The Order of Creation

[katiesevenfour]

Would anyone be able to shed light on why there are two differing orders of creation within the bible? To my mind it's because it was changed by men over the years and they didn't edit very well and remove their contradictions once the new material had been written. I'm sure there are other views than mine. The orders are as below. In the second account, women are made from a man, not equal to men as in the first account. I would guess because this is a reflection of the times it was written in when men were seeking to dominate women and make them second class citizens, an achievement that still exists to this day in many countries around the world. Not an achievement of God who considers all beings equal regardless of gender, colour, race, religion or sexuality in my humble opinion. It's humans who have a problem with the boiling pot of diversity alive on our planet today, not God.

The Differing Orders of Creation:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

[Flail]

..... that genesis as history is a debunked, promitive, and silly idea that they can forego. ....

Yes, and Israeli archeology has debunked much more biblical "history" in recent years. That still leaves the unanswered question as to why it is clearly presented as history. The very fact that it is presented as history has led to the displacement and deaths of millions.

Today, with the scientific tools and understanding we possess, it is clear that the bible, and genesis in particular is a fable. That is only clear to us in the now. Without modern tools, and relying only on the scriptures themselves, they in no way appear to be written as allegory. If you were reading genesis 3 thousand years ago, I believe you yourself would believe it was an attempt at history. No? It is only unbelievable TODAY, because we know better.

Bob

IMO, the only way anyone could be made to believe Genesis as literal truth is by virtue of an indoctrinated desire....you really have to be trained to want to believe in order for an obvious fable to become truth in one's mind. I am always surprised at the power of indoctrinated beliefs....for some, the power of the pulpit and all that churchy religiosity turns myth into fact.

[Shermana]

..... that genesis as history is a debunked, promitive, and silly idea that they can forego. ....

Yes, and Israeli archeology has debunked much more biblical "history" in recent years. That still leaves the unanswered question as to why it is clearly presented as history. The very fact that it is presented as history has led to the displacement and deaths of millions.

Today, with the scientific tools and understanding we possess, it is clear that the bible, and genesis in particular is a fable. That is only clear to us in the now. Without modern tools, and relying only on the scriptures themselves, they in no way appear to be written as allegory. If you were reading genesis 3 thousand years ago, I believe you yourself would believe it was an attempt at history. No? It is only unbelievable TODAY, because we know better.

Bob

IMO, the only way anyone could be made to believe Genesis as literal truth is by virtue of an indoctrinated desire....you really have to be trained to want to believe in order for an obvious fable to become truth in one's mind. I am always surprised at the power of indoctrinated beliefs....for some, the power of the pulpit and all that churchy religiosity turns myth into fact.

The thing is though, whether or not you believe that science has supposedly "debunked" the account, the question is if it was really intended to be a "fable" because the evidence I'd say overwhelmingly suggests that it's not a "fable" but an "account" of what the author intended to be truth, regardless if you believe that the "account" is disproven or not. I don't need any pulpit or "Churchy religiosity" to have my own "scientific" reasons for believing why it's an accurate account, but that the defense of such was never my intention when I questioned the legitimacy of the claim that the author didn't intend it to be anything but their belief of 100% accurate historicity.

[Slopeshoulder]

But it's not in any way an accurate historical account and was never meant to be.

That statement seems to conflict with the sense of the rest of the book of genesis. Chapters 4,5, and 11 for instance, go into great detail on the genealogies from Adam to Abraham. describing in great detail who begat whom, when, ages, life spans, and deaths. It all reads like a historical account, not an allegory. How do you know it "was never meant to be" literal?
Bob

Now this at least I can agree with you on, it seems the evidence is far more in favor of that the original authors completley intended it to be literal, and if not, then NONE, I mean NONE of the early authors and Midrashists got this memo, so saying that we KNOW it was intended to be not literal seems to be an escape hatch for those who don't want to butt heads with those pushing the idea that science has somehow "debunked" the original account. Especially when they say that the literalist interpretation "does Violence" to the scripture, as if we know somehow that the authors didn't intend it to be taken literally, so tokens for you on this at least.

Both wrong.
I never claimed that all of Genesis was fictional or a fable. It isn't.
Kindly read that again.

