Late comment on this (past) week's commentary

[wantobe]

Randi wrote:
<blockquote>
Adam and Eve, they said, were the original humans, plunked down in a garden to start our species going. But I didn't understand, and still don't, that they had only two children, both sons — and one of them killed the other — yet somehow they produced enough people to populate the Earth, without incest, which was a big no-no!
</blockquote>

I cringe when people who are trying to point out errors in the Bible use an example like this, even when it's someone I admire as much as Randi. Any half-way competent Christian apologists will not only blow this "discrepency" out of the water, they will also point to this as a reason why the faithful flock should then disregard anything else that person has to say on the matter, because they are obviously ill-informed.

<blockquote>
Genesis 4:25 Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him
Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another child instead of
Abel, because Cain killed him."
26 To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time
people began to invoke the name of Yahweh.

Genesis 5:1 This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created
humankind, he made them in the likeness of God.
2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them
"Humankind" when they were created.
3 When Adam had lived one hundred thirty years, he became the father of a
son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.
4 The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred
years; AND HE HAD OTHER SONS AND DAUGHTERS.
</blockquote>

Maybe now Randi will understand that Adam and Eve didn't "only have two sons". As for incest, in biblical chronology incest wasn't prohibited until well after the supposed time of Adam and Eve, and their offspring. Of course the whole tale is utter hogwash, but the biblicists will have an easy answer for this.

Before the flames start, let me just say once again that I am a long-time admirer of Randi's, and have been since I saw him on some show with Bob Barker years ago when I was a kid, exposing Uri Geller as a fraud. I'm only trying to point out the importance of research when claiming a biblical discrepency .

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Alas, I agree. While many things in the bible are silly, apologists will come up with excuses that you really can't just shake off, even if their explanation is lacking.

 

[Diamond]

Let me emphasize the piece you missed:

Randi wrote:
<blockquote>
Adam and Eve, they said, were the original humans, plunked down in a garden to start our species going. But I didn't understand, and still don't, that they had only two children, both sons — and one of them killed the other — yet somehow they produced enough people to populate the Earth, without incest, which was a big no-no!
</blockquote>

I cringe when people who are trying to point out errors in the Bible use an example like this, even when it's someone I admire as much as Randi. Any half-way competent Christian apologists will not only blow this "discrepency" out of the water, they will also point to this as a reason why the faithful flock should then disregard anything else that person has to say on the matter, because they are obviously ill-informed.

<blockquote>
Genesis 4:25 Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him
Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another child instead of
Abel, because Cain killed him."
26 To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time
people began to invoke the name of Yahweh.

Genesis 5:1 This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created
humankind, he made them in the likeness of God.
2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them
"Humankind" when they were created.
3 When Adam had lived one hundred thirty years, he became the father of a
son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.
4 The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred
years; AND HE HAD OTHER SONS AND DAUGHTERS.
</blockquote>

Maybe now Randi will understand that Adam and Eve didn't "only have two sons". As for incest, in biblical chronology incest wasn't prohibited until well after the supposed time of Adam and Eve, and their offspring. Of course the whole tale is utter hogwash, but the biblicists will have an easy answer for this.

Undoubtedly they do. But incest is not wrong because some holy book proscribes it, but because it clearly is the cause of genetic abnormalities which ultimately affect human reproduction of the species. Incest was also proscribed in law long before Genesis was written.

Before the flames start, let me just say once again that I am a long-time admirer of Randi's, and have been since I saw him on some show with Bob Barker years ago when I was a kid, exposing Uri Geller as a fraud. I'm only trying to point out the importance of research when claiming a biblical discrepency .

I think its worth pointing out that you missed the key phrase from Randi's comment entirely.

 

[wantobe]

Undoubtedly they do. But incest is not wrong because some holy book proscribes it, but because it clearly is the cause of genetic abnormalities which ultimately affect human reproduction of the species. Incest was also proscribed in law long before Genesis was written.

I'll ask you to read again what I wrote, because you apparantly missed the text "in biblical chronology".

I think its worth pointing out that you missed the key phrase from Randi's comment entirely.

I think it's worth pointing out that I most certainly did not miss "the key phrase from Randi's comment entirely." (By the way, who are you to decide what the key phrase is?)

