The Mistakes in Genesis (Pt 2)

[Hope]

In view of the confusion on jeremy's original 'Mistakes in Genesis' thread, I've started this thread so that people can post the mistakes in the part of Genesis that is generally regarded as being historical in nature (Chapters 12 onwards) as opposed to the first 11 chapters (or perhaps- for jeremy's purposes - just the first 2, the creation story) which are increasingly been understood to be later in authorship and theological in nature.

[Owlswing]

In view of the confusion on jeremy's original 'Mistakes in Genesis' thread, I've started this thread so that people can post the mistakes in the part of Genesis that is generally regarded as being historical in nature (Chapters 12 onwards) as opposed to the first 11 chapters (or perhaps- for jeremy's purposes - just the first 2, the creation story) which are increasingly been understood to be later in authorship and theological in nature.

Why single out the first "chapter" in a book that is, in its entirety, a load of rubbich.

[jeremyp]

I've started this thread so that people can post the mistakes in the part of Genesis that is generally regarded as being historical in nature (Chapters 12 onwards)

No part of Genesis is generally regarded as being historical. There isn't a scrap of evidence to suggest that the stories of the patriarchs actually stem from the days when they are alleged to have lived.

[floo]

I've started this thread so that people can post the mistakes in the part of Genesis that is generally regarded as being historical in nature (Chapters 12 onwards)

No part of Genesis is generally regarded as being historical. There isn't a scrap of evidence to suggest that the stories of the patriarchs actually stem from the days when they are alleged to have lived.

Evidence to support much of what is written in the Bible is in very short supply!

[DaveM]

In view of the confusion on jeremy's original 'Mistakes in Genesis' thread, I've started this thread so that people can post the mistakes in the part of Genesis that is generally regarded as being historical in nature (Chapters 12 onwards) as opposed to the first 11 chapters (or perhaps- for jeremy's purposes - just the first 2, the creation story) which are increasingly been understood to be later in authorship and theological in nature.

Morning Hope,

Re the section of your post which I have highlighted in bold. Perhaps a topic for a separate thread, I do think it needs to be stated that there is anything but general agreement amongst scholars in regards to that view.  My understanding is that it a view which is being increasingly challenged today. 

[ippy]

In view of the confusion on jeremy's original 'Mistakes in Genesis' thread, I've started this thread so that people can post the mistakes in the part of Genesis that is generally regarded as being historical in nature (Chapters 12 onwards) as opposed to the first 11 chapters (or perhaps- for jeremy's purposes - just the first 2, the creation story) which are increasingly been understood to be later in authorship and theological in nature.

How is it you can dismiss parts of this manual of yours at will and pick up on other bits without presenting it as a make up your own plot type manual as you go along to suit?

Only it, the manual, did make me wonder why that, seeing that we don't have talking snakes anymore, well none that I've heard of, what evolutionary process would have let them be bypassed and apparently allowed them to die out Hope?

Wouldn't the snake's ability to speak have been an advantage in evolutionary terms and it did make me wonder how it is that they've all gone?

Then if the snake example can be dismissed why can't all of the rest of the magical, mystical superstitious parts be dismissed, because those parts of your manual have as much credibility as talking snakes but, oh no we can't remove those magical mystical superstitious parts, why?

You make a nonsense of your own manual without the help of others and then amongst the nonsense statement of, "no you can discount those bits of the manual", then when challenged about your nonsense one of the first things you come up with is prove it's not true prove there isn't a god?

No I've not quoted you verbatim it's only an approximation of what it is you give the impression you are expressing.

I am unable to see any sensible reason why you cling on to this religious nonsense any more than that those that think Elvis is still hanging around and if he was he'd be about as much use to all of us as your unfounded beliefs.

Start preaching when you can add some credibility to the at present unfounded beliefs of yours, it could all be worth it if you did.

ippy   

   

[Hope]

Morning Hope,

Re the section of your post which I have highlighted in bold. Perhaps a topic for a separate thread, I do think it needs to be stated that there is anything but general agreement amongst scholars in regards to that view.  My understanding is that it a view which is being increasingly challenged today.

