Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy

[JoeMama]

In the animal Creation passages, (Genesis 1:25-26), God already had made the animals, but later (Genesis 2:18-19) he said that making the animals was something he planned to do.

If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?

[Difflugia]

Again we can only guess about the reason contradictions were allowed to stay in. I can make a fair guess about why the gospel contradictions were left in - the gospels were written separately by writers who had no idea they contradicted.

I absolutely disagree. The Synoptics show indisputable literary dependence, so weren't written "separately" and so I'm convinced that the contradictions were intentional. Matthew and Luke both copied and changed Mark. It's a minority position, but I'm also convinced that Luke had and changed Matthew. The interesting thing for me isn't why the contradictions were "left in," but how the Gospels came to be circulated together.

Later when they were put together, the contradictions were simply ignored, just as the faithful ignore them today.

I think you're half right. While I think that at the time the contradictions were unimportant and ignored, one can't make the same blanket statement about "the faithful" today. Some Christians think a text with either textual or doctrinal errors is fine, but those aren't the ones being addressed in this thread. Those Christians believe doctrinally that Genesis is both historically accurate in a literal sense and is supernaturally free from error. I disagree with those Christians and argue that neither of these is true. You also seem to be arguing that these are true, but seem to think that your argument is with me rather than with other Christians.

Interestingly, Luke WAS aware of the contradiction. Ho must have seen copies of Paul's letters and realised the disciples did not go to Galilee (and stay there as he thought would have been the intention of the story), but knew from Paul that they stayed in Jerusalem and founded the church. So he rewrote the gospel to agree with Paul,

Luke didn't really agree with Paul, either. Paul letters offer no indication that Jesus was directly responsible for the Church, either before or after his resurrection. Luke also changed the nature of Paul's disagreements with both Peter and the portion of the Church represented by James. Luke/Acts not only contradicts the other Gospels, but the Pauline epistles, as well.

but didn't know his alteration was in contradiction to the other gospels.

I'm curious why you think he was unaware of the contradictions that he put there himself.

Not that the Faithful who collated the gospels or the believers who read them noticed the contradictions or cared if they did. They simply wave them away on miserable excuses or just ignore the facts altogether.

My position is that the "Faithful who collated the gospels [and] the believers who read them" didn't care about the contradictions because they knew that the stories were metaphorical religious fiction rather than historical narrative. Contradictions in theological metaphor between religious authors are hardly fatal. It's the later faithful that tried to repurpose the narratives as inerrant history that cause problems.

I would guess something of the kind could explain the Genesis contradiction, too. The multiple authors theory is well known enough to Bible scholars, other than the fact - concealing kind.

I would guess that you're right. Genesis 1 is a metaphorical play on Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths that are themselves metaphorical rather than historical. Genesis 2-3 is a set of etiological stories wrapped in a creation story similar to those found in the stories of the patriarchs. I agree that treating them as inerrant history is incorrect, but at the same time, I'm engaging with inerrantist Christians on their own terms. You being embarrassed by their position, even if you're right to be so, doesn't somehow invalidate my or anyone else's argument against inerrancy.

Atheist Axiom no 6 "Metaphorically true means 'Not true at all'".

That's a straw man. the "Atheist Axiom" is that metaphorically true is different than literally true in a historical sense. The Christian attempt to conflate them usually results in a fallacious argument built on equivocation.

On the other hand, the "Enlightened Christian Axiom" appears to be that because some Christians are wise enough to realize that the Bible can't be inerrant in the sense of the Chicago Statement, then engaging with less enlightened Christians on their own terms is itself somehow invalid or fallacious.

The metaphor or symbolic apologetic is merely smokescreening with (I guess) the idea of arguing that the bible is conveying truth even though so much of it is untrue. This attempt to bamboozle should never have worked and shouldn't now.

I agree, but yet so many Christians persist in doing so. Pick a lane.

[TRANSPONDER]

Again we can only guess about the reason contradictions were allowed to stay in. I can make a fair guess about why the gospel contradictions were left in - the gospels were written separately by writers who had no idea they contradicted.

