The Mistakes in Genesis

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gordon,

I think it is called 'Theology', Blue

Very droll 

I'm sure there's a technical term for it though - when you twist any historic data to fit any current facts and then claim the historic data to have bee right all along even though it's no such thing. I'll have another look for it.

[wigginhall]

I think blue is right, that there is a word for this, I was thinking of post-rationalization, or post hoc rationalization, or retrofitting, and there is a term for buying something expensive and ignoring its defects, but I can't remember it.   It is easy to do in theology, as for example, in looking at the OT and deciding that a particular text refers to Jesus.   

There is 'postdiction' and 'hindsight bias' although I'm not familiar with them.

[wigginhall]

Also 'vaticinium ex eventu' although this refers to prophecies, written after the event, whereas postdiction means a genuine prophecy which is reinterpreted to fit the facts.   (I think). 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Wiggs,

I think blue is right, that there is a word for this, I was thinking of post-rationalization, or post hoc rationalization, or retrofitting, and there is a term for buying something expensive and ignoring its defects, but I can't remember it.   It is easy to do in theology, as for example, in looking at the OT and deciding that a particular text refers to Jesus.   

Thanks for this. "Hindsight bias" (Wiki: "also known as the knew-it-all-along effect or creeping determinism, is the inclination, after an event has occurred, to see the event as having been predictable, despite there having been little or no objective basis for predicting it") is heading towards it, but I think there's a more specific term still. I suppose hindsight bias fits inasmuch as current science may conclude something, then someone says, "Ah, but if you take verse 3 of Genesis, re-translate it through the the babel fish converter, divide the resulting number of lines by six, take "lion" actually to mean "iPhone 6", then bingo-shmingo, Genesis was right all along!"

Maybe though we need a neologism for it: "TW-ism" perhaps?

     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Also 'vaticinium ex eventu' although this refers to prophecies, written after the event, whereas postdiction means a genuine prophecy which is reinterpreted to fit the facts.   (I think).

Yep, saw those too but again it's the prophecy bit that's slightly off. It's not that TW et al claim that Genesis prophesised the winner of the 4.30 at Kempton Park, but rather that it accurately describes the facts that modern science has only now worked out. 

[DaveM]

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.     

I need some clarification here.  Where in my post did I say that I had decided that Genesis was an accurate scientific description?

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

I need some clarification here.  Where in my post did I say that I had decided that Genesis was an accurate scientific description?

Here:

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.

[DaveM]

DaveM,

I need some clarification here.  Where in my post did I say that I had decided that Genesis was an accurate scientific description?

Here:

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.

No.  I was drawing an analogy between two verses in Scripture, one right at the beginning of the Biblical narrative and one right at the end.  This analogy is only valid provided the same interpretive approach is adopted towards both passages.  Now apart from Chapters 2 & 3 of Revelation, which comprises letters written to real people in real churches with real issues, any attempts to enforce a rigid literal interpretation on the balance of Revelation is unsustainable.  Therefore I am not applying literalism to Genesis 1.  I am simply noting an important truth that can be gleaned from these two passages - a truth which is further reinforced by John 1:9 where the true light (Jesus) was coming into the world.

[Samuel]

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.     

I don't think you can box it up that neatly. Scripture, unlike a scientific thesis can not be revised or abandoned in response to new data, so for a person living 2000 years since they were written they can only reinterpreted them as a way of integrating them into their religious beliefs. I don't see a problem with that, it's simply a neccesary part of an active faith.

Sure, the claims that come out of that can be as ludicrous or reasonable as any offered up by religion, but to see the reinterpretation itself as invalidating scripture then I think you misunderstand it's purpose and function for a person who believes it holds truth if some sort.

[trippymonkey]

Thing is... does the Bible itself see Genesis as literally true???

[jeremyp]

Not sure that Genesis 1-11 is meant to be literal, anyway.

That' not important for the purposes of this thread. We are here to examine TW's assertion that the book of Genesis is scientifically accurate not whether it is meant to be scientifically accurate.

[jeremyp]

3) were written in order to help the exiles understand afresh the difference between the God of the Jews and the gods of Babylon.

So actually very little eh ??

No, actually very much, Nick.  Put succinctly, the God of the Jews was a loving Creator God, with all that that meant for humanity: the Babylonian gods were gods who created things through destruction.

The deity is far from loving, it doesn't know the meaning of the word, as has been pointed out by myself and others many times!

This thread is examining the assertion by TW that Genesis is scientifically accurate. The nature of God is irrelevant to that point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

No.  I was drawing an analogy between two verses in Scripture, one right at the beginning of the Biblical narrative and one right at the end.  This analogy is only valid provided the same interpretive approach is adopted towards both passages.

Well, it's "valid" in that it's internally consistent that way I suppose - much as Harry Potter not liking sprouts in both Book 1 and Book 7 would be valid.

Now apart from Chapters 2 & 3 of Revelation, which comprises letters written to real people in real churches with real issues, any attempts to enforce a rigid literal interpretation on the balance of Revelation is unsustainable.

Fair enough. TW will be pleased to learn that no doubt, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood you here.

Therefore I am not applying literalism to Genesis 1.  I am simply noting an important truth that can be gleaned from these two passages - a truth which is further reinforced by John 1:9 where the true light (Jesus) was coming into the world.

Ah, but Jesus and his "true light" coming in to the world are factual claims. Which brings us full circle I guess.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

That' not important for the purposes of this thread. We are here to examine TW's assertion that the book of Genesis is scientifically accurate not whether it is meant to be scientifically accurate.

Actually he goes even further in his overreach and claims them to be "scientifically verified". Sadly all he has to back the claim is a scientifically illiterate text from a Reverend Collett published in 1909, but there it is nonetheless.

