How much of the OT do you believe is true?

[semlogo]

semlogo-

Spoken boldly.

I'm quite certain that God doesn't value ignorance or intellectual laziness. Or, at least I hope that should be the case.

[kamenraider]

A little more from Brigham Young's Oct. 8, 1854 General Conference talk quoted above:

No not a particle more than I would that your mother did not tell the

truth, when she told you that little Billy came from a hollow toad stool.

I would not accuse your mother of lying, any more than I would Moses; the

people in the days of Moses wanted to know things that was not for them,

the same as your children do when they want to know where their

little brother came from, and he answered them according to their folly,

the same as you did your children.

Now some will be ready to say, "We always heard these Mormons did not

believe the Bible." I believe all the truth that is there and that is

enough for me, and for you to believe.

"Then the Lord did not make Adam out of the dust of the earth."

Yes he did, but I have not got to that part of my discourse yet.

Adam was made of the dust of the earth.

"Was he made of the dust of this earth."

No[,] but of the dust of the earth where on he was born in the flesh;

that is the way he was made; he was made of dust.

"Did the Lord put into him his spirit."

Yes, as the Lord put into you your spirit, he was begotten of a

father, and brought forth as you and I were; and so are all intelligent

beings brought forth from eternity to eternity. Man was not mad[e] the

same as you make an adobe to put in a wall.

[LeSellers]

Brigham Young thought that the stories in Genesis were tales for babies.

As I recall, having read many of Brother Brigham's talks, it was one story about which he felt so.

I'd be interested to know which other stories from Genesis he labeled thus.

Lehi

[Nomad]

I'm quite certain that God doesn't value ignorance or intellectual laziness. Or, at least I hope that should be the case.

Nor does he value or regard intellectual dogmatism, nor those who are wise in their own eyes. Hence the significant scriptural passages I have cited in this thread.

[semlogo]

As I recall, having read many of Brother Brigham's talks, it was one story about which he felt so.

I'd be interested to know which other stories from Genesis he labeled thus.

Lehi

Well, he seemed to have a whole alternative version of Genesis going on. But I'm no expert on BY.

[semlogo]

Nor does he value or regard intellectual dogmatism, nor those who are wise in their own eyes. Hence the significant scriptural passages I have cited in this thread.

You'll be happy to learn that I had nothing to do with any of the many important discoveries in the field of evolution, then. I'm not leaning on my own wisdom, but actual facts about the real world as it really exists, as discovered by people much smarter than me.

[Nomad]

I'm not leaning on my own wisdom, but actual facts about the real world as it really exists, as discovered by people much smarter than me.

This is nearly a caricature of "intellectual dogmatism." It almost makes me wonder if you set out this morning to present a parody of the form.

On second thought, probably not ...

[toon]

When it deals with ideology, whether it be Josiah's reforms, miraculous battles, centralized worship, strict monotheism, or whatever, it is much less trustworthy.

I just finished reading Wright's Evolution of God, where he argues (probably not his orignial argument) for an historical basis to Josiah's reforms on grounds that, given what happened to Josiah and the subsequent refersal of the reforms, it would have been more convenient for monotheistic editors to ignore them.

[semlogo]

This is nearly a caricature of "intellectual dogmatism." It almost makes me wonder if you set out this morning to present a parody of the form.

On second thought, probably not ...

In order to avoid intellectual dogmatism, must we regard all proven facts with the utmost skepticism?

How skeptical are you about the roundness of the earth?

[maklelan]

I just finished reading Wright's Evolution of God, where he argues (probably not his orignial argument) for an historical basis to Josiah's reforms on grounds that, given what happened to Josiah and the subsequent refersal of the reforms, it would have been more convenient for monotheistic editors to ignore them.

In my opinion, there were no monotheistic editors until the Hellenistic period. Prior to that there were editors who were concerned with mono-Yahwism and making sure none of the other deities which they believed existed were worshipped. I just posted an essay I wrote about Josiah's reforms for a class on the archaeology of ancient Israel here.

[mfbukowski]

Sorry, it's not that uncertain. The only questions left about evolution are the details. The evidence is undeniable, unless one chooses to live in denial.

Do you have any questions about whether or not the stars are fixed in a crystal dome covering the earth?

Nope- I'm not going to let you get away with that one.

You are now asking me what my personal beliefs are about science, which is NOT what we were originally talking about at all.

You originally said you were talking about the bible's SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS- (not mine) and none of the "claims" in the bible can be said to be "scientific" in any modern sense of what we mean by that word whatsoever. That's not what it's about.

