• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Some thoughts about evolution vs creation debates

gnostic

The Lost One
Thank you. I’ll try again. From your point of view, when people are applying flawed tactics in denial of science in favor of subjective belief and religious doctrine, it’s important for them to be called out? You think that’s better for my purposes also?
That really depends on you and on your knowledge about biology. Dan can’t tell you what to do or don’t do here.

RF is a forum, where anyone and everyone can express their opinions on the matters of religions or matters of science.

Apart from following and not breaking forum rules, people rare free to talk of anything including the kitchen sink if you like.

But if you are going to mix your personal belief with science, then you’ll know that the science isn’t just acquired knowledge through mere speculation.

Science is methodology of explaining any natural or physical phenomena, using not only logic, but those logic must be rigorously tested by empirical evidence.

If the explanation and logic failed to be falsifiable and testable, then it failed to be considered venas a “hypothesis”.

And if the explanation and logic failed not only to be falsifiable and testable, but also failed to be tested, then it would disqualify the explanation/logic from being a “scientific theory”.

(Note that I distinguish between “testable” and “tested”.

Tested is when you already have found evidence or you already have test results after performing multiple experiments.

Testable, on the other hand, in hypothesis is instruction proposing where you might find evidence, or instruction proposing how to set up experiments to test the hypothesis at some future date.)


If you or someone else are going to treat your or their religions as science or being scientific, then belief must follow the same requirements as that of science, needing evidence to back up their beliefs.

Since creationists believe that god is responsible for creating it’s creation, then if you think god is real (scientifically), then there must be observable/measurable or testable evidence for this god of their.

If there are no scientific evidence for god, then their religions or their scriptures aren’t scientific.

I don’t know much about you, nor do I know of your educational background in science, like in biology, or what you do for living.

Do you have enough knowledge to be able to explain the science behind evolution, enough so to correct anyone’s error or exposing misinformation? Are you a biologist, or worked something related to biology?

If not, then you are in no position to explaining biology or correct ping some errors. If this is true, then the best and wisest thing to do (as well as more honest thing to do) is to admit “I don’t know”, ask some questions and learn what is or isn’t Evolution.

I am not saying people without scientific knowledge cannot have opinions, they can have opinions. But they must recognize that without that substantiated knowledge, these are merely opinions, not factual evidence.
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I’m seeing the problem now as using some words and ways of thinking in ways that draw lines of alienation between people, or using them as reasons for animosity towards other people or for disparaging their character and capacities.
... tactics like shifting the burden of proof, straw man arguments and smoke screens. ...

Do you consider calling out a person using such tactics as furthering division? Is it deriding the capabilities of the creationist to do so? I see it as honest responses to someone that has crossed a line. Any division is established by those that resort to the tactics. These must be dealt with and if you have a different take or some thoughts how to better respond, I am interested.
I’m thinking about that a little differently now. I’ll be posting updates on my thinking about that, here: For people who are working to help reduce animosities and hostilities across belief divides
 

gnostic

The Lost One
But again there are so many references to light and darkness, that its really not easy to figure out in which context it is suppose to be understood. The only reason I think that time or life might be what is meant, is because we are talking about the creation. And because we already have references later in Genesis about the sun and the moon as the two lights. I really can't see how these can be understood to be anything else. Also I think its very important to read this from the perspective of how the ancient Jews would have perceived these things. Therefore I doubt they would have thought of the sun as a huge burning object, but rather as they actually wrote, that its a light put in the skies. Again one have to remember that they thought the Earth were a hemisphere.

b2c5771500f5c87df602f11474deac0d.jpg



Nonetheless it is interesting hearing your view on it as well, as I haven't been able to find any good explanations for how it is suppose to be understood.

Wow! That's quite a graphical representation of how the ancient viewed the world, as described by Genesis 1.

I am wondering if you could repost this image in the thread:


...because in this thread we're debating about the firmament.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
:openmouth::dizzy:
Gee. I wonder who feels "threatened by the notion of evolution".

The likes of you, obviously.

Surely, you don't think that of scientists who work out things to the best of their ability... even though wrong.

One can be rationally wrong and one can be foolishly wrong.

If your wrong idea is supported by known evidence but disproven by yet to be discovered evidence, you are "rationally wrong".

If your wrong idea however is completely and utterly demonstrably crazy wrong by the known evidence, yet you stick to it anyway, then you are foolishly wrong.

I can respect the first. Not the second.