A LOT of the OT was meant to be literal, like geneologies and wars and migrations and many actual people (moses, david, soloman, some prophets, not adam or job or noah), but not the magic parts. Or to put it another way, there was little to NO distinction between real and magical thought frames among tribal ancients and NONE of the OT was written or read apart from a theological mindset and interpretive agenda. At the meta-hermeneutical level, the whole thing is an interpretation, a communal poetry, with the jewish emphasis on covenat history as its focus and driver. Nothing wrong with that. Why is it so hard to understand or accept? If anything, awareness of this may serve to keep the content of the OT alive and relevant rather then seeing it get obscured or even lost in the mire of untenable and reductionsistic claims that lead to the kind of sideshow arguments and detours we see in this thread. This entire thread is based upon misreadings by literalists of one stripe or another. Folks: it's mythic history. What's so hard or scary about that? Dang, I was taught this at YDS by unquestionably devout people who love the bible and are actually considered conservative in several cases for chrissake.

Don't ask me to interrupt my life to provide the details of all the scholarship that supports these truths. If this is required in this sandbox, then rejoice, I'm gone. Otherwise, consider these comments above in light of information that is publicly available.

[SailingCyclops]

Yes, and Israeli archeology has debunked much more biblical "history" in recent years.

Care to back that assertion?

Sure. A book published in 2001 by Israeli archeologists called The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
States in part:

In "The Bible Unearthed," Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman display a rare talent among scholars--the ability to make specialized research accessible to a general audience. In this book the authors reveal how recent archaeological research forces us to reconsider the historical account woven into the Hebrew Bible. Among the conclusions they draw are:

1) The tales of patriarchs such as Abraham are largely legends composed long after the time in which they supposedly took place. This is seen in anachronisms such as the use of camels, not domesticated in the Near East until nearly 1000 years after Abraham's time, in many of the stories.

2) There is good reason to believe that the Exodus never happened. Had migrants to the number of even a small fraction of the 600,000 claimed in the Bible truly sojourned in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years, archaeological evidence of their passage would be abundant. In fact, there are no traces of any signifant group living in the Sinai at the supposed time of the Exodus.

3) The Israelite "conquest" of Canaan, such as there was, was far from the military invasion of the books of Joshua and Judges. Many of the cities described as being conquered and destroyed did not even exist at the time, while those that did were small, unfortified villages, with no walls to be brought down, by blowing trumpets or otherwise.

4) While there is evidence that a historical David existed, and founded some sort of ruling dynasty known by his name, there is good reason to believe that he did not rule over the powerful united monarchy described in II Samuel. One reason for doubt: Jerusalem, portrayed as the great capital of a prosperous nation, was during the time of David little more than a village.

5) Neither Israel nor Judah emerged as organized kingdoms until significantly after the supposed period of the united monarchy. Israel does not appear as a recognizable kingdom until the time of the Omrides of the 9th century BCE, while Judah does not appear as such until the late 8th century BCE, at the time of kings Ahaz and Hezekiah.

Along with their revision of the biblical account of history, Finkelstein and Silberman attempt to explain the origins of the Hebrew Bible, suggesting that the composition of much of the Bible can be tied to the religious agenda of King Josiah of Judah during the late 7th century BCE. While the origins of the Bible will never be known with certainty--there simply isn't enough evidence--Finkelstein and Silberman definitely provide a plausible interpretation.

The authors, as I noted above, do a superb job of making their work understandable to non-specialists; since even college history majors often don't study the ancient Near East, they take care to include sufficient background information for the reader to understand the context of their account. Anyone with an interest in the subject will find "The Bible Unearthed" to be fascinating reading. And anyone who thinks the Bible is an accurate history book should definitely read it.

There is much evidence, both archeological and scientific, which shows the bible is not an accurate historical text. Another example from archeology:

The Bible, as History, Flunks New Archaeological Tests

[...]
Archaeologists working at excavation sites like Megiddo in northern Israel, say that no evidence has been found to confirm biblical stories about a united monarchy ruling over a large area from Jerusalem or about the wanderings of the Jews in the desert during the Exodus.
[...]

Finally, one more of many examples:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

Now this at least I can agree with you on, it seems the evidence is far more in favor of that the original authors completley intended it to be literal ....