I absolutely disagree. The Synoptics show indisputable literary dependence, so weren't written "separately" and so I'm convinced that the contradictions were intentional. Matthew and Luke both copied and changed Mark. It's a minority position, but I'm also convinced that Luke had and changed Matthew. The interesting thing for me isn't why the contradictions were "left in," but how the Gospels came to be circulated together.

Well, let me clarify. Yes, the texual evidence indicates a common source for the synoptics. I also see a common source for the Matthew and Luke material that shows similar wording, (also with Mark/Matthew material, not in Luke) but the nativities cannot be common source (though they have a common dogma) and must be written independently, and thus, generally, I argue that differences were introduced individually and that means the common source is gone and all the synoptics are independent of each other, especially the resurrections which are Not based on any common source but the resurrection - claim, and the mutually destructive nativity narratives are based on a dogma: Jesus was born in Bethlehem, by hook or by crook - mainly crook.

Later when they were put together, the contradictions were simply ignored, just as the faithful ignore them today.

I think you're half right. While I think that at the time the contradictions were unimportant and ignored, one can't make the same blanket statement about "the faithful" today. Some Christians think a text with either textual or doctrinal errors is fine, but those aren't the ones being addressed in this thread. Those Christians believe doctrinally that Genesis is both historically accurate in a literal sense and is supernaturally free from error. I disagree with those Christians and argue that neither of these is true. You also seem to be arguing that these are true, but seem to think that your argument is with me rather than with other Christians.

I don't quite follow that, but for me Genesis is Not True, whether taken as factually true or metaphorically valid by the Christians. I am aware that Christians come in three flavours:
(1) It's true, and science is wrong
(2) It agrees with science if you muddle them about
(3) it is factually wrong but it doesn't matter as what it lies about is True.

Interestingly, Luke WAS aware of the contradiction. Ho must have seen copies of Paul's letters and realised the disciples did not go to Galilee (and stay there as he thought would have been the intention of the story), but knew from Paul that they stayed in Jerusalem and founded the church. So he rewrote the gospel to agree with Paul,

Luke didn't really agree with Paul, either. Paul letters offer no indication that Jesus was directly responsible for the Church, either before or after his resurrection. Luke also changed the nature of Paul's disagreements with both Peter and the portion of the Church represented by James. Luke/Acts not only contradicts the other Gospels, but the Pauline epistles, as well.

Agreed. My take is that (after the conversion, and I have a Theory about that, too) Paul adapted the Observant Messianism of the disciples to suit his gentiles. Thus his Thesis (Romans), in which he argues that the law cannot save and only a sin sacrifice (Jesus) can save. This the Law doesn't matter and gentiles don't have to snip anything off to become as good as Jews. I think he did a deal with James (pretty much just with him) but still fell out with some Jews and I suspect the 'super -apostles' were Jesus' own followers.

However, Luke struggles with the 11 who should have been made Christian but were (at least James was) observant Jews. Not only does James cover up dirty talk about Paul's campaign in Greece, but at the council of Jerusalem (the private talk turned into a religious trial in the superbowl) Peter and James bat for Paul in a biased way that would shock Judge Cannon.

but didn't know his alteration was in contradiction to the other gospels.

I'm curious why you think he was unaware of the contradictions that he put there himself.

I've forgotten who 'He' is, but it goes for all. The gospel writers must have thought that Their gospel was the only one that would be read, by anyone they were bothered about, anyway. They didn't know or didn't care about contradictions. They didn't show up until they were collated (warts and all) and the Bible scholars didn't bother about either them and still don't, 2,000 years later.

Not that the Faithful who collated the gospels or the believers who read them noticed the contradictions or cared if they did. They simply wave them away on miserable excuses or just ignore the facts altogether.

My position is that the "Faithful who collated the gospels [and] the believers who read them" didn't care about the contradictions because they knew that the stories were metaphorical religious fiction rather than historical narrative. Contradictions in theological metaphor between religious authors are hardly fatal. It's the later faithful that tried to repurpose the narratives as inerrant history that cause problems.

My position on it (myself) is that metaphorically true means 'not true at all'. As for the collators or indeed writers, what was true was what they wanted, and what they didn't want wasn't there in the Bible even if it was, and that is still what they do today.