Scientifically speaking, the Pentateuch's claims about the earth and the origins of humanity have been discredited - that is, if you take the books literally. There was no global flood, the earth is billions of years old and human have been around for 160,000 years or so and gradually evolved from other primates. There is no firmament (crystal dome covering the earth upon which the stars are fixed), and the earth is spherical, not flat.

However, it may have always been intended as a figurative morality tale. Even Brigham Young thought that the stories in Genesis were tales for babies.

Note your own statement "IF YOU TAKE THE BOOKS LITERALLY" as "scientific claims" these alleged claims (which do not exist in a modern sense)have been "discredited".

But there are no such claims to BE "discredited".

And even if you pretend that scientific claims are being made, I defy you to find the words "origins of humanity" or "crystal dome" or "evolution" or even "global flood" because the Bible makes no claims about any of these things.

None of these words are even found in the bible.

In short, you take it literally to make your point, but then by your own admission say that that is only one way to take it.

So by your defense of a scientific pov, you are driving a truck through the loophole you yourself left in your first statement, much less even addressing the points others here are bringing up.

The bible is full of symbols similes and metaphors and is not a scientific treatise, and is not meant to be, and no one here takes it as such.

[semlogo]

Note your own statement "IF YOU TAKE THE BOOKS LITERALLY" as "scientific claims" these alleged claims (which do not exist in a modern sense)have been "discredited".

But there are no such claims to BE "discredited".

And even if you pretend that scientific claims are being made, I defy you to find the words "origins of humanity" or "crystal dome" or "evolution" or even "global flood" because the Bible makes no claims about any of these things.

None of these words are even found in the bible.

In short, you take it literally to make your point, but then by your own admission say that that is only one way to take it.

So by your defense of a scientific pov, you are driving a truck through the loophole you yourself left in your first statement, much less even addressing the points others here are bringing up.

The bible is full of symbols similes and metaphors and is not a scientific treatise, and is not meant to be, and no one here takes it as such.

I don't think they're meant to be taken literally either. However, there are many here and elsewhere who DO take it literally. The Bible DOES make reference to humans originating from a single pair created (probably) 6000 years, it mentions a flat earth, a crystal dome covering the earth (firmament), etc. These are in line with the understanding that primitive Hebrews had about the earth, but the stories themselves are highly symbolic, in my opinion.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think they're meant to be taken literally either. However, there are many here and elsewhere who DO take it literally. The Bible DOES make reference to humans originating from a single pair created (probably) 6000 years, it mentions a flat earth, a crystal dome covering the earth (firmament), etc. These are in line with the understanding that primitive Hebrews had about the earth, but the stories themselves are highly symbolic, in my opinion.

You have totally misunderstood my post. None of those worlds "flat earth", "single pair" and "crystal dome" appear in the bible. The mere fact that you inserted the word "firmament" into parenthesis indicates that you are aware that you are "translating" the word "firmament" into your understanding of that word into "crystal dome"

You can change the context of the bible all you want, but then it isn't the bible any more. You don't seem to understand that

[toon]

In my opinion, there were no monotheistic editors until the Hellenistic period. Prior to that there were editors who were concerned with mono-Yahwism and making sure none of the other deities which they believed existed were worshipped. I just posted an essay I wrote about Josiah's reforms for a class on the archaeology of ancient Israel here.

Interesting essay. Thanks.

[semlogo]

You have totally misunderstood my post. None of those worlds "flat earth", "single pair" and "crystal dome" appear in the bible. The mere fact that you inserted the word "firmament" into parenthesis indicates that you are aware that you are "translating" the word "firmament" into your understanding of that word into "crystal dome"

You can change the context of the bible all you want, but then it isn't the bible any more. You don't seem to understand that

None of the words in the English Bible appear in the Hebrew Bible. However, the meaning is there. The OT describes a flat earth, a crystal dome, a young earth, etc. Quibbling about exact language is silly. The concepts are plainly there.

Firmament means exactly as I described it - a crystal dome over the earth on which the stars were fixed. That's what the Hebrews believed in OT times.

[maklelan]

None of the words in the English Bible appear in the Hebrew Bible. However, the meaning is there. The OT describes a flat earth, a crystal dome, a young earth, etc. Quibbling about exact language is silly. The concepts are plainly there.

Firmament means exactly as I described it - a crystal dome over the earth on which the stars were fixed. That's what the Hebrews believed in OT times.