It certainly appears that way. Knowing what we now know from archeology (see my post above), we have two possible explanations as to why historical fact deviates from the texts.

1) The texts were purposely designed to deceive for political and or religious gains.
[center]or[/center]
2) Because the texts were the result of oral histories, passed down by word of mouth, the actual events portrayed were embellished over time, and were, at the time of penning, actually believed to be factual.

Given the state of ignorance during the bronze age, I would tend to believe that #2 is mostly the case, with #1 being somewhat significant.

The fact remains however, that much of the bible is not an accurate representation of events, and must needs be read as allegory, as literature, as lovely pros, as a cultural mythology, the way SlopsShoulder points out. To claim it is literally true as written, both flies in the face of modern knowledge, and relegates it to number 1 above.

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

A LOT of the OT was meant to be literal, like geneologies and wars and migrations and many actual people (moses, david, soloman, some prophets, not adam or job or noah), but not the magic parts.

This seems a bit arbitrary to me. Where and how do you draw the line? For instance, it is clear that the story of Moses and the Exodus never really happened (see above), David is not portrayed accurately, and the genealogies have obvious gaps.

In my fourth year of Italian studies, we read and critiqued Dante's Inferno in Italian. A wonderful allegorical tale of horrors set in medieval hell. I read the bible in the same light, as a fantastic tale, which one can't take too seriously.

Bob

[Shermana]

Yes, and Israeli archeology has debunked much more biblical "history" in recent years.

Care to back that assertion?

Sure. A book published in 2001 by Israeli archeologists called The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
States in part:

In "The Bible Unearthed," Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman display a rare talent among scholars--the ability to make specialized research accessible to a general audience. In this book the authors reveal how recent archaeological research forces us to reconsider the historical account woven into the Hebrew Bible. Among the conclusions they draw are:

1) The tales of patriarchs such as Abraham are largely legends composed long after the time in which they supposedly took place. This is seen in anachronisms such as the use of camels, not domesticated in the Near East until nearly 1000 years after Abraham's time, in many of the stories.

2) There is good reason to believe that the Exodus never happened. Had migrants to the number of even a small fraction of the 600,000 claimed in the Bible truly sojourned in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years, archaeological evidence of their passage would be abundant. In fact, there are no traces of any signifant group living in the Sinai at the supposed time of the Exodus.

3) The Israelite "conquest" of Canaan, such as there was, was far from the military invasion of the books of Joshua and Judges. Many of the cities described as being conquered and destroyed did not even exist at the time, while those that did were small, unfortified villages, with no walls to be brought down, by blowing trumpets or otherwise.

4) While there is evidence that a historical David existed, and founded some sort of ruling dynasty known by his name, there is good reason to believe that he did not rule over the powerful united monarchy described in II Samuel. One reason for doubt: Jerusalem, portrayed as the great capital of a prosperous nation, was during the time of David little more than a village.

5) Neither Israel nor Judah emerged as organized kingdoms until significantly after the supposed period of the united monarchy. Israel does not appear as a recognizable kingdom until the time of the Omrides of the 9th century BCE, while Judah does not appear as such until the late 8th century BCE, at the time of kings Ahaz and Hezekiah.

Along with their revision of the biblical account of history, Finkelstein and Silberman attempt to explain the origins of the Hebrew Bible, suggesting that the composition of much of the Bible can be tied to the religious agenda of King Josiah of Judah during the late 7th century BCE. While the origins of the Bible will never be known with certainty--there simply isn't enough evidence--Finkelstein and Silberman definitely provide a plausible interpretation.

The authors, as I noted above, do a superb job of making their work understandable to non-specialists; since even college history majors often don't study the ancient Near East, they take care to include sufficient background information for the reader to understand the context of their account. Anyone with an interest in the subject will find "The Bible Unearthed" to be fascinating reading. And anyone who thinks the Bible is an accurate history book should definitely read it.

There is much evidence, both archeological and scientific, which shows the bible is not an accurate historical text. Another example from archeology:

The Bible, as History, Flunks New Archaeological Tests

[...]
Archaeologists working at excavation sites like Megiddo in northern Israel, say that no evidence has been found to confirm biblical stories about a united monarchy ruling over a large area from Jerusalem or about the wanderings of the Jews in the desert during the Exodus.
[...]