How often have we humans been wrong?

Likely much more then they have been correct.

Does that make humans fools?
confused0067.gif

In this context, being a fool isn't determined by being wrong. It's rather about what you do about being wrong when the evidence that shows you wrong is readily available.

Being wrong is no shame.
Being wrong and staying wrong after being demonstrated wrong, is very much a shame. And foolish.

You sound quite :mad:. Reminds me of Dawkins... Only, he turns red. :laughing:

Don't be like that. There's nothing "raging" or "angry" about the post you are replying to.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Wow! That's quite a graphical representation of how the ancient viewed the world, as described by Genesis 1.

I am wondering if you could repost this image in the thread:


...because in this thread we're debating about the firmament.
I have posted it in the thread. :)

For the future if you need to copy images, you can just right click them at choose "copy image" and then use "Paste" to get them into a thread.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It looks to me like from the time of Darwin, sometimes people have tried to use evolution theories to discredit Christianity or some Christian beliefs. More recently some people who felt targeted by that started thinking that it was happening in public schools, and they have responded by trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum and/or have creation theory added, and by trying to discredit evolution theory. The debates here may or may not have some roots in that.

As I understand it, the creationism that’s being debated here includes thinking that one of the creation stories in the Bible is an actual physical description of how the universe, including the earth and all living creatures, were first created less than 10,000 years ago. I don’t claim to know if that’s true or not, but however that may be, I disagree with trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum or having creation theory added to it, and I disagree with trying to discredit evolution theory. Even if evolution theory is being used in public education to try to discredit some religious beliefs, I disagree with those ways of responding to that.

The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me, and it looks to me like many researchers, possibly most of them, have abandoned that idea in practice.

Evolution doesnt pose anything about beginning of life. It's a misunderstanding. It's all about life after the beginning of it.

That's where most get it wrong.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
So, you think, Israel acted no different to other nations, and exaggerated the truth. In other words, their God was not real, or any more powerful that the gods of the other nations. Is this an accurate understanding of your view?
Not sure I understand what you mean. But if you are asking whether I think that Israel made up God, just like those around them had Gods as well? Then the answer is yes.

How do you suppose Samson is a moral story?
This is from a another site about the story of Samson:

Samson’s incredible exploits, as related in the biblical narrative, hint at the weight of Philistine pressure on Israel during much of Israel’s early, tribal period in Canaan (1200–1000 BCE). The biblical narrative, only alluding to Samson’s “twenty years” activity as a judge, presents a few episodes, principally concerned with the beginning and the end of his activity. Before his conception, his mother, a peasant of the tribe of Dan at Zorah, near Jerusalem, was visited by an angel who told her that her son was to be a lifelong Nazirite—i.e., one dedicated to the special service of God, usually through a vow of abstinence from strong drink, from shaving or cutting the hair, and from contact with a dead body.

Samson possessed extraordinary physical strength, and the moral of his saga relates the disastrous loss of his power to his violation of the Nazirite vow, to which he was bound by his mother’s promise to the angel. He first broke his religious obligation by feasting with a woman from the neighbouring town of Timnah, who was also a Philistine, one of Israel’s mortal enemies. Other remarkable deeds follow. For example, he decimated the Philistines in a private war. On another occasion he repulsed their assault on him at Gaza, where he had gone to visit a harlot. He finally fell victim to his foes through love of Delilah, who beguiled him into revealing the secret of his strength: his long Nazirite hair. As he slept, Delilah had his hair cut and betrayed him. He was captured, blinded, and enslaved by the Philistines, but in the end God granted Samson his revenge; through the return of his old strength, he demolished the great Philistine temple of the god Dagon, at Gaza, destroying his captors and himself (Judges 16:4–30).

So the story seems to follow a pattern, 1) Samson is deemed special or a chosen one by God 2) His "rebellion" against God. 3) His punishment for doing so, as he lost his power. 4) Salvation and saving by God allowing him to get revenge.

I think the story can have different meanings, but one could be, to try to tell people that, that even if one feel blessed and all powerful, this is due to the grace of God and if one does stray away from God they can loose it and harm will come to them. But that it is never to late to come back to him as he is caring and forgiving.
There are a lot of such stories in the OT, which follows a similar idea, so 1) God does something good 2) People (The Jews) stray or doubt God. 3) Bad things happens to the Jews as a result 4) The y ask for forgiveness 5) God steps in and save the day. And it starts all over.