Actually there are a variety of ideologies expressed in the Hebrew Bible, and what they believed changed a great deal over the roughly 1000 years that it was being composed, edited, and redacted. The was no single "what the Hebrews believed in OT times." The young earth idea is actually associated with a late cosmogonic outlook influenced by Assyro-Babylonian ideas. The older, Syro-Palestinian account, preserved primarily in Genesis 2, actually does not describe the creation of the planet, just the development of life as a result of the provision of water. There are also many different ways to interpret the newer "young earth" account from Genesis 1. It need not necessarily refer to 24 hour periods. The wider Near Eastern cosmogony allowed for a broad spectrum of ideas concerning the age of humanity (and past a certain time period, no age for the earth is given). Some king lists from Assyria list rulers as having lived tens of thousands of years ago.

As for the crystal dome, its composition is not addressed in the Bible, and the idea that it was crystalline is only one interpretation (and a late one). Another interpretation holds that it was opaque, and the stars are actually holes in the firmament. According to this ideology, the gods lived on the firmament. Perhaps I've not been paying attention to your posts, but what's the point of bringing this stuff up?

[mfbukowski]

As for the crystal dome, its composition is not addressed in the Bible, and the idea that it was crystalline is only one interpretation (and a late one). Another interpretation holds that it was opaque, and the stars are actually holes in the firmament. According to this ideology, the gods lived on the firmament. Perhaps I've not been paying attention to your posts, but what's the point of bringing this stuff up?

I think he is complaining that it is not scientifically accurate according to our present understanding of "science".

[maklelan]

I think he is complaining that it is not scientifically accurate according to our present understanding of "science".

Of course not. These texts far predate the development of any scientific method of observation. What difference does it make that they are not scientific treatises?

[Bikeemikey]

How much of the OT do you believe is true?

As little as possible most of the time.

[blackstrap]

" We believe the Bible to be the WORD OF GOD , as far as it is TRANSLATED correctly... "

So, Genesis,as it left God's lips, we are to believe as true. True in what sense? True as much as Moses could understand it?

If Moses was shown the entire earth and its inhabitants then I suspect he saw it as a globe. Moses,an intelligent and educated man, could have been schooled by God very easily in the 40 days on the mount. Cue the tape...

[mfbukowski]

Of course not. These texts far predate the development of any scientific method of observation. What difference does it make that they are not scientific treatises?

That's the point I am trying to make with him. Post 61 and a couple of earlier ones referenced there.

[semlogo]

Actually there are a variety of ideologies expressed in the Hebrew Bible, and what they believed changed a great deal over the roughly 1000 years that it was being composed, edited, and redacted. The was no single "what the Hebrews believed in OT times." The young earth idea is actually associated with a late cosmogonic outlook influenced by Assyro-Babylonian ideas. The older, Syro-Palestinian account, preserved primarily in Genesis 2, actually does not describe the creation of the planet, just the development of life as a result of the provision of water. There are also many different ways to interpret the newer "young earth" account from Genesis 1. It need not necessarily refer to 24 hour periods. The wider Near Eastern cosmogony allowed for a broad spectrum of ideas concerning the age of humanity (and past a certain time period, no age for the earth is given). Some king lists from Assyria list rulers as having lived tens of thousands of years ago.

As for the crystal dome, its composition is not addressed in the Bible, and the idea that it was crystalline is only one interpretation (and a late one). Another interpretation holds that it was opaque, and the stars are actually holes in the firmament. According to this ideology, the gods lived on the firmament. Perhaps I've not been paying attention to your posts, but what's the point of bringing this stuff up?

"The Firmament is the usual English translation of the Hebrew "raqiya`" (pronounced /raki'ja/ in English) meaning an extended solid surface or dome, considered to be a hemisphere above the ground[1] in many Near Eastern cosmologies."

The point is, that the OT obviously cannot be taken at face value.

[maklelan]

"The Firmament is the usual English translation of the Hebrew "raqiya`" (pronounced /raki'ja/ in English) meaning an extended solid surface or dome, considered to be a hemisphere above the ground[1] in many Near Eastern cosmologies."

I don't need a Wikipedia definition of ????, and it literally means "expanse" or "sky." The idea of "firmament" is based off of the reconstructed ancient Near Eastern cosmology.

The point is, that the OT obviously cannot be taken at face value.

That's a point that's been made repeatedly already by several people, including me. We've also pointed out where the Hebrew Bible can be taken at face value. If that's the extent of your point then I think you overshot the runway by quite a bit.

[semlogo]

I don't need a Wikipedia definition of ????, and it literally means "expanse" or "sky." The idea of "firmament" is based off of the reconstructed ancient Near Eastern cosmology.

That's a point that's been made repeatedly already by several people, including me. We've also pointed out where the Hebrew Bible can be taken at face value. If that's the extent of your point then I think you overshot the runway by quite a bit.

Ez 1

22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.

Gen. 1: 6-8

6

[maklelan]

Ez 1

22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.

Gen. 1: 6-8

6