Re: Fitting Bible literalism into history

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Fitting Bible literalism into history

Post #1

Post by Athetotheist »

I originally posted this in Random Ramblings and it was suggested that I come up with a question to start a discussion. So here it is:


2348 BCE (Ussher calculation)---A global flood wipes out every human being on earth except Noah and his closest relatives.

2345 BCE (three years after the flood)---Teti becomes pharoah of Egypt, beginning that country's sixth dynasty.

2334 BCE (fourteen years after the flood)---Sargon I conquers southern Mesopotamia and founds the Akkadian Empire.

So for a question: Can Bible literalists explain why historical records don't have gaps in them where there should be gaps from the flood? And what does giving up a literal interpretation of Genesis mean for interpreting the rest of the Bible?

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Fitting Bible literalism into history

Post #31

Post by Athetotheist »

Hawkins wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:54 am
Athetotheist wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:43 pm I originally posted this in Random Ramblings and it was suggested that I come up with a question to start a discussion. So here it is:


2348 BCE (Ussher calculation)---A global flood wipes out every human being on earth except Noah and his closest relatives.

2345 BCE (three years after the flood)---Teti becomes pharoah of Egypt, beginning that country's sixth dynasty.

2334 BCE (fourteen years after the flood)---Sargon I conquers southern Mesopotamia and founds the Akkadian Empire.

So for a question: Can Bible literalists explain why historical records don't have gaps in them where there should be gaps from the flood? And what does giving up a literal interpretation of Genesis mean for interpreting the rest of the Bible?
Wrong premises. Nowhere in the Bible says that genealogy can be used of year calculation. Ancient humans recorded genealogy differently in the different times due to the fact that they don't have papers for writing. They may have to use stones and woods etc. to mark down info. Israel is moving ethnic group. They at some point may have to convey info verbally. That's why even part of the Mosaic Law is convey verbally and known as the Oral Law.

The accounts of biblical genealogy are to stand a human witness on that Jesus is from David and subsequently Adam. That's it, no less and no more!
"And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years;" (Genesis 1:14)

If astronomical years have always been the same, those ancient humans wouldn't have needed paper.

Besides, where does the Bible say that genealogy can't be used to calculate years?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Fitting Bible literalism into history

Post #32

Post by JoeyKnothead »

1213 wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:22 pm Wrong the historical record may be, twisted by the enemies of God and truth. :)
It never fails to chuckle me when a theist calls someone an enemy of truth.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Fitting Bible literalism into history

Post #33

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Athetotheist wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:31 pm ...
Besides, where does the Bible say that genealogy can't be used to calculate years?
2 Peter 3:8

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

The Bible's the single greatest collection of loopholes mankind has ever known.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Fitting Bible literalism into history

Post #34

Post by Tcg »

Athetotheist wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:31 pm
Hawkins wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:54 am
Athetotheist wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:43 pm I originally posted this in Random Ramblings and it was suggested that I come up with a question to start a discussion. So here it is:


2348 BCE (Ussher calculation)---A global flood wipes out every human being on earth except Noah and his closest relatives.

2345 BCE (three years after the flood)---Teti becomes pharoah of Egypt, beginning that country's sixth dynasty.

2334 BCE (fourteen years after the flood)---Sargon I conquers southern Mesopotamia and founds the Akkadian Empire.

So for a question: Can Bible literalists explain why historical records don't have gaps in them where there should be gaps from the flood? And what does giving up a literal interpretation of Genesis mean for interpreting the rest of the Bible?
Wrong premises. Nowhere in the Bible says that genealogy can be used of year calculation. Ancient humans recorded genealogy differently in the different times due to the fact that they don't have papers for writing. They may have to use stones and woods etc. to mark down info. Israel is moving ethnic group. They at some point may have to convey info verbally. That's why even part of the Mosaic Law is convey verbally and known as the Oral Law.

The accounts of biblical genealogy are to stand a human witness on that Jesus is from David and subsequently Adam. That's it, no less and no more!
"And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years;" (Genesis 1:14)

If astronomical years have always been the same, those ancient humans wouldn't have needed paper.

Besides, where does the Bible say that genealogy can't be used to calculate years?
Genealogies may not have been written with the express purpose of determining the dates of claimed historical events, but they can be and have been used for this purpose.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Fitting Bible literalism into history

Post #35

Post by Tcg »

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]

Here's another passage that presents a problem if one gives up a literal interpretation of Genesis:
2 Peter 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
This is obviously a reference to the creation account as well as the flood story and to a large degree of certainty reveals that the author considered both as literal events.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Fitting Bible literalism into history

Post #36

Post by Tcg »

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]

Here's another passage that creates a problem if one gives up a literal interpretation of Genesis:
Hebrews 11:7a By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household.
This statement is included in a list of the so called "heroes of the faith." It is clear that the author considers the actions of these heroes as literal events.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7969
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 933 times
Been thanked: 3488 times

Re: Fitting Bible literalism into history

Post #37

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Well.... :D fresh from posting on the Dunning - Kruger thread we seem to have ended up by pinning down the usual Theist wriggling with 'no evidence of civilisations having been wiped out by Flood'. And I just loved the suggested 'well if they'd been wiped out they wouldn't be able to write about it, would they?' That's where archaeology comes in , where there are no written records and even to correct written records. Apart from Genesis looking unreliable when compared to what the remaining evidence says, Exodus..which I was willing to credit not too many decades ago ...now looks like that's a myth, too. Hebrew origins seem to have been as one of the Aramean tribes (along with Assyria, ironically enough) Moab, Edom etc to emerge from the hills to occupy former Canaan after the bronze age collapse, and there was no exodus or Conquest in the Biblical sense. Now there are strong doubts that Nazareth even existed as a town large enough to have its' own synagogue.

Well, raising the objection that vanished civilisations can't describe their own demise is that it gives a chance to explain that forensic evidence (archaeology, for instance) is even better than history sometimes ,as the spade doesn't lie, unlike books written by humans who don't always have the honest presentation of facts inspiring their work. I was half expecting 'something of the sort, though: 'Maybe the archaeology is wrong'. Science denial is always an option, but it's always diverting to see the Bible apologists calculating what is plausibly denialist and what would only hurt them. We get denial of deep time geology and the evolutionary sequence, but they stop short of denying a heliocentric system and a round earth. Why, when they deny and evolved system and a 2 billion year old earth? So far as I can see, they stop short of what would get them laughed at.

Post Reply