[jeremyp]

Right, it seems people have misunderstood the point of this thread. It is here only to examine the truth or otherwise of TW's assertion that Genesis is scientifically accurate.

I'd appreciate it if people would limit their replies to citing scientific inaccuracies in Genesis and discussion of those inaccuracies, please. Also, it would be nice if TW showed up to defend his assertion.

Thank you.

Another inaccuracy:

Rain doesn't fall through windows in the sky.

[Jack Knave]

Did anyone mention that snakes don't talk.

[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.

Why don't you try to explain why the OP is insane and pure nonsense rather than starting a thread about it on the faith sharing section?

[Dicky Underpants]

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.   

Yet, ironically, BA rather agrees with Floo as regards the god of the Old Testament. So you needn't snuggle up too close. You can hardly have forgotten that BA is a kind of latter-day Marcionite, have you? Perhaps the question of Marcion might be raised yet again - it might tempt BA away from his recent spate of playground behaviour.

[Hope]

This thread is examining the assertion by TW that Genesis is scientifically accurate. The nature of God is irrelevant to that point.

Is it examining whether Gensis as a whole is scientifically accurate, or just parts of it?  After all, all we've had is reference to the first 11 chapters of the book, which is written in a very different style to the rest.

[Jack Knave]

This thread is examining the assertion by TW that Genesis is scientifically accurate. The nature of God is irrelevant to that point.

Is it examining whether Gensis as a whole is scientifically accurate, or just parts of it?  After all, all we've had is reference to the first 11 chapters of the book, which is written in a very different style to the rest.

As a whole no and if parts seem to be scientifically so it is from sheer luck or some form of common sense. What is the point of all this?

[Hope]

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?

So, why are you doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, bhs?  After all, Revelation chapter 2 onwards is widely acknowledged by both scholars and theologians, as well as by all Christians since the book was written, as revelation - in other words not to be understood in a literal manner.  It is you who is ignoring 'its plain meaning and then reinterpret it to fit any set of observable facts you like'.  I realise that many Christians have assumed that the whole of Genesis is 'real' but even the Jews didn't necessarily believe that it was - even before Christ arrived.  That is why I would partially disagree with Samuel's

Scripture, unlike a scientific thesis can not be revised or abandoned in response to new data, ...

Whilst the Scripture hasn't been changed, an earlier understanding that matches the language and literary style of the material far better that has probably only been ignored for about 1000 years, has been rediscovered by - ironically - people who have sought to reclaim Jesus for the Jews.

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

And I would say that that understanding is no better than ~TW~'s original error.  It's social anthropology - no; science - no; analogous theology - yes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

So, why are you doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, bhs?  After all, Revelation chapter 2 onwards is widely acknowledged by both scholars and theologians, as well as by all Christians since the book was written, as revelation - in other words not to be understood in a literal manner.

I'm not. Whether it “reveals” anything (other than the beliefs of the people who wrote it) is, to put it mildly, moot but you’ve missed the point. I was commenting on those who would twist the text any which way so as to decide that it is literally true.

It is you who is ignoring 'its plain meaning and then reinterpret it to fit any set of observable facts you like'.  I realise that many Christians have assumed that the whole of Genesis is 'real' but even the Jews didn't necessarily believe that it was - even before Christ arrived.  That is why I would partially disagree with Samuel's

I’ve done no such thing – see above.

Whilst the Scripture hasn't been changed, an earlier understanding that matches the language and literary style of the material far better that has probably only been ignored for about 1000 years, has been rediscovered by - ironically - people who have sought to reclaim Jesus for the Jews.

No doubt. So? Newer and better translations of early creation myths are fascinating no doubt for those who study these things, but that’s of no relevance to those who overreach and claim this particular suite of myths to be literally true.

Which is what this thread is about.

And I would say that that understanding is no better than ~TW~'s original error.  It's social anthropology - no; science - no; analogous theology - yes.

Then you would say wrongly. Social anthropologists study the customs, cultural beliefs, relationships etc of social groups – and Genesis is a good documented example of just those kinds of customs, cultural beliefs, relationships etc of the tribes who inspired or wrote it.

If you also want to give it a reading that you call “analogous theology” that’s fine, but you’d still have all your work ahead of you if you wanted to establish too that any of its factual claims are facts.

[Gonnagle]

Dearly Misguided,

Page three on my old mate TW's ramblings

There are no mistakes in Genesis, well only if you think debating with TW will be a step forward.

And God saw that it was good, but he said, I better consult with TW just in case.

Gonnagle.

PS: I was two whole days without internet, I had to use my own brain for thinking

[jeremyp]

This thread is examining the assertion by TW that Genesis is scientifically accurate. The nature of God is irrelevant to that point.

Is it examining whether Gensis as a whole is scientifically accurate, or just parts of it?  After all, all we've had is reference to the first 11 chapters of the book, which is written in a very different style to the rest.

TW claimed that Genesis was scientifically verified. Therefore, you are free to post scientific inaccuracies from any part of it.

[Hope]

TW claimed that Genesis was scientifically verified. Therefore, you are free to post scientific inaccuracies from any part of it.

jeremy, according to your OP, ~TW~ only claims that the creation story was scientifically verified.  So, that is only the first two chapters of Genesis at best.

I realise that you have quoted another post of his which refers to mistakes in Genesis (the source thread of which isn't mentioned), but the gist of the poists so far have all been to do with the 'scientifically verified' claim.

May I suggest that a separate thread is started for 'the mistakes in Genesis as a whole', reserving this one for the verification issue, as there are two distinct genres of writing in Genesis - chapters 1-11 and 12 onwards.

With the exception of his dismissive post #35, ~TW~ hasn't posted any additional thought to  this thread, so perhaps we ought to be restricting the debate to the parameters that you set in the OP.