I would guess something of the kind could explain the Genesis contradiction, too. The multiple authors theory is well known enough to Bible scholars, other than the fact - concealing kind.

I would guess that you're right. Genesis 1 is a metaphorical play on Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths that are themselves metaphorical rather than historical. Genesis 2-3 is a set of etiological stories wrapped in a creation story similar to those found in the stories of the patriarchs. I agree that treating them as inerrant history is incorrect, but at the same time, I'm engaging with inerrantist Christians on their own terms. You being embarrassed by their position, even if you're right to be so, doesn't somehow invalidate my or anyone else's argument against inerrancy.

I agree. Except that the splitting of the waters (above and below the Firmament) reminds one of the Babylonian myth of Marduk and Tiamat, and I increasingly am of the view that Genesis and Exodus were origin - stories written during the Exile and using Babylonian material. For example, Sargon in the Bulrushes, the Esagila as the model for Babel, Ur as the origin of Abraham and, I increasingly believe, Ahmose driving the Hyksos out of the delta turning into Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt.

Atheist Axiom no 6 "Metaphorically true means 'Not true at all'".

That's a straw man. the "Atheist Axiom" is that metaphorically true is different than literally true in a historical sense. The Christian attempt to conflate them usually results in a fallacious argument built on equivocation.

That's good enough for atheist Axiom no 6. Thing is Icelandic sagas read like histories but some magical aspects (like ancient histories) but Erik's saga has been part verified by evidence. But that doesn't validate the fantastic bits. So, even if we found that "Eden" was a real place in Mesopotamia, unknown until now, that would still not make Genesis true, nor the truth is was supposed to be a metaphor of, valid. 'Miracles don't happen' is not logically hard and fast, but is a rational base is based on what we know of how the world works. Burden of proof is not to show that miracles can't happen but to show they do or did, and written in a metaphorical tales not good evidence.

On the other hand, the "Enlightened Christian Axiom" appears to be that because some Christians are wise enough to realize that the Bible can't be inerrant in the sense of the Chicago Statement, then engaging with less enlightened Christians on their own terms is itself somehow invalid or fallacious.

That's for the Christians to worry about - Their struggle is with how far they go down the slipperry slope before they turn atheist, and I guess that'll bother them more than arguing with Genesis -literalists and anti -evolutionists.

The metaphor or symbolic apologetic is merely smokescreening with (I guess) the idea of arguing that the bible is conveying truth even though so much of it is untrue. This attempt to bamboozle should never have worked and shouldn't now.

I agree, but yet so many Christians persist in doing so. Pick a lane.

I guess. The lane or Line I'd pick (which closes for lunch just as I get to the window) is, if the Bible is a non -factual metaphor for truth, why isn't another holy Book also a non -factual metaphor for truth? I'd argue that the logical option is Deism or irreligious theism. Not (logically) Christianity. I'd be ok with them doing it for cultural reasons, as i did with Buddhism, mainly to please Mrs Trans.

[Difflugia]

I also see a common source for the Matthew and Luke material that shows similar wording,

I see the common source between Matthew and Luke as Matthew.

but the nativities cannot be common source (though they have a common dogma) and must be written independently,

I see Luke's nativity as a response to Matthew. Matthew's nativity is his own creation, a declaration that Jesus is the new Moses, fitting with the theme of the rest of his Gospel. Luke's nativity is plausible in a "historical fiction" sense, but it follows the same form as Matthew's. Luke wrote his nativity as a response to Matthew's, not simply choosing an alternate source.

Luke liked Mark, but thought it needed to be expanded. Matthew did that, but Luke didn't like his hamhanded and too-thinly veiled retelling of the Moses cycle. He rewrote the nativity to get Jesus to Bethlehem, but in a way that didn't require the supernatural agency of Matthew.

and thus, generally, I argue that differences were introduced individually and that means the common source is gone and all the synoptics are independent of each other, especially the resurrections which are Not based on any common source but the resurrection - claim, and the mutually destructive nativity narratives are based on a dogma: Jesus was born in Bethlehem, by hook or by crook - mainly crook.