Finally, one more of many examples:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

Bob

Just FYI, Finkelstein is highly contested and is not considered authoritative by most archaeologists, particularly the famous Dr. William Dever. He is arguably THE most living respected authority on Archaeology and considers these of Finkelstein's ilk to be "Revisionists"....

http://www.fsmitha.com/review/r-dever.html

In his book What Did the Bible Writers Know and When Did They Know It he tells where scholarship regarding archaeology and the Bible has been in past decades and where it is now.

William Dever criticizes those archaeologists called revisionists, among them the celebrated Israel Finkelstein. He faults them for dismissing entirely the Bible as a source of what happened in biblical times. He writes:

I could easily write a 1000-page, richly documented history of an 'ancient Israel' in the Iron Age and early Persian period. None of the revisionists, working with their methodology and data, could produce more than a handful of pages. That is why I say that they are, practically speaking, nihilists.

Dever associates himself with what he calls the new archaeology, something more than thirty-years old and devoted to good field work, use of the latest and most reliable dating methods and interdisciplinary analysis. His conclusions about what this archaeology tells us about the Bible will not be accepted by fundamentalists. I gather that Dever and his colleagues of high standing dismiss fundamentalists who want to consider themselves scholars without accepting that which good scholars must do: engage in extensive critical analysis.

[Shermana]

Both wrong.
I never claimed that all of Genesis was fictional or a fable. It isn't.

You asserted that you know for a 100% guaranteed fact that the original authors never intended it to be taken literally.

Kindly read that again.

Kindly read what I said again and said each time, you asserted that the original authors didn't intend Genesis to be taken literally. No way around it.

A LOT of the OT was meant to be literal, like geneologies and wars and migrations and many actual people (moses, david, soloman, some prophets, not adam or job or noah), but not the magic parts.

There you go again, blatantly stating what we're accusing you of, of asserting that the original authors intended certain parts to not be taken literally.

Or to put it another way, there was little to NO distinction between real and magical thought frames among tribal ancients and NONE of the OT was written or read apart from a theological mindset and interpretive agenda. At the meta-hermeneutical level, the whole thing is an interpretation, a communal poetry, with the jewish emphasis on covenat history as its focus and driver. Nothing wrong with that. Why is it so hard to understand or accept? If anything, awareness of this may serve to keep the content of the OT alive and relevant rather then seeing it get obscured or even lost in the mire of untenable and reductionsistic claims that lead to the kind of sideshow arguments and detours we see in this thread. This entire thread is based upon misreadings by literalists of one stripe or another.

Perhaps it's hard to accept or "understand" your assertion that we know which parts the "Communal Poetry" meant to be taken literally and which ones aren't. As for a "Meta-hermeneutical level", it is all opinion and guesswork, you are making it out like we KNOW for a guaranteed 100% fact.

Folks: it's mythic history. What's so hard or scary about that? Dang, I was taught this at YDS by unquestionably devout people who love the bible and are actually considered conservative in several cases for chrissake.

That's great. Does it prove what the original authors were thinking? No. Does it seem to be that this is a common "escape hatch" by those who don't want to deal with the "scientific" rebuttals? Yes, that is what we naysayers are agreeing to, that it's a back-out plan by those who want to still have their cake and eat it too, by saying that it wasn't MEANT to be taken literally: Well, one little kink in their plan....that would mean Jesus and Paul were also unaware of this misconception.

Don't ask me to interrupt my life to provide the details of all the scholarship that supports these truths

.

You obviously have enough time to make your assertions, if you insist that you don't want to back up your claims, you are in violation of the board, it would be a shame to think someone can somehow avoid having to obey what is required to back their claims just because it would be "interuppting their life". Like I said, if all I had to do to prove that Ephesians wasn't written by Paul (or the Pastorals) was say "Go to the library", it would make my arguments against Paulinists much easier. But no, we're ALL "interuppting" our lives by posting here and backing our claims with links, whether they are decisive proof or not, you don't get a special post. Kapiesce?

If this is required in this sandbox, then rejoice, I'm gone.

