain meaning and then reinterpret it to fit any set of observable facts you like. I did it once on the old BBC Board by using premier league stats to "predict" whatever happened to be in the news that week. Sadly I've long since lost it, but I'm pretty sure there's a word for the process of doing it. Does anyone here know it?

I think it is called 'Theology', Blue