What you say here seems similar to the situation where people have used the idea of eternal torment in hellfire, to scare people into doing right.
To some degree yes, others seems simply to act as laws as we know them today. So how one should handle varies issues that must have been common for the Jews at the time. So in the last four books of Moses you can find a lot of laws about what one would consider rather mundane things, from how you should prepare your food to how one should act during war etc. So to me it seems that these acts both as direct and specific rules, while others seems to be more about common behavior, in cases where you may find yourself in situations, where you are not sure what to do. So basically moral guidelines.

Now that you mentioned killing witches... where do you get that from?
The word sorceress is used.

Exodus 22:18
18 "You are not to allow a sorceress to live.


Revelation 21:8
8 But people who are cowardly, unfaithful, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars will find themselves in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death."


As far as I know, God gave commandments to Moses, that involved removing anything that would make his people unclean.
God gave him a lot of commandments, again about all sort of things.

They were not to go hunting down witches to kill them. They only removed what was bad from among Israel. There was a reason for that. God - the holy one - was dwelling among them. So all unclean practices were to be removed.
I don't think it is meant as going on witch hunts, but one can easily see how accusing someone for being a witch could lead to their death.

Which explains why rebellious children were to be removed. Was that fair? I think so. Here is why.
God allowed for repentance, so the fact that the child was rebellious to the point of being put to death, meant they were beyond reform. They actually rebelled against God, and would break his laws... including the law forbidding idolatry.
So even though young, they fell under the death penalty.
I do not see how one can defend this to even make remotely sense. This law to me, is all about respect for elders and to help secure a power structure in a family through the means of fear. If God couldn't do better than this, then he is not much of a God, I think. :)

Today, we see, particularly in the US, thousands of children, ranging from 11 (perhaps younger) to 16, imprisoned for heinous murders. Some are described as monstrous, by law enforcement.
I just watched one where twins murdered their mother.
We don't have the details surrounding the circumstances, but if we did, in all cases, we could judge the case accurately. For example, we would know if the murder was premeditated.
In most cases children do behave if they are raised well and in secure and good environment, US is famous for their school shootings for instant. Which doesn't seem to be a huge problem for most other countries in the world. So I think an argument of killing children to solve the issue like in the bible, is to declare bankruptcy. Again I hold the firm believe that evil does not exist, and therefore no one can be born evil. Children ending up doing these things, are in 95% of the cases due to something they have experience during their childhood, whether that is due to the parents, friends, getting teased, lack of attention/care etc. they all play a part in why a child might end up doing something bad.

If one is going to argue that evil exists, then one also have to agree that babies can be born evil. Which I am yet to see anyone agreeing to is possible. As that would also mean that we ought to be able to figure out whether they are or not, and put them to death straight away. If one deny that babies can be born evil, then one ought to give an explanation of when evil occurs and how one distinguish that from what I would refer to as common social issues, as those mentioned above.

With God, he knows, and being much wiser than humans, God's laws are designed to prevent future ramifications also. The child was removed... and the parents who were faithful, understood this.
The faithful parents understood something else. They knew that children are an inheritance from God.
This is based on a false premise I think. Because you assume that the parents are good and therefore always act correctly. Therefore it must be an issue with the child. To me that is absolutely bollocks, and purely shows that it is the adults that makes the rules, because they "know" best. But shows a complete lack of knowledge in regards to what is morally right and wrong. Which could also explain why the stories of Adam and Eve, seem to make no sense. As it is clear that humans are not very well suited to see the difference between good and evil. Adam and Eve should have eaten the whole damn tree I think for that to happen. Looking around the world it is obvious that people do not share a common understanding of what is good and evil.

Similar to when God destroyed those who turned out to be extremely bad, during the time of Noah.
In humanities defense, God did create us and him being omniscient should have seen it coming, so why he gets all surprised and angry is sort of weird. Free will is not an excuse, if God the moment he doesn't like something jump to mass extinction, then free will have little meaning. Because those people he killed, did express their free will didn't they? :)

How do you go about determining what is literal or figurative when reading the Bible?
That is a good question, to me it requires one to analyze the story. The way it is written, what it is trying to tell. Whether it is reasonable to assume that the Jews would see the story as being so or not. So it requires a lot more than simply reading the text.

By the way... nice graphic... and glad we can share our views.
I didn't make it, I just found it on the internet :D
.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
Not sure I understand what you mean. But if you are asking whether I think that Israel made up God, just like those around them had Gods as well? Then the answer is yes.
I thought so.