Good, go find a board that doesn't require you to back your assertions.

Otherwise, consider these comments above in light of information that is publicly available.

And this "information" is nothing but opinion and if its accepted by "conservatives", it is, as more than one of us has pointed out, a blatant cop-out to avoid the implications of the clash with science to say that it was never INTENDED to be literal. Which makes things so much simpler than having to deal with the idea (which seems to be what ALL the early authors and Midrashists seemed to go by as well) that it WAS intended to be literally.

So if you're gone because you don't feel the need to take the same amount of time posting your rebuttal to supply a link or two that discusses the factuality of your assertions, see ya. Good luck finding a forum that doesn't require you to back your assertions, I suggest religiousforums.com, I like that place, though you're not required to back your claims, you will not be taken seriously by the others if you don't.

[Shermana]

It certainly appears that way. Knowing what we now know from archeology (see my post above), we have two possible explanations as to why historical fact deviates from the texts.

The thing is though....what you call "historical fact" is not exactly indisputable necessarily.

1) The texts were purposely designed to deceive for political and or religious gains.

This is most certainly a valid argument, and as a literalist believer, even if the second part of this were true, I'd agree that it's purpose was nonetheless to be what they considered truth, and not necessarily a known/agreed-upon-deception/falsehood being pushed on, the plethora of writings by contemporary commentators seems to give indication to this. I personally don't believe the evidence bears that it was a willfully deceptive attempt.

2) Because the texts were the result of oral histories, passed down by word of mouth, the actual events portrayed were embellished over time, and were, at the time of penning, actually believed to be factual.

I certainly believe that there's a possibility that some of the exacts might have been lost or distorted, but the idea itself was considered to be what they thought was the general ballpark.

Given the state of ignorance during the bronze age, I would tend to believe that #2 is mostly the case, with #1 being somewhat significant.

Just for the record, I think people often think the "bronze age goat herders" as they are commonly called knew a lot more and had a greater respect for historicity than people give them credit for, I don't really see what the modern world has to offer that makes the current generation so much more capable (or honest) about. If anything, I take modern history and "science" with much more salt.

The fact remains however, that much of the bible is not an accurate representation of events, and must needs be read as allegory, as literature, as lovely pros, as a cultural mythology, the way SlopsShoulder points out.

We don't know this for a guaranteed fact, as I've shown, Finkelstein's word is far from authority as matter of fact. It is a common error (that I find to be a little commonly believed by Atheists) to blindly assume that Finkelstein and Armstrong and such's word is true, when there is in fact MUCH dissent against them, and hardly just from the Theist camps, so before you say what we do and don't know, it's important to look at the dissent on the issue.

To claim it is literally true as written, both flies in the face of modern knowledge, and relegates it to number 1 above.

I highly disagree, I think people give "modern knowledge" far too much credit and their wishful thinking is often backed by a glaring bias to simply bonk heads against Theists, as those who think "modern knowledge" somehow trumps the Biblical description are willing to put blind faith in that which isn't exactly provable either, or rests upon shaky data, or hidden data for that matter of which the raw results are not publicly available.

See Jackyl's description of how we know where energy comes from for an example.

[Slopeshoulder]

Both wrong.
I never claimed that all of Genesis was fictional or a fable. It isn't.

You asserted that you know for a 100% guaranteed fact that the original authors never intended it to be taken literally.

Oh my. Two flagrant errors:
1. I never said that, I never said 100%, guaranteed, or fact. Rather, I offered an opinion shared by the respected mainstream professional scholarly perspective. The consensus itself, its existence, is the only indistputable fact. But the consensus evolves. Do NOT put words in my mouth. This undermines whatever credibility you aspire to.
2. I have stated repeatedly that it wasn't about irrelevent and unknowable authorial intent, but rather about cultural and cultic intended use. Kindly go back and reread my posts and try to understand them and represent them honestly and accurately this time. Misquotes are hardly civil.

Kindly read that again.

Kindly read what I said again and said each time, you asserted that the original authors didn't intend Genesis to be taken literally. No way around it.

