The Bible is Rediculous!

[_Calculus Crusader]

You're right, CC. Your problem is that you're engaging in gross special pleading by asking us to believe in the resurrection and salvation hokum but to disregard all that embarrassing stuff about the world being created in seven days...

Or seven creative periods. There is also Gap Theory.

...the parting of the Red Sea

I'm not embarrassed by that.

...Jonah being swallowed by a whale, etc.

I'm not embarrassed by that either. I don't think it necessarily occurred based on what I know of the book.

Anyway, you appear to be unaware that the writing of the Bible involved more than one person.

[_JohnStuartMill]

You're right, CC. Your problem is that you're engaging in gross special pleading by asking us to believe in the resurrection and salvation hokum but to disregard all that embarrassing stuff about the world being created in seven days...

Or seven creative periods. There is also Gap Theory.

"Gap Theory"? You're in "Limited Geography Theory" land, here.

...the parting of the Red Sea

I'm not embarrassed by that.

You should be.

...Jonah being swallowed by a whale, etc.

I'm not embarrassed by that either. I don't think it necessarily occurred based on what I know of the book.

Remember when you derided Dawkins for treating the story of Jonah as literal, and called it a mere "commentary on Deuteronomic Theology"?

Anyway, you appear to be unaware that the writing of the Bible involved more than one person.

I'm not unaware of this.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Or seven creative periods. There is also Gap Theory.

"Gap Theory"? You're in "Limited Geography Theory" land, here.

No.

I'm not embarrassed by [the parting of the Red Sea].

You should be.

No.

Remember when you derided Dawkins for treating the story of Jonah as literal, and called it a mere "commentary on Deuteronomic Theology"?

I don't recall deriding Dawkins for that (I've derided him for plenty of other things) but "commentary on Deuteronomic Theology" is something I would write.

Anyway, you appear to be unaware that the writing of the Bible involved more than one person.

I'm not unaware of this.

Then you should stop trying to pretend that if one account in the Bible is ahistorical, it necessarily follows that another part of the Bible, written over 1000 years later, is also ahistorical.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Your inability to distinguish known fiction from accounts that intend to be historical (whether they are correct or not) is not my problem.

I have no problem distinguishing "known fiction from accounts that intend to be historical." I don't think that's at issue here. Instead, I'm curious why you think that authorial intent renders the New Testament "true." (I'm also curious how and why you think you are privy to authorial intent in this case....)

[_Gazelam]

For those interested there is physical evidence of the crossing of the red sea and its parting.

Red Sea Crossing point

[_Calculus Crusader]

...I'm curious why you think that authorial intent renders the New Testament "true." (I'm also curious how and why you think you are privy to authorial intent in this case....)

The authors of the New Testament intended the Resurrection to be taken literally but I did not claim the New Testament is true ipso facto. I do claim, however, that Spong and his ilk are shown to be full of excrement when they say the New Testament authors merely meant that "Jesus was raised into the meaning of God."

Incidentally, I believe the Resurrection occurred because I judge the authors credible and the alternatives to be more improbable.

[_The Nehor]

And this was at BYU, I assume, or some other LDS school? Or, some place where people sort of need an "off limits" policy in terms of applying critical reading habits to certain texts? Are you unfamiliar with other schools of reading (Feminist, Queer Theorist, New Historicist, etc.) that directly contradict what you're asserting here? I don't know why your instructor thought that this theory need be limited only to imaginative literature, but I think it's pretty obvious why it doesn't need to be, and why it is not. This is exactly why historians are often suspicious of or annoyed with literary theorists---because the Intentional Fallacy, and the thinking that arose from it, casts doubt on historical veracity. Really, I'm surprised that you don't know this. This is partly where DCP, and Midgley, and Loap, and many of the other apologists get their "there's no such thing as objectivity" slogan. You are positing historical texts---and the New Testament!---as some kind of "objective" fount of truth, and your basis for doing so is authorial intent. This is where your argument fails.

No, it was not at a Church School. Your attempt to universally apply the fallacy to all texts would be laughed at at any University.

I was not holding up the New Testament as "objective" truth. I was stating that it is not a legend nor was it written as one. Of course the argument you give falls; that's why I would never make it. You can try to ascribe it to me but you'd be wrong.