Randi made two points in that section; the first of which was just wrong (Adam and Eve had more than just two sons) and the second is an easily answerable objection for biblicist who are hell-bent (get it?) on defending biblical inerrancy (incest was not proscribed at the time of Adam and Eve, according to the Bible.)

Not to mention that Randi said they were able to populate the earth without incest, which is also wrong. They would have necessarily had to have engaged in incest, but according to biblical chronology incest was not proscribed until the time of Moses.

I addressed both points, so but what reasoning do you claim that I missed the "key point"?

 

[Diamond]

Randi made two points in that section; the first of which was just wrong (Adam and Eve had more than just two sons) and the second is an easily answerable objection for biblicist who are hell-bent (get it?) on defending biblical inerrancy (incest was not proscribed at the time of Adam and Eve, according to the Bible.)

Because it was not proscribed by the Bible until later does not make it licit. The notion that something is not wrong until the Bible says so is a lawyerly fiction created by the apostle Paul. There are extremely good genetic/reproductive survival reasons why incest is an extremely bad idea.

Not to mention that Randi said they were able to populate the earth without incest, which is also wrong. They would have necessarily had to have engaged in incest, but according to biblical chronology incest was not proscribed until the time of Moses.

...a conclusion based entirely upon the lawyerly conjecture above. Incest is against nature. It requires no manmade law to proscribe it. As I wrote before, incest was proscribed long before Genesis was written.

In any case, the Genesis narrative explains that Adam lived 900 years while having other sons and daughters. Is there anything even slightly implausible about that statement?

I addressed both points, so but what reasoning do you claim that I missed the "key point"?

The key point is that the Genesis myth posits phenomena and events that cannot possibly have occurred in the way described and we see the Universe as it is today. That's the key point.

 

[wantobe]

You seem to think that I'm arguing that the Bible is right, which I most assuredly am not. Of course incest is "wrong" from a genetic perspective, but from a biblical perspective it wasn't "wrong" until God told Moses it was wrong. Christians believe that God can do anything, including overcome any genetic problems that might occur when close relatives mate. I don't believe that anymore than you do, but Christians, for whatever reason, seem to put a lot of faith in their god.

My points were that Randi was wrong to say that Adam and Eve only had two sons according to the Bible (and this is still an issue that you haven't addressed in your attempts to absolve Randi of error) and that using that and the notion of the earth having to be populated through incest is a bad example of a Bible error or contradiction. There are plenty of errors and contradictions in the Bible as it is; there's no need to reach for these non-errors. That just gives biblicists an excuse to dismiss anything else a skeptic says.

You don't have to be so defensive.
I'm sure Randi knows that he isn't infallible and welcomes correction when warranted.

 

[Diamond]

My points were that Randi was wrong to say that Adam and Eve only had two sons according to the Bible (and this is still an issue that you haven't addressed in your attempts to absolve Randi of error) and that using that and the notion of the earth having to be populated through incest is a bad example of a Bible error or contradiction. There are plenty of errors and contradictions in the Bible as it is; there's no need to reach for these non-errors. That just gives biblicists an excuse to dismiss anything else a skeptic says.

You don't have to be so defensive.
I'm sure Randi knows that he isn't infallible and welcomes correction when warranted. [/B

What? Defensive? Me?

Its a small point about that, but I guess you are correct. Adam and Eve, according to the Genesis account, did have other sons and daughters, and therefore claims that all humanity are descendents of this first family.

So Randi is wrong on a point of accurate quotation. I'm sure that if you let him know he may mention it on the next commentary although I'm pretty sure that he'll lay heavy emphasis on the implausibility of the entire narrative.

 

[wantobe]

So Randi is wrong on a point of accurate quotation. I'm sure that if you let him know he may mention it on the next commentary although I'm pretty sure that he'll lay heavy emphasis on the implausibility of the entire narrative.

It appears that we will get a chance to see if you're right; one of my fellow Biblical Errancy list members (it's a Topica list, for anyone interested) wrote to Randi who said the errors were already pointed out to him and that he was making corrections to his commentary.

I don't know if that means Randi will edit the commentary that is currently up or will post an addendum later.

Anyway, of course the entire narrative (entire Bible, in fact) is implausible, and in some cases downright impossible. If there is any hope at all in getting some Christians to recognize this (it's not easy, but it is possible) you have to start by not using easily refutable examples.