This is from a another site about the story of Samson:

Samson’s incredible exploits, as related in the biblical narrative, hint at the weight of Philistine pressure on Israel during much of Israel’s early, tribal period in Canaan (1200–1000 BCE). The biblical narrative, only alluding to Samson’s “twenty years” activity as a judge, presents a few episodes, principally concerned with the beginning and the end of his activity. Before his conception, his mother, a peasant of the tribe of Dan at Zorah, near Jerusalem, was visited by an angel who told her that her son was to be a lifelong Nazirite—i.e., one dedicated to the special service of God, usually through a vow of abstinence from strong drink, from shaving or cutting the hair, and from contact with a dead body.

Samson possessed extraordinary physical strength, and the moral of his saga relates the disastrous loss of his power to his violation of the Nazirite vow, to which he was bound by his mother’s promise to the angel. He first broke his religious obligation by feasting with a woman from the neighbouring town of Timnah, who was also a Philistine, one of Israel’s mortal enemies. Other remarkable deeds follow. For example, he decimated the Philistines in a private war. On another occasion he repulsed their assault on him at Gaza, where he had gone to visit a harlot. He finally fell victim to his foes through love of Delilah, who beguiled him into revealing the secret of his strength: his long Nazirite hair. As he slept, Delilah had his hair cut and betrayed him. He was captured, blinded, and enslaved by the Philistines, but in the end God granted Samson his revenge; through the return of his old strength, he demolished the great Philistine temple of the god Dagon, at Gaza, destroying his captors and himself (Judges 16:4–30).

So the story seems to follow a pattern, 1) Samson is deemed special or a chosen one by God 2) His "rebellion" against God. 3) His punishment for doing so, as he lost his power. 4) Salvation and saving by God allowing him to get revenge.

I think the story can have different meanings, but one could be, to try to tell people that, that even if one feel blessed and all powerful, this is due to the grace of God and if one does stray away from God they can loose it and harm will come to them. But that it is never to late to come back to him as he is caring and forgiving.
There are a lot of such stories in the OT, which follows a similar idea, so 1) God does something good 2) People (The Jews) stray or doubt God. 3) Bad things happens to the Jews as a result 4) The y ask for forgiveness 5) God steps in and save the day. And it starts all over.


To some degree yes, others seems simply to act as laws as we know them today. So how one should handle varies issues that must have been common for the Jews at the time. So in the last four books of Moses you can find a lot of laws about what one would consider rather mundane things, from how you should prepare your food to how one should act during war etc. So to me it seems that these acts both as direct and specific rules, while others seems to be more about common behavior, in cases where you may find yourself in situations, where you are not sure what to do. So basically moral guidelines.


The word sorceress is used.

Exodus 22:18
18 "You are not to allow a sorceress to live.


Revelation 21:8
8 But people who are cowardly, unfaithful, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars will find themselves in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death."



God gave him a lot of commandments, again about all sort of things.


I don't think it is meant as going on witch hunts, but one can easily see how accusing someone for being a witch could lead to their death.


I do not see how one can defend this to even make remotely sense. This law to me, is all about respect for elders and to help secure a power structure in a family through the means of fear. If God couldn't do better than this, then he is not much of a God, I think. :)


In most cases children do behave if they are raised well and in secure and good environment, US is famous for their school shootings for instant. Which doesn't seem to be a huge problem for most other countries in the world. So I think an argument of killing children to solve the issue like in the bible, is to declare bankruptcy. Again I hold the firm believe that evil does not exist, and therefore no one can be born evil. Children ending up doing these things, are in 95% of the cases due to something they have experience during their childhood, whether that is due to the parents, friends, getting teased, lack of attention/care etc. they all play a part in why a child might end up doing something bad.

If one is going to argue that evil exists, then one also have to agree that babies can be born evil. Which I am yet to see anyone agreeing to is possible. As that would also mean that we ought to be able to figure out whether they are or not, and put them to death straight away. If one deny that babies can be born evil, then one ought to give an explanation of when evil occurs and how one distinguish that from what I would refer to as common social issues, as those mentioned above.