I would suggest that since the issue has been covered quite comprehensively on the original 'Mistakes in Genesis' thread, that is the place to discuss it, as your apparent understanding could be used to support ~TW~'s viewpoint.

As for its being increasingly challenged, I understand that it is increasingly becoming accepted by scholars.

[Owlswing]

This is a priests view on teaching creationism in schools

http://youtu.be/uYQuvwQ4y-k

Bravo, Sir! Well said! It is nice to know that there are pockets of intelligence in the Christian Church.

[Owlswing]

I know that the link below relates to far more than just Genesis, but it does include Genesis!

https://www.facebook.com/progressivesecularhumanist/photos/a.301251116569174.86774.123916950969259/1113228438704767/?type=3&theater

[~TW~]

This is a priests view on teaching creationism in schools

http://youtu.be/uYQuvwQ4y-k

 why is the priest a priest the other chap said he was mental,he the priest also deceivers himself.

 Best to forget him and mark him as a charlatan.

                          ~TW~

[Red Giant]

To get back to the subject, what about, say, the 3 wife-sister stories?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife%E2%80%93sister_narratives_in_the_Book_of_Genesis

Does anybody not think these are just 3 different versions of the same story?

[Owlswing]

This is a priests view on teaching creationism in schools

http://youtu.be/uYQuvwQ4y-k

 why is the priest a priest the other chap said he was mental,he the priest also deceivers himself.

 Best to forget him and mark him as a charlatan.

                          ~TW~

I would rather forget you and mark you as deluded and blind. He clearly has sees the difference between fact and fiction far cmore clearly than you do. He also realises that his religion has to exists in the real world and not a fantasy one.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Matty,
About your reply #1." rubbich"   
 For the life of me I don't understand why you always have a go at people for their poor English and spelling mistakes. The word you wanted was RUBBISH.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Matty

Moving along to your reply#12
"He clearly has sees the difference..."

I really have to advise you to keep your nit picking to yourself because you appear to have a real talent for butchering English.

[Sassy]

In view of the confusion on jeremy's original 'Mistakes in Genesis' thread, I've started this thread so that people can post the mistakes in the part of Genesis that is generally regarded as being historical in nature (Chapters 12 onwards) as opposed to the first 11 chapters (or perhaps- for jeremy's purposes - just the first 2, the creation story) which are increasingly been understood to be later in authorship and theological in nature.

Why single out the first "chapter" in a book that is, in its entirety, a load of rubbich.

Is that a new word....
Why do you think you are right. A third of the worlds population does not agree with you and so it puts you in a minority. Just a thought.

[floo]

In view of the confusion on jeremy's original 'Mistakes in Genesis' thread, I've started this thread so that people can post the mistakes in the part of Genesis that is generally regarded as being historical in nature (Chapters 12 onwards) as opposed to the first 11 chapters (or perhaps- for jeremy's purposes - just the first 2, the creation story) which are increasingly been understood to be later in authorship and theological in nature.

There is nothing which can be proved to be historical about Genesis, imo.

[Owlswing]

In view of the confusion on jeremy's original 'Mistakes in Genesis' thread, I've started this thread so that people can post the mistakes in the part of Genesis that is generally regarded as being historical in nature (Chapters 12 onwards) as opposed to the first 11 chapters (or perhaps- for jeremy's purposes - just the first 2, the creation story) which are increasingly been understood to be later in authorship and theological in nature.

Why single out the first "chapter" in a book that is, in its entirety, a load of rubbich.

Is that a new word....
Why do you think you are right. A third of the worlds population does not agree with you and so it puts you in a minority. Just a thought.

. . . and two thirds of the world's population - all the non-Christians, agree with me, which puts YOU in the monority. Just a thought.

[Hope]

Bravo, Sir! Well said! It is nice to know that there are pockets of intelligence in the Christian Church.

Pockets, Matt?  This guy has simply stated what is and has always been mainstream Christian belief.  It is interesting to listen to the whole programme.  Nicky Campbell starts it off by stating that, in the 6th century, Augustine had no problem accepting that the creation story was allegory.  Over the centuries, Christians have largely stuck to that understanding.