I think the mistake you're making is that the authors believed the stories were true and historical narratives. The stories contradict, not because Matthew and Luke had different sources, but because Matthew and Luke used Mark to craft different theological narratives. I agree with Mark Goodacre when he writes the following in The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze:

Luke, who has already known Mark for some years, comes across a copy of Matthew and can see immediately what it is—an attempt to ‘fix’ Mark in the ways just mentioned. This provides Luke with a catalyst—it gives him the idea of trying to improve on Mark himself, imitating Matthew’s grand plan but at the same time attempting to better it. Thus Luke, like Matthew, writes a new version of Mark, making it a similar length to Matthew’s Gospel, framing it in the same way, with birth narratives at the beginning and resurrection stories at the end, and in between adding a substantial amount of sayings material as well as some more fresh narrative. As Luke, like Matthew, attempts to fix Mark, he utilizes many of Matthew’s own materials to do the job, especially the rich quarry of sayings material. But not for Luke are huge monologues like the Sermon on the Mount. He is attempting to write a plausible, sequential narrative of ‘the events that have been fulfilled among us’ (1.1) and this means avoiding Matthew’s wooden structures, instead choosing to interweave deeds and sayings and to create a feeling of movement and progress, a progress that is not halted until, at the end of his second volume (the Acts of the Apostles), Paul is in Rome.

Luke didn't relate an alternate tradition, he created one.

I don't quite follow that, but for me Genesis is Not True, whether taken as factually true or metaphorically valid by the Christians. I am aware that Christians come in three flavours:
(1) It's true, and science is wrong
(2) It agrees with science if you muddle them about
(3) it is factually wrong but it doesn't matter as what it lies about is True.

My point was that the ongoing conversation seems to revolve around inerrancy being somehow affected by authorial intent, with which I disagree. Inerrancy as it's defined is an attempt to prescribe authorial and theological intent. It is wrong on its face.

Agreed. My take is that (after the conversion, and I have a Theory about that, too) Paul adapted the Observant Messianism of the disciples to suit his gentiles. Thus his Thesis (Romans), in which he argues that the law cannot save and only a sin sacrifice (Jesus) can save. This the Law doesn't matter and gentiles don't have to snip anything off to become as good as Jews. I think he did a deal with James (pretty much just with him) but still fell out with some Jews and I suspect the 'super -apostles' were Jesus' own followers.

However, Luke struggles with the 11 who should have been made Christian but were (at least James was) observant Jews. Not only does James cover up dirty talk about Paul's campaign in Greece, but at the council of Jerusalem (the private talk turned into a religious trial in the superbowl) Peter and James bat for Paul in a biased way that would shock Judge Cannon.

As always, you've found an interesting angle that I didn't think of.

The gospel writers must have thought that Their gospel was the only one that would be read, by anyone they were bothered about, anyway. They didn't know or didn't care about contradictions. They didn't show up until they were collated (warts and all) and the Bible scholars didn't bother about either them and still don't, 2,000 years later.

I think the Gospel writers knew they were competing with others, but weren't concerned because they knew that they were writing and adjusting fiction. The narrative contradictions weren't with history, but with theology.

I agree. Except that the splitting of the waters (above and below the Firmament) reminds one of the Babylonian myth of Marduk and Tiamat, and I increasingly am of the view that Genesis and Exodus were origin - stories written during the Exile and using Babylonian material. For example, Sargon in the Bulrushes, the Esagila as the model for Babel, Ur as the origin of Abraham and, I increasingly believe, Ahmose driving the Hyksos out of the delta turning into Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt.

I think you're probably right. I used to think that Genesis was written during an earlier period of Babylonian influence, but I now think that Genesis is at the earliest, no older than Deuteronomy, contemporary with Josiah. I think this is the period when things like the ten tribes became twelve and the Sabbath came once every seven days rather than corresponding directly with phases of the moon.

Thing is Icelandic sagas read like histories but some magical aspects (like ancient histories) but Erik's saga has been part verified by evidence. But that doesn't validate the fantastic bits. So, even if we found that "Eden" was a real place in Mesopotamia, unknown until now, that would still not make Genesis true, nor the truth is was supposed to be a metaphor of, valid.