This is based on a false premise I think. Because you assume that the parents are good and therefore always act correctly. Therefore it must be an issue with the child. To me that is absolutely bollocks, and purely shows that it is the adults that makes the rules, because they "know" best. But shows a complete lack of knowledge in regards to what is morally right and wrong. Which could also explain why the stories of Adam and Eve, seem to make no sense. As it is clear that humans are not very well suited to see the difference between good and evil. Adam and Eve should have eaten the whole damn tree I think for that to happen. Looking around the world it is obvious that people do not share a common understanding of what is good and evil.


In humanities defense, God did create us and him being omniscient should have seen it coming, so why he gets all surprised and angry is sort of weird. Free will is not an excuse, if God the moment he doesn't like something jump to mass extinction, then free will have little meaning. Because those people he killed, did express their free will didn't they? :)


That is a good question, to me it requires one to analyze the story. The way it is written, what it is trying to tell. Whether it is reasonable to assume that the Jews would see the story as being so or not. So it requires a lot more than simply reading the text.
It seems to me one who decides that accounts in the Bible are made up stories, of a made up God, would have a hard time convincing people - especially me - that they would make a good candidate to advise on which parts of the Bible are not made up, from which aren't, or which parts are acceptable or unacceptable
Why, every part could be a story, in a case like that.

I didn't make it, I just found it on the internet :D
.
I know.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I thought so.
Im an atheist.

It seems to me one who decides that accounts in the Bible are made up stories, of a made up God, would have a hard time convincing people - especially me - that they would make a good candidate to advise on which parts of the Bible are not made up, from which aren't, or which parts are acceptable or unacceptable
Why, every part could be a story, in a case like that.
It depends how you look at it, you can approach the bible from different angles. If you want to approach it from a historical (scientific) point of view, it should not matter whether one is an atheist or not. If you however just want to be told that God is good and how he will save everyone. Then you would be better off with a Christian apologetic, I would not deny that. :)

But since, Im an atheist I tend to go for the historical approach as that to me is far more interesting, as it puts it into context.

If you are interested in that. I can warmly recommend the following two free lectures from Yale university. Both of them are very good in my opinion.

Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)

About the Course
This course examines the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as an expression of the religious life and thought of ancient Israel, and a foundational document of Western civilization. A wide range of methodologies, including source criticism and the historical-critical school, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, and literary and canonical approaches are applied to the study and interpretation of the Bible. Special emphasis is placed on the Bible against the backdrop of its historical and cultural setting in the Ancient Near East.

Lecture 1 The Parts of the Whole
Lecture 2 The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting: Biblical Religion in Context
Lecture 3 The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting: Genesis 1-4 in Context
Lecture 4 Doublets and Contradictions, Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method
Lecture 5 Critical Approaches to the Bible: Introduction to Genesis 12-50
Lecture 6 Biblical Narrative: The Stories of the Patriarchs (Genesis 12-36)
Lecture 7 Israel in Egypt: Moses and the Beginning of Yahwism (Genesis 37- Exodus 4)
Lecture 8 Exodus: From Egypt to Sinai (Exodus 5-24, 32; Numbers)
Lecture 9 The Priestly Legacy: Cult and Sacrifice, Purity and Holiness in Leviticus and Numbers
Lecture 10 Biblical Law: The Three Legal Corpora of JE (Exodus), P (Leviticus and Numbers) and D (Deuteronomy)
Lecture 11 On the Steps of Moab: Deuteronomy

Lecture 12 The Deuteronomistic History: Life in the Land (Joshua and Judges)
Lecture 13 The Deuteronomistic History: Prophets and Kings (1 and 2 Samuel)
Lecture 14 The Deuteronomistic History: Response to Catastrophe (1 and 2 Kings)
Lecture 15 Hebrew Prophecy: The Non-Literary Prophets
Lecture 16 Literary Prophecy: Amos
Lecture 17 Literary Prophecy: Hosea and Isaiah
Lecture 18 Literary Prophecy: Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum and Habbakuk
Lecture 19 Literary Prophecy: Perspectives on the Exile (Jeremiah, Ezekiel and 2nd Isaiah)
Lecture 20 Responses to Suffering and Evil: Lamentations and Wisdom Literature
Lecture 21 Biblical Poetry: Psalms and Song of Songs
Lecture 22 The Restoration: 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah
Lecture 23 Visions of the End: Daniel and Apocalyptic Literature
Lecture 24 Alternative Visions: Esther, Ruth, and Jonah

Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) | Open Yale Courses



Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature

About the Course
This course provides a historical study of the origins of Christianity by analyzing the literature of the earliest Christian movements in historical context, concentrating on the New Testament. Although theological themes will occupy much of our attention, the course does not attempt a theological appropriation of the New Testament as scripture. Rather, the importance of the New Testament and other early Christian documents as ancient literature and as sources for historical study will be emphasized. A central organizing theme of the course will focus on the differences within early Christianity (-ies).