I also find it hilarious that you of all people want to apply this fallacy to all texts. Every time you touch a FARMS review or something written by an apologist you don't just engage the text. You spend most of the time trying to find some hidden meaning the author put in there or deliberately left out (i.e. authorial intent). Over 50% of your posts fail on this fallacy. Be careful Scratch. You're chopping off the branch you're sitting on.

[_The Nehor]

I disagree. I think I know enough about language to discern when these kinds of expressions are being used with a reasonable degree of accuracy even if I have no prior knowledge of that particular expression. For example, when I've gone to different cultures that share a common language (Britain, Australia) I've heard expressions I've never heard before but through context and basic reasoning I know they're not literal right away despite never having heard them before and usually get what they mean immediately.

Ok, then let's use a trip to Britain as an example. You hear an expression completely unfamiliar to you and strange in nature if taken at face value (say, "The ferret lodged in my underwear hurts a lot"), and there is nobody else around who might have heard it to give you contextual clues as to whether the statement was surprising or normal in their eyes.

How might your view of the nature of this statement change under the following conditions:

1) The person making the statement is a known business acquaintance, Oxford educated, well-dressed and an excellent conversationalist.
2) The person making the statement has just previously made statements indicating paranoia directed at the CIA, described his alien abduction to you, and is dressed in filthy clothes, an unkempt beard, and is pushing his shopping cart full of garbage around a residential area.

Under the first condition, it may be reasonable to assume that this is a normal British phrase, and listen for it in further context in order to be able to use it in the future. If you treated the second condition with the same assumption, you would be likely to add a great deal of schizotypical language into your war chest of common British phrases, and may wind up joining your new educator under the overpass for the night due to its status as the only place safe from the little green men.

Ezekiel certainly does not demand the same level of respect as the first example. The subject matter of his text (and the history of prophets and oracles in general in the ancient world) seems to suggest a similar level of reliability as the second example. You may not be able to directly observe his behavior, but at best that counts him as neutral, and there is an entire book full of seemingly delusional and hallucinatory writings ascribed to him.

I don't think Ezekiel fits the number 2 description and I seriously doubt the image of the Prophet dressed in a filthy robe with an umkempt beard ever existed except as a modern caricature. We ignore the ravings of hobos and I have no doubt that the Jewish people did the same and didn't record their words for posterity.

[_The Nehor]

Because I've read myth and legend. It's nothing like it. I explained aspects of the text that lead me to believe this above.

So myths and legends never "read like a series of events" that someone saw, with references to actual historical background information?

Generally not, some have a vague connection to real places. They almost never refer to real people. You won't find an account of how Jupiter came and visited Julius Caesar or find that Hercules performed his tasks during the First Punic War. They are far removed from history. With Jesus we find him born during the reign of a real historical leader and executed by a real historical person. He's connected to a time and a place, not in the distant past or the palaces on Mount Olympus.

Also, upon reading it is obvious. I like reading Greek and Norse myth. When turning from it to the Gospels there is a difference of genre, a different flavor. To differentiate them I would point out that no one has tried to place a date on when Hercules performed his trials or when the Minotaur in the Labyrinth was put down. They have tried to place the birth of Jesus within the bounds of the historical data, find the account largely consistent with a known culture, and can place his death within a few years. Legends don't read like that. If you haven't read any then you won't understand what I'm talking about.

[_The Nehor]

He doesn't, hence why I accused him of engaging in the Intentional Fallacy. He's claiming that he knows absolutely 100% for certain that the authors were intending to produce Objective, Documentary, Historical reportage. Obviously, though, there is no way for him to know this.

Also: I fail to see how his comparisons hold up very well. "[N]othing like it in Greek, Norse, or Egyptian myth"? First of all, weren't there people who took these "myths" literally at one time? Second of all, what does he mean when he says that there's "nothing like it" in these other texts? What is that referring to? Supernatural events? Omniscient narration? He doesn't say.

I don't know absolutely 100% for certain. I am 99% sure though. How? I've read stuff from the same era. By the same standard it could be argued that Josephus was not writing historically either but intended what he said to be taken as metaphor. The New Testament reads more like a report then mysticism. I know this because I've read historical texts and mythological texts. I know the difference. Most people who have read them know the difference. If you haven't, then stop embarrassing yourself commenting on things you don't understand.

The difference is the way the texts are written. See above post to Beastie.