You're right. My point, though, is that it's not the Bible that's wrong, but Christians. The Bible authors wrote what they wrote and Christians trying to make it into something else doesn't invalidate what the Bible actually is.

The lane or Line I'd pick (which closes for lunch just as I get to the window) is, if the Bible is a non -factual metaphor for truth, why isn't another holy Book also a non -factual metaphor for truth?

The Bible's a non-factual metaphor for Yahwism or Christianity. It has no reasonable claim to truth. In those senses, it's the same as other holy books.

[TRANSPONDER]

I also see a common source for the Matthew and Luke material that shows similar wording,

I see the common source between Matthew and Luke as Matthew.

I don't, because he only has half a sermon, he rest being used otherwise. In addition, he differs from Matthew so much (strikingly in the resurrections) that I don't believe that Luke could have known Matthew's gospel was around and have contradicted him so much. But I do believe they had a common source outside the Bible. (I call it "Q") Much being the sermon material, some being narrative, like the tempting of Jesus or John's question.

but the nativities cannot be common source (though they have a common dogma) and must be written independently,

I see Luke's nativity as a response to Matthew. Matthew's nativity is his own creation, a declaration that Jesus is the new Moses, fitting with the theme of the rest of his Gospel. Luke's nativity is plausible in a "historical fiction" sense, but it follows the same form as Matthew's. Luke wrote his nativity as a response to Matthew's, not simply choosing an alternate source.

Luke liked Mark, but thought it needed to be expanded. Matthew did that, but Luke didn't like his hamhanded and too-thinly veiled retelling of the Moses cycle. He rewrote the nativity to get Jesus to Bethlehem, but in a way that didn't require the supernatural agency of Matthew.

I do not believe that Luke knew Matthew's gospel or the nativity, or he could not have written a nativity gospel (and resurrection) that contradicted so much.

There is another thing, that Luke agrees with John in a simpler Bethsaida story: sailing to Bethsaida, feeding of 5,000, Messianic event which is made magical in the synoptic version but Jesus runs away from it in John - he knew it was too much subversive; ("What? Am I a rebel, that you come out with swords and clubs?" Yes, absolutely he was) and return to Capernaum, and Luke has no walking on water, interestingly. John and all the 2nd feeding material and the syrio -phoenecian woman plus the cursing of the figtree is not in Luke. This is again a "Q" type addition that Luke didn't use. Luke and John reflect more of the original gospel.

I agree that Jesus is the new Moses going up the mountain to give the new commandments. But that is his take on the material and doesn't change whether Luke saw Matthew's gospel or not (I say he couldn't have and written such a contradictory one. I think he used his sources to suit himself.

(Have we talked before on City Data? This discussion sounds familiar).

and thus, generally, I argue that differences were introduced individually and that means the common source is gone and all the synoptics are independent of each other, especially the resurrections which are Not based on any common source but the resurrection - claim, and the mutually destructive nativity narratives are based on a dogma: Jesus was born in Bethlehem, by hook or by crook - mainly crook.

I think the mistake you're making is that the authors believed the stories were true and historical narratives. The stories contradict, not because Matthew and Luke had different sources, but because Matthew and Luke used Mark to craft different theological narratives. I agree with Mark Goodacre when he writes the following in The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze:

I could go into a discussion about the reason they wrote their gospels the way they did, but bottom line is I do not believe that any of them knew the other gospels because of the contradictions. Even Mark adds Pilate's surprise which I think at least one would have adapted. There was an original synoptic that Mark,Matthew and Luke edited for their own purposes and an original (Christian story, they all used, including John.

I also get some redflags that they knew it wasn'#t true and knew what was. Just as notorious or at least notable example of a poster pasting the combined resurrection text but leaving out all the contradictions. He knew it debunked the story. I think the Gospel writers did the same. They (Luke and John at least)
that the truth underlying the original story is a failed rebellion.