Sessions
Lecture 1 Introduction: Why Study the New Testament?
Lecture 2 From Stories to Canon
Lecture 3 The Greco-Roman World
Lecture 4 Judaism in the First Century
Lecture 5 The New Testament as History
Lecture 6 The Gospel of Mark
Lecture 7 The Gospel of Matthew
Lecture 8 The Gospel of Thomas
Lecture 9 The Gospel of Luke
Lecture 10 The Acts of the Apostles
Lecture 11 Johannine Christianity: the Gospel
Lecture 12 Johannine Christianity: the Letters
Lecture 13 The Historical Jesus
Lecture 14 Paul as Missionary
Lecture 15 Paul as Pastor
Lecture 16 Paul as Jewish Theologian
Lecture 17 Paul's Disciples
Lecture 18 Arguing with Paul?
Lecture 19 The "Household" Paul: the Pastorals
Lecture 20 The "Anti-household" Paul: Thecla
Lecture 21 Interpreting Scripture: Hebrews
Lecture 22 Interpreting Scripture: Medieval Interpretations
Lecture 23 Apocalyptic and Resistance
Lecture 24 Apocalyptic and Accommodation
Lecture 25 Ecclesiastical Institutions: Unity, Martyrs, and Bishops
Lecture 26 The "Afterlife" of the New Testament and Postmodern Interpretation

Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature | Open Yale Courses
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
Im an atheist.


It depends how you look at it, you can approach the bible from different angles. If you want to approach it from a historical (scientific) point of view, it should not matter whether one is an atheist or not. If you however just want to be told that God is good and how he will save everyone. Then you would be better off with a Christian apologetic, I would not deny that. :)

But since, Im an atheist I tend to go for the historical approach as that to me is far more interesting, as it puts it into context.

If you are interested in that. I can warmly recommend the following two free lectures from Yale university. Both of them are very good in my opinion.

Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)

About the Course
This course examines the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as an expression of the religious life and thought of ancient Israel, and a foundational document of Western civilization. A wide range of methodologies, including source criticism and the historical-critical school, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, and literary and canonical approaches are applied to the study and interpretation of the Bible. Special emphasis is placed on the Bible against the backdrop of its historical and cultural setting in the Ancient Near East.

Lecture 1 The Parts of the Whole
Lecture 2 The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting: Biblical Religion in Context
Lecture 3 The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting: Genesis 1-4 in Context
Lecture 4 Doublets and Contradictions, Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method
Lecture 5 Critical Approaches to the Bible: Introduction to Genesis 12-50
Lecture 6 Biblical Narrative: The Stories of the Patriarchs (Genesis 12-36)
Lecture 7 Israel in Egypt: Moses and the Beginning of Yahwism (Genesis 37- Exodus 4)
Lecture 8 Exodus: From Egypt to Sinai (Exodus 5-24, 32; Numbers)
Lecture 9 The Priestly Legacy: Cult and Sacrifice, Purity and Holiness in Leviticus and Numbers
Lecture 10 Biblical Law: The Three Legal Corpora of JE (Exodus), P (Leviticus and Numbers) and D (Deuteronomy)
Lecture 11 On the Steps of Moab: Deuteronomy

Lecture 12 The Deuteronomistic History: Life in the Land (Joshua and Judges)
Lecture 13 The Deuteronomistic History: Prophets and Kings (1 and 2 Samuel)
Lecture 14 The Deuteronomistic History: Response to Catastrophe (1 and 2 Kings)
Lecture 15 Hebrew Prophecy: The Non-Literary Prophets
Lecture 16 Literary Prophecy: Amos
Lecture 17 Literary Prophecy: Hosea and Isaiah
Lecture 18 Literary Prophecy: Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum and Habbakuk
Lecture 19 Literary Prophecy: Perspectives on the Exile (Jeremiah, Ezekiel and 2nd Isaiah)
Lecture 20 Responses to Suffering and Evil: Lamentations and Wisdom Literature
Lecture 21 Biblical Poetry: Psalms and Song of Songs
Lecture 22 The Restoration: 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah
Lecture 23 Visions of the End: Daniel and Apocalyptic Literature
Lecture 24 Alternative Visions: Esther, Ruth, and Jonah

Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) | Open Yale Courses



Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature

About the Course
This course provides a historical study of the origins of Christianity by analyzing the literature of the earliest Christian movements in historical context, concentrating on the New Testament. Although theological themes will occupy much of our attention, the course does not attempt a theological appropriation of the New Testament as scripture. Rather, the importance of the New Testament and other early Christian documents as ancient literature and as sources for historical study will be emphasized. A central organizing theme of the course will focus on the differences within early Christianity (-ies).