No way around it? You possess 100% guaranteed fact? I'll alert the top universities on Monday. End debate. Thank you.
Except you're wrong.
Oh, also, I never referred to authorial intent. Have I said that enough yet? I'm a postmodern: I don't know or care what authorial intent was. I care about how a culture used it, then and now. It was mythic in a time when the modern distinction between myth and history wasn't in place, when history wasn't a science and science didn't exist. Google higher criticism.

A LOT of the OT was meant to be literal, like geneologies and wars and migrations and many actual people (moses, david, soloman, some prophets, not adam or job or noah), but not the magic parts.

There you go again, blatantly stating what we're accusing you of, of asserting that the original authors intended certain parts to not be taken literally.

Wow, you make me feel like jimmy carter: there I go again.
There you go again, misreading me, misunderstanding me, and misrepresenting me.
The people I reference as real vs. fictive reflect the scholarly consensus in the miastream. "No way around it." If that's blatant, you're right! I didn't make it up. Do you really want to take this thread in the direction of "was Noah real"?

Or to put it another way, there was little to NO distinction between real and magical thought frames among tribal ancients and NONE of the OT was written or read apart from a theological mindset and interpretive agenda. At the meta-hermeneutical level, the whole thing is an interpretation, a communal poetry, with the jewish emphasis on covenat history as its focus and driver. Nothing wrong with that. Why is it so hard to understand or accept? If anything, awareness of this may serve to keep the content of the OT alive and relevant rather then seeing it get obscured or even lost in the mire of untenable and reductionsistic claims that lead to the kind of sideshow arguments and detours we see in this thread. This entire thread is based upon misreadings by literalists of one stripe or another.

Perhaps it's hard to accept or "understand" your assertion that we know which parts the "Communal Poetry" meant to be taken literally and which ones aren't.

I leave the verse by verse adjudication of the text to the experts. My own understanding is in broad outline and reflects an education that ended 25 years ago this spring, and with it a fading memory.

As for a "Meta-hermeneutical level", it is all opinion and guesswork,

It's not rank opinion and guesswork as you imply; it's a scholarly consensus, however imperfect and evolving within legitimate and credible scholarly communities (from which I exclude both of us). To reduce this serious work to mere opinion is an attack upon the notion of civilization. Shall we equate glenn beck and jaroslav pelikan next?
And anyway, you offer only fringe contrarian unsupported unpublished unreviewed opinion. Is that better some how?

You are making it out like we KNOW for a guaranteed 100% fact.

No I'm not.
As stated above.
However, I am saying that to claim that genesis 1 and 2 and other fantastical accounts are historic rather than mythic is so far outside of the mainstream serious religious consensus as to be profoundly suspect and to represent a veritable attack on civilization, the darkness at the fringe, fanaticism, not to be engaged seriously nor accorded respect, only to be marginalized, disembowled, and defeated. It is on the short list notions that are truly cognitio non grata.

BTW, why do you put quotes around certain of my phrases? To borrow a page from your book, is that an implied ad hominem?

Folks: it's mythic history. What's so hard or scary about that? Dang, I was taught this at YDS by unquestionably devout people who love the bible and are actually considered conservative in several cases for chrissake.

That's great.

We agree. It sure is.

Does it prove what the original authors were thinking? No.

As I've said before, and repeatedly, it doesn't even seek to address this irrelevent and unavailable albatross of an issue. Nor should it.

Does it seem to be that this is a common "escape hatch" by those who don't want to deal with the "scientific" rebuttals?

To which scientific rebuttals do you refer?
And are you now a reader of minds and character? Escape hatch? Rather, "escape hatch"?
Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, that is what we naysayers are agreeing to, that it's a back-out plan by those who want to still have their cake and eat it too, by saying that it wasn't MEANT to be taken literally: Well, one little kink in their plan....that would mean Jesus and Paul were also unaware of this misconception.

It might. Sure, why not? Who died and made them modern men of modern mindset and knowledge? I'm sure there were tons of things they didn't know or understand that we do.
It could also mean that they were in on it. J and P could have had (did have) a premodern mythic-history mindset themselves. Stands to reason.
OR they could have been speaking the language of the time, reaching people where they were at, or if you like, pandering. It was all about stories and inherited tradition, language, tropes, memes, magic.
I assume that neither J nor P was crazy or a liar, so I conclude they were participating in the mindset, language, and culture of their time and place, and doing so unselfconsciously and with little awareness of an alternative.
Why would that be a "kink"? According to whom?
Seems like you're relying upon a self-validating religiously-motivated set of assumptions.
Let me get this straight: you're suggesting the bible is literal because J and P, people who are also known only as characters in the very same biblical narrative, when read a certain way, possibly misread, seemed to think it so? Are you relying upon that obviously circular argument?