Luke, who has already known Mark for some years, comes across a copy of Matthew and can see immediately what it is—an attempt to ‘fix’ Mark in the ways just mentioned. This provides Luke with a catalyst—it gives him the idea of trying to improve on Mark himself, imitating Matthew’s grand plan but at the same time attempting to better it. Thus Luke, like Matthew, writes a new version of Mark, making it a similar length to Matthew’s Gospel, framing it in the same way, with birth narratives at the beginning and resurrection stories at the end, and in between adding a substantial amount of sayings material as well as some more fresh narrative. As Luke, like Matthew, attempts to fix Mark, he utilizes many of Matthew’s own materials to do the job, especially the rich quarry of sayings material. But not for Luke are huge monologues like the Sermon on the Mount. He is attempting to write a plausible, sequential narrative of ‘the events that have been fulfilled among us’ (1.1) and this means avoiding Matthew’s wooden structures, instead choosing to interweave deeds and sayings and to create a feeling of movement and progress, a progress that is not halted until, at the end of his second volume (the Acts of the Apostles), Paul is in Rome.

Luke didn't relate an alternate tradition, he created one.

I don't believe Luke knew any of them, not even Paul, but he did see the letters and adapted his gospel to fit them.

I don't quite follow that, but for me Genesis is Not True, whether taken as factually true or metaphorically valid by the Christians. I am aware that Christians come in three flavours:
(1) It's true, and science is wrong
(2) It agrees with science if you muddle them about
(3) it is factually wrong but it doesn't matter as what it lies about is True.

My point was that the ongoing conversation seems to revolve around inerrancy being somehow affected by authorial intent, with which I disagree. Inerrancy as it's defined is an attempt to prescribe authorial and theological intent. It is wrong on its face.

To me it is about Bible reliability. It is not about being demonstrably God's Starwars franchise and Him struggling to stop the canon being corrupted (let the reader understand) It is not (other than to utter denialists) and it is more a product of man with God 'inspiring it', like Christian evolutionists agree evolution dunnit but God was behind it. To me it is about showing that it is not even reliable or trustworthy, and that is all that really matters.

Agreed. My take is that (after the conversion, and I have a Theory about that, too) Paul adapted the Observant Messianism of the disciples to suit his gentiles. Thus his Thesis (Romans), in which he argues that the law cannot save and only a sin sacrifice (Jesus) can save. This the Law doesn't matter and gentiles don't have to snip anything off to become as good as Jews. I think he did a deal with James (pretty much just with him) but still fell out with some Jews and I suspect the 'super -apostles' were Jesus' own followers.

However, Luke struggles with the 11 who should have been made Christian but were (at least James was) observant Jews. Not only does James cover up dirty talk about Paul's campaign in Greece, but at the council of Jerusalem (the private talk turned into a religious trial in the superbowl) Peter and James bat for Paul in a biased way that would shock Judge Cannon.

As always, you've found an interesting angle that I didn't think of.

Thank you. I always find your posts impressive. I once thought the council of Jerusalem was true. I bought the whole 'weave together' narrative. Somehow I just glossed over Paul just having a chat with James, squabble with Peter (I passed that off as after Peter was his advocate in the council) but when I could not explain why nobody else uses Lazarus (I had tried to fiddle Luke's mention and John together - I did all the filling a Believer could do ) It all collapsed and I realised John had invented it all., Believe me, I know how they wave away problems - I did it myself. But anyway, I then saw that James misquotes Hosea, which he would hardly have done to a bunch of Jews, but Luke would in trying to persuade a bunch of Christians. Then I clicked with 'a burden our fathers were not able to bear'. That made no sense even when I thought the full council was real. I clicked that he was following Paul's argument that the Law makes one to sin and fail and only by being free of it could one be saved. Luke's council makes no sense in a Jewish context but perfect sense in a lot of Christian nonsense that would never have got past Pharisees who knew their scripture.

The gospel writers must have thought that Their gospel was the only one that would be read, by anyone they were bothered about, anyway. They didn't know or didn't care about contradictions. They didn't show up until they were collated (warts and all) and the Bible scholars didn't bother about either them and still don't, 2,000 years later.

I think the Gospel writers knew they were competing with others, but weren't concerned because they knew that they were writing and adjusting fiction. The narrative contradictions weren't with history, but with theology.

It's something for ongoing debate, but I don't think they ever saw each others' gospels let alone knew each other. I maintain that, if they saw the other gospels they would have ensured that they did not contradict so badly. I do not and cannot credit that Luke would have written his nativity and resurrection as he did if he'd have read Matthew's version.