Sessions
Lecture 1 Introduction: Why Study the New Testament?
Lecture 2 From Stories to Canon
Lecture 3 The Greco-Roman World
Lecture 4 Judaism in the First Century
Lecture 5 The New Testament as History
Lecture 6 The Gospel of Mark
Lecture 7 The Gospel of Matthew
Lecture 8 The Gospel of Thomas
Lecture 9 The Gospel of Luke
Lecture 10 The Acts of the Apostles
Lecture 11 Johannine Christianity: the Gospel
Lecture 12 Johannine Christianity: the Letters
Lecture 13 The Historical Jesus
Lecture 14 Paul as Missionary
Lecture 15 Paul as Pastor
Lecture 16 Paul as Jewish Theologian
Lecture 17 Paul's Disciples
Lecture 18 Arguing with Paul?
Lecture 19 The "Household" Paul: the Pastorals
Lecture 20 The "Anti-household" Paul: Thecla
Lecture 21 Interpreting Scripture: Hebrews
Lecture 22 Interpreting Scripture: Medieval Interpretations
Lecture 23 Apocalyptic and Resistance
Lecture 24 Apocalyptic and Accommodation
Lecture 25 Ecclesiastical Institutions: Unity, Martyrs, and Bishops
Lecture 26 The "Afterlife" of the New Testament and Postmodern Interpretation

Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature | Open Yale Courses
You are an Atheist. :facepalm: Uh. Thanks for telling me. :)
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Thank you. I’ll try again. From your point of view, when people are applying flawed tactics in denial of science in favor of subjective belief and religious doctrine, it’s important for them to be called out? You think that’s better for my purposes also?
I am trying to get a better understanding of your purpose and what you consider to be included and excluded. Hence my questions.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
You are an Atheist. :facepalm: Uh. Thanks for telling me. :)
Well I reacted to your responds::

"It seems to me one who decides that accounts in the Bible are made up stories, of a made up God, would have a hard time convincing people - especially me - that they would make a good candidate to advise on which parts of the Bible are not made up, from which aren't, or which parts are acceptable or unacceptable Why, every part could be a story, in a case like that."

Which I then find rather strange and interesting, because who would you consider a good candidate then? There are not that many to choose from :D.
I assume the number one criteria must be that its a person that have read the bible. Besides that, you can choose a convinced Christian, which I guess you could argue is biased towards the stories being true. Secondly you can choose a Muslim or one from another religion, which probably prefer their own religion and is therefore not going to claim that the bible is spot on accurate, as that would make you wonder why they would choose another religion then. And besides religious people there are Atheists/Agnostics left. Which you do not, if I understood you correct, consider good candidates.

So just wondering, who would then? :)
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I am trying to get a better understanding of your purpose and what you consider to be included and excluded. Hence my questions.
You mean, my overall purpose in life, or my purposes in this thread? One way of describing my overall purpose is learning to follow my spiritual teachers. Another is learning to do all the good I can do and be the best person I can be. Another is helping to spread the best kinds of love. Another is practicing and promoting spiritual growth and community service as ways of helping to improve the lives of all people everywhere and helping to improve the world for future generations.

If you mean my purposes in what I’ve been saying about disparaging people’s character and capacities, it’s to help reduce hostilities of all kinds at all levels, from forum feuding to massive armed conflicts. What I’m promoting strictly excludes disparaging the character and capacities of any specific person, or any group or category of people, in public.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Well I reacted to your responds::

"It seems to me one who decides that accounts in the Bible are made up stories, of a made up God, would have a hard time convincing people - especially me - that they would make a good candidate to advise on which parts of the Bible are not made up, from which aren't, or which parts are acceptable or unacceptable Why, every part could be a story, in a case like that."