Creationism is a phenomenon that is mainly dated to the 1920s, though its roots can be found in the Reformation.  The Wikipedia article on Creationism makes useful reading - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

[Outrider]

In view of the confusion on jeremy's original 'Mistakes in Genesis' thread, I've started this thread so that people can post the mistakes in the part of Genesis that is generally regarded as being historical in nature (Chapters 12 onwards) as opposed to the first 11 chapters (or perhaps- for jeremy's purposes - just the first 2, the creation story) which are increasingly been understood to be later in authorship and theological in nature.

Why single out the first "chapter" in a book that is, in its entirety, a load of rubbich.

Is that a new word....
Why do you think you are right. A third of the worlds population does not agree with you and so it puts you in a minority. Just a thought.

At the risk of being recognised as a pedant, if only a third of the world's population disagrees, then that suggests we're in the majority...

O.

[Hope]

How is it you can dismiss parts of this manual of yours at will and pick up on other bits without presenting it as a make up your own plot type manual as you go along to suit?

It's not a matter of dismissing parts at will, ippy; it has to do with critical reading, using literary criticism techniques, and trying to gain an understanding of the context of the original authorship - such as its dating, its author(s)' intentions in writing it and the language used.  I appreciate that all this may be beyond your ability - or interest - but then there are those who have read early Darwinian documents who believe that he always claimed what he had written in those documents, despite later documents showing changes in understanding and evidence.

[Hope]

At the risk of being recognised as a pedant, if only a third of the world's population disagrees, then that suggests we're in the majority...

Is Sassy's 'a third of the world's population' even correct O?  After all, Islam is based on the same material to a degree.  I don't know enough about Islam's position on the first 11 - or even the first 2 - chapters of Genesis to make a judgement, but ...

What proportion of the world's population follow the Abrahamic faiths?

[Outrider]

At the risk of being recognised as a pedant, if only a third of the world's population disagrees, then that suggests we're in the majority...

Is Sassy's 'a third of the world's population' even correct O?  After all, Islam is based on the same material to a degree.  I don't know enough about Islam's position on the first 11 - or even the first 2 - chapters of Genesis to make a judgement, but ...

What proportion of the world's population follow the Abrahamic faiths?

I wasn't going to get into the break-down of the actual claim - whilst between them the Abrahamic faiths probably account for between 50% and 60% of the world's population, the proportion of those that believe in a literal reading of Genesis is likely to be lower (but I couldn't say how much lower).

O.

[Owlswing]

Bravo, Sir! Well said! It is nice to know that there are pockets of intelligence in the Christian Church.

Pockets, Matt?  This guy has simply stated what is and has always been mainstream Christian belief.  It is interesting to listen to the whole programme.  Nicky Campbell starts it off by stating that, in the 6th century, Augustine had no problem accepting that the creation story was allegory.  Over the centuries, Christians have largely stuck to that understanding.

Creationism is a phenomenon that is mainly dated to the 1920s, though its roots can be found in the Reformation.  The Wikipedia article on Creationism makes useful reading - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Honestly, Hope, I despair of you!

You claim that the bible is the revealed word of your god;

Then only te NT is;

Then only parts are!

You will say absolutley anything in response to criticism of either your beliefs or the actions of those who follow it amd when picked up on a contradiction you wriggle like a worm on a fish hook.

[Owlswing]

How is it you can dismiss parts of this manual of yours at will and pick up on other bits without presenting it as a make up your own plot type manual as you go along to suit?

It's not a matter of dismissing parts at will, ippy; it has to do with critical reading, using literary criticism techniques, and trying to gain an understanding of the context of the original authorship - such as its dating, its author(s)' intentions in writing it and the language used.  I appreciate that all this may be beyond your ability - or interest - but then there are those who have read early Darwinian documents who believe that he always claimed what he had written in those documents, despite later documents showing changes in understanding and evidence.

see #23

[Owlswing]

At the risk of being recognised as a pedant, if only a third of the world's population disagrees, then that suggests we're in the majority...

Is Sassy's 'a third of the world's population' even correct O?  After all, Islam is based on the same material to a degree.  I don't know enough about Islam's position on the first 11 - or even the first 2 - chapters of Genesis to make a judgement, but ...

What proportion of the world's population follow the Abrahamic faiths?

see #23