I agree. Except that the splitting of the waters (above and below the Firmament) reminds one of the Babylonian myth of Marduk and Tiamat, and I increasingly am of the view that Genesis and Exodus were origin - stories written during the Exile and using Babylonian material. For example, Sargon in the Bulrushes, the Esagila as the model for Babel, Ur as the origin of Abraham and, I increasingly believe, Ahmose driving the Hyksos out of the delta turning into Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt.

I think you're probably right. I used to think that Genesis was written during an earlier period of Babylonian influence, but I now think that Genesis is at the earliest, no older than Deuteronomy, contemporary with Josiah. I think this is the period when things like the ten tribes became twelve and the Sabbath came once every seven days rather than corresponding directly with phases of the moon.

Thing is Icelandic sagas read like histories but some magical aspects (like ancient histories) but Erik's saga has been part verified by evidence. But that doesn't validate the fantastic bits. So, even if we found that "Eden" was a real place in Mesopotamia, unknown until now, that would still not make Genesis true, nor the truth is was supposed to be a metaphor of, valid.

You're right. My point, though, is that it's not the Bible that's wrong, but Christians. The Bible authors wrote what they wrote and Christians trying to make it into something else doesn't invalidate what the Bible actually is.

I'm only secondarily interested in what the NT and Old actually was inasmuch as it tells us what it wasn't If Genesis and Exodus were written in a Babylonian context it was not written before the Exodus (whenever that was supposed to be) but it is always about the basis for Christianity and indeed all the other Abrahamic religions. Theology, too. I have never heard that Christians have clicked that if Eden didn't happen then original sin is not the fault of man, and the sacrifice on the cross make less sense even that bit did. It knocks onto Paul turning a punishment reserved for acts of rebellion - which the gospels tell us clearly was the charge and he was crucifies with (other) rebels - into a blood sacrifice to release us all from sin without needing to become Jews and observe the law perfectly -which none (especially him) were able to do.

The lane or Line I'd pick (which closes for lunch just as I get to the window) is, if the Bible is a non -factual metaphor for truth, why isn't another holy Book also a non -factual metaphor for truth?

The Bible's a non-factual metaphor for Yahwism or Christianity. It has no reasonable claim to truth. In those senses, it's the same as other holy books.

Agreed.Nothing need to add to that.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54]
Dear Transponder, look at how your entire post is a quote. You do something wrong with the quote option. Therefore your own answers are in quote too.
And you are doing this all the time.

This is disrespectful to all other users, for why should they have a hard tim deciphering your writings.

Please try to do better in times to come.


Sincerely yours

The Nice Centurion, detective of divine misterys

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes I've heard this before and no matter how I try to do it right, I get complaints that I'm doing it wrong.

I'm tempted to say "Get used to it". Once you know that I respond that way it is done it isn't rocket science to read it. Others do.

And don't you smear me with disrespect. You know that isn't intended. You take that back right now.

[The Nice Centurion]

Yes I've heard this before and no matter how I try to do it right, I get complaints that I'm doing it wrong.

Why not ask one of the moderators to carefully explain how to do it right via PM?
I am sure, one of them would be so kind.

I'm tempted to say "Get used to it". Once you know that I respond that way it is done it isn't rocket science to read it. Others do.

The problem grows if someone then wants to quote YOU. That poor user then has to carefully clean up YOUR QUOTING MESS, if he wants not to look like a fool himself.

And don't you smear me with disrespect. You know that isn't intended. You take that back right now.

I am sure you are not disrespectful consciously, but you prove ignorance for your fault.
Look at how all other users master the quoting function. Even them who are not able to really reasonably debate.

Oh, and dont even let me get started about your partially non understandable debating style. I sometimes just cant catch what you want to say with your sometimes illogical grammatics!

In this cases I do not afford to go to the work of quoting and asking you. So I have to take my chances in presuming what you could mean, or I just try to forget about it.

[TRANSPONDER]

It looks like I'll have to have another try at getting the quoting in line with everyone else. As to my style, in writing it is what it is.l. If others can't keep up that is their problem.

Now, how about back to topic, if you have anything to contribute?