 

[Rockon]

It appears that we will get a chance to see if you're right; one of my fellow Biblical Errancy list members (it's a Topica list, for anyone interested) wrote to Randi who said the errors were already pointed out to him and that he was making corrections to his commentary.

I don't know if that means Randi will edit the commentary that is currently up or will post an addendum later.

Anyway, of course the entire narrative (entire Bible, in fact) is implausible, and in some cases downright impossible. If there is any hope at all in getting some Christians to recognize this (it's not easy, but it is possible) you have to start by not using easily refutable examples.

FWIW, the only Christians that need to get this message are the fundamentalists that view the Bible as literal history. There are many, many Christians that accept Genesis (and many other portions of the bible) as fundamentally mythical.

Tim

 

[wantobe]

FWIW, the only Christians that need to get this message are the fundamentalists that view the Bible as literal history. There are many, many Christians that accept Genesis (and many other portions of the bible) as fundamentally mythical.

It may only be the fundamentalists who need to get the message about the Bible being largely myth and fiction, but all Christians (as well as members of other religions concerning their "holy" mythologies) need to understand what that implies; their religion is false.

 

[BobM]

FWIW, the only Christians that need to get this message are the fundamentalists that view the Bible as literal history. There are many, many Christians that accept Genesis (and many other portions of the bible) as fundamentally mythical.

....

It may only be the fundamentalists who need to get the message about the Bible being largely myth and fiction, but all Christians (as well as members of other religions concerning their "holy" mythologies) need to understand what that implies; their religion is false.

Some Falsehood + Some Truth = All False?
OR Some Falsehood + Some Unknown = All False?

I don't follow.

[edit]Nevermind, I see that you merely said "implies".

 

[Paul Mundy]

....Some Falsehood + Some Truth = All False?
OR Some Falsehood + Some Unknown = All False?

I don't follow.

[edit]Nevermind, I see that you merely said "implies".

It doesn't matter what the quantity of errors in the bible might be, even one error is enough to question its supposed divine inspiration.

If a Christian accepts that the bible contains errors, how can anyone tell which passages are errant and which are inerrant?

Paul Mundy

 

[Rockon]

It doesn't matter what the quantity of errors in the bible might be, even one error is enough to question its supposed divine inspiration.

If a Christian accepts that the bible contains errors, how can anyone tell which passages are errant and which are inerrant?

Paul Mundy

If you happen to be a Catholic Christian, you don't treat the Bible as an authoritative source of history. You don't worry about most of the details because it is mostly used as a resource for teaching important Christian ideas, not for teaching history.

As the Catholics view it, the Bible is a collection of many books each written with their own purpose and literary style, much of which must be evaluated by the historical context in which they were written, among other things.

It's not so much the "facts" that are important (although certain passages are assumed to be essentially factual) as the message the text is trying to convey. Um, at least for Catholics. Other Christian denominations vary in how much of a literal source of truth they assume for the Bible.

Tim

 

[Paul Mundy]

If you happen to be a Catholic Christian, you don't treat the Bible as an authoritative source of history. You don't worry about most of the details because it is mostly used as a resource for teaching important Christian ideas, not for teaching history.

As the Catholics view it, the Bible is a collection of many books each written with their own purpose and literary style, much of which must be evaluated by the historical context in which they were written, among other things.

It's not so much the "facts" that are important (although certain passages are assumed to be essentially factual) as the message the text is trying to convey. Um, at least for Catholics. Other Christian denominations vary in how much of a literal source of truth they assume for the Bible.

Tim

Yes, but even for those "certain passages" that Catholics believe have an essential message, there will be other passages with a diametrically opposed message, or at least a message that partially contradicts.

For example in Mark Jesus states that divorce is a no-no, no matter what. But in Matthew he states that divorce is allowed if the wife is unfaithful.

Which is the correct teaching?

-Paul Mundy

 

[Rockon]

Yes, but even for those "certain passages" that Catholics believe have an essential message, there will be other passages with a diametrically opposed message, or at least a message that partially contradicts.

For example in Mark Jesus states that divorce is a no-no, no matter what. But in Matthew he states that divorce is allowed if the wife is unfaithful.

Which is the correct teaching?

-Paul Mundy

Divorce is a no-no.

For Catholics, these kinds of issues (direct contradiction in Scripture) are resolved at the "Church" level, which goes well beyond the Bible.

Tim