Which I then find rather strange and interesting, because who would you consider a good candidate then? There are not that many to choose from :D.
I assume the number one criteria must be that its a person that have read the bible. Besides that, you can choose a convinced Christian, which I guess you could argue is biased towards the stories being true. Secondly you can choose a Muslim or one from another religion, which probably prefer their own religion and is therefore not going to claim that the bible is spot on accurate, as that would make you wonder why they would choose another religion then. And besides religious people there are Atheists/Agnostics left. Which you do not, if I understood you correct, consider good candidates.

So just wondering, who would then? :)
Surely you can't reasonably assume that an Atheist would be better qualified to explain the Bible? You guys and gals sure do have some imagination.

First, you disqualify yourself, by denying any evidence of God, and without evidence claim there is no God.
Second, the Bible's author - God himself - disqualifies you. (See Psalm 10:4; 14:1; 19:1; 92:1-6; 111:10; Proverbs 1:7; 9:10; Romans 1:19-22; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; 2:14)

According to the Bible writers, what was written, is by spirit, so it is not possible for someone who rejects the source of that spirit... let alone, the spirit itself, to grasp the content.
That person is merely deceiving themselves.

Those who have the spirit of God understand, and are in a position to explain it, (Acts 28:25-28; Proverbs 28:5)
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I think you are missing entirely my point.

Several people, including myself, are engaged with a creationist on another thread. The creationist has asserted that intelligent design is the best explanation for the so called universal fine tuning. Despite requests to provide any argument to support this claim, the creationist has, instead, turned to tactics like shifting the burden of proof, straw man arguments and smoke screens. Each time this is pointed out and further requests are made for support of the creationist claim, the creationist doubles down and repeats tactics.

Do you consider calling out a person using such tactics as furthering division? Is it deriding the capabilities of the creationist to do so? I see it as honest responses to someone that has crossed a line. Any division is established by those that resort to the tactics. These must be dealt with and if you have a different take or some thoughts how to better respond, I am interested.
What you describe seems to be the m.o. of people with untenable positions.
A whistle-blower raises concerns about potential illegality in a politician's phone call to a foreign official. An investigation ensures. Rather than provide evidence showing that the call was legal, the official attacks the whistle -blower.
A creationist claims evidence X is false. The creationist is asked for an explanation. The creationist attacks those asking for an explanation to avoid having to admit they cannot understand the evidence much less show that it is false.
All cut from the same cheesy, thin, oily cloth.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Surely you can't reasonably assume that an Atheist would be better qualified to explain the Bible?

A believer has to sanitize scripture to make it seem to conform to his belief that the god described within is a good god, and that the Bible contains no errors or contradictions. The unbeliever has no such need, and can give you a more objective account of what the words mean - all of them.

For example, what believer will tell you that the Genesis creation myth is simply incorrect? You'll hear instead that the words weren't meant literally (I have no reason to believe that), and that they are metaphor or allegory. No they're not. With each of those, the author understand what it is he is referring to with metaphor or allegory.

This is not that. The Biblical authors were not substituting poetry or symbolism for history that they knew. Like all other creation mythicists, they simply guessed and got it wrong.

And try to get a believer to acknowledge a contradiction.

So why would I defer to such a person's opinions about scripture?

According to the Bible writers, what was written, is by spirit, so it is not possible for someone who rejects the source of that spirit... let alone, the spirit itself, to grasp the content.

I have no reason to believe that or them, either.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
A believer has to sanitize scripture to make it seem to conform to his belief that the god described within is a good god, and that the Bible contains no errors or contradictions. The unbeliever has no such need, and can give you a more objective account of what the words mean - all of them.

For example, what believer will tell you that the Genesis creation myth is simply incorrect? You'll hear instead that the words weren't meant literally (I have no reason to believe that), and that they are metaphor or allegory. No they're not. With each of those, the author understand what it is he is referring to with metaphor or allegory.
Where did you get that from? Just because someone says there are a believer does that mean they believe the Bible? No it doesn't.

This is not that. The Biblical authors were not substituting poetry or symbolism for history that they knew. Like all other creation mythicists, they simply guessed and got it wrong.

And try to get a believer to acknowledge a contradiction.

So why would I defer to such a person's opinions about scripture?
I think believers accept that Genesis is true history.
The unbeliever and Atheist will see many contradictions, because he is fleshly, not spiritual, so he cannot understand things of the spirit... as I said.

You believe the opinions of persons about science though.


I have no reason to believe that or them, either.
Cool. You are not spiritual. So why should that not be obvious.
 
Top