Don't ask me to interrupt my life to provide the details of all the scholarship that supports these truths

.

You obviously have enough time to make your assertions,

But not to present one billion pages of scholarship. However, the wiki article on higher criticism, demythologizing, and historical jesus are decent places to start.

if you insist that you don't want to back up your claims, you are in violation of the board,

I back up my claims with arguments and good faith references to consensus. Would you prefer if I presented the kind of lame and thin references that have turned up in this thread, like a youtube video from my favorite liberal perhaps, so then we could argue ad neauseum about that? Sorry,waste of time.

it would be a shame to think someone can somehow avoid having to obey what is required to back their claims just because it would be "interuppting their life".

Opinion noted.
My philosophy is less about obedience, probably because my theology isn't about law so much.

Like I said, if all I had to do to prove that Ephesians wasn't written by Paul (or the Pastorals) was say "Go to the library", it would make my arguments against Paulinists much easier.

If when one visited the library one was overwhelmed, say in an introductory grad level textbook, with a consensus around this argument, not an onscure article, then yes it would.
All the stuff I'm saying is literally first year divinity school bible class stuff. Not controversial, low hanging fruit. That's as far as I went with it (my major was not bible) and I've maybe read the bible for 10 minutes in the intervening quarter century (I read what others say about it, scholars, exegetes, sages; I'm a consumer in this regard).

But no, we're ALL "interuppting" our lives by posting here and backing our claims with links, whether they are decisive proof or not, you don't get a special post. Kapiesce?

We all prioritize. My schedule is not in your command. And I don't do lame links. Capisce? I try to do decent arguments. Why is an external link, posing as evidence, better? I don't buy that. Seems like painting by numbers to me.

If this is required in this sandbox, then rejoice, I'm gone.

Good, go find a board that doesn't require you to back your assertions.

I do back up my assertions.
But if Otseng so instructs me to leave, I will. In the meantime, mind your own garshdang business. I already take a dim view of your ideas and methods. But I have no obligation, incentive, or interest to heed your instructions, nor your narrow view or IMO low standards of evidence.

Otherwise, consider these comments above in light of information that is publicly available.

And this "information" is nothing but opinion and if its accepted by "conservatives", it is, as more than one of us has pointed out, a blatant cop-out to avoid the implications of the clash with science to say that it was never INTENDED to be literal. Which makes things so much simpler than having to deal with the idea (which seems to be what ALL the early authors and Midrashists seemed to go by as well) that it WAS intended to be literally.

Addressed above. It's about use, not intent, and the culture was mytho-historical and premodern. Get it? You're reading it backwards through a modern lens, even as a modern-by-definition fundamentalist (my fingers hurt!)

The literal intent vs. science issue is an albatross, for reasons I expressed in a earlier post. It simply misses the point. It's a by product of modernity, the wrong question, a distraction, and based on misreadings of what ancient mythic literature actually did and how it functions and can be read today. What atters is how the text soeaks to us, how we use it, what we make of it, what it inspires (transformation, kingdom, etc). The rest is dross, chaff.
(And to be honest, I have not read more than 2% of what you have written in posts that didn't quote, address or reference me, so I can't and won't comment upon or engage these.)

So if you're gone because you don't feel the need to take the same amount of time posting your rebuttal to supply a link or two that discusses the factuality of your assertions, see ya. Good luck finding a forum that doesn't require you to back your assertions, I suggest religiousforums.com, I like that place, though you're not required to back your claims, you will not be taken seriously by the others if you don't.

I don't recall asking for your advice on this matter, and also I must note that you have hijacked the thread to discuss my methods and behavior and your apparent umbrage that they do not conform to your wishes, rather than to address the thread topic. Perhaps you should also consider forum rules? Or at least forget me and get back on topic?

Anyway, goodnight.