Hi Peter, it is interesting to read this. In my early christianity (back in the early 1960s), I was taught to believe in a literal Genesis and disbelieve in evolution. The first step for me came about 10 years later when I read Genesis and felt sure it was a folk tale or the like – what would now be known as an aetiological myth. I still thought evolution was unbelievable, but I now thought a literal Genesis was unbelievable too. It was another couple of decades before I came round to accepting the science of evolution, but for that intervening period, I didn’t believe either.
I am a fan of Peter Enns, He has taught me a lot. His book “Inspiration and Incarnation” is well worth reading, and I’m told “The Bible Tells me so” is good also. For more on evolution, I recommend Denis Lamoureux who has 3 PhDs – in dentistry, evolutionary biology and Old Testament theology. He has done a series of short illustrated talks on interpreting Genesis in the light of evolutionary science, and you can find them here. The following lectures have the same address, but replace the 1 in the URL with 2 etc. Hope you find them interesting.
Hi unkleE I have ditched totally inerrancy of the Bible as a viable concept. There remains the view put forward by scholars like Enns and Crossan that it is possible to see it as a form of pious fiction. My problem then is how does one differentiate between the human part and any divine inspiration.
“For those with a devotional interest in the Bible, the story demonstrates that ancient scribes and religious devotees had no problem filling their scriptures with folktales, myths, and hagiographic legends. It is the modern reader, not the ancient one, who insists that for a book to be sacred, it must be divinely inspired and contain only sober historical facts. “
“My problem then is how does one differentiate between the human part and any divine inspiration.”
I don’t think there is a human part and a divine part. It is all human and it is (arguably) all divinely inspired. I think there are two other questions.
1. Which is historical and which isn’t? For some parts, I don’t see why this matters. For other parts, I think the genre makes things pretty clear.
2. More importantly, what is being communicated? If God inspired the Bible, what is he saying through different parts of the text? That is only a question for believers, and as a believer I can echo CS Lewis’ trust that God will make important things clear to us if we seek him.
When I see a book that has all the hallmarks of human fallibility and clear evidence of progressive re-writing. I ask myself ‘what would now allow me to believe the Bible is divinely inspired’?
But alas Violet says she is as bad as ever today. I just don’t know anymore what it would take for me to regain a belief in a divine hand behind the Bible? Perhaps the Bible is right about one thing at least – faith itself really is a gift from God.
#1. Ark, you made a very strong claim that “regarding the Pentateuch the overwhelming, scientific and scholarly view based on what the evidence (or lack thereof) shows is the one held to be minimalist.” I challenged that statement, and provided references and quotes to show that there was a range of views and a lot of good scholars spread across the spectrum of views. You have not responded. So here’s the challenge. Since you say you believe in evidence and I am avoiding it, show that is the case here. Find references to show that what I said and the references I quoted are wrong. Not just statements from minimalists – because for every one of them I can find one by someone else – but find references that show that no competent scholar holds another view, as your strong statement claimed. That’s the challenge. And since Arch has expressed similar views in the past, why not ask him to join you in your refutation?
I did not say that no competent scholar holds a different view. You, however, are the champion of consensus and the vast majority of competent scholars and archaeologists beleive – based on evidence – it is simply historical fiction. Period.
I am sure you are aware of Wolpe’s announcement?
I am equally sure you are aware of Sherman Wine’s response,
Finkelstein’s view,
Devers view
Herzog’s view and a host of others.
These are simply the vanguard of the minimalist school as well you know.
I am not going to bother trawling through endless documentation simply to provide an indoctrinated Christian with the overwhelming scholarly and scientific view of the Pentateuch.
Yes, you are most certainly being disingenuous as there is not a single recognized secular Egyptologist that has produced any evidence, or as far as I am aware will state there is any veracity to the biblical exodus.
What really makes me laugh is you have access to Wiki ( and all its links and references) and yet you seem to enjoy playing ignorant of the facts.
Why is that?
I shall quote Wiki, if this is okay?
The historicity of the exodus continues to attract popular attention, but most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about it recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel’s emergence.[4]The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[5] and most archaeologists have therefore abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as “a fruitless pursuit”.[6] strong>The opinion of the overwhelming majority of modern biblical scholars is that the exodus story was shaped into its final present form in the post-Exilic period,[7]
My emphasis.
Note: one of your favorite words/phrases.- Overwhelming majority of biblical scholars.-
You have a problem with this? Don’t shoot the messenger.
Maybe a little humble pie once in while would be good for your constitution?
“you don’t have to go to Uganda to find Christians that call for killing gays” – Looks like the Catholic church is going to be short on priests in Georgia.
Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now.[3]
—Philip Davies, “Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?”
“But this was because I initially harbored the delightful idiocy that fact/truth would triumph over stupidity” – If that would ever happen, from wherever would our next generation of politicians come?
Or Christian apologists …
You were included in unklee’s ”challenge” by the way.
I am gong for dinner in a mo, why not draft something for me to read when I have finished?
A bit of humour might aid my digestion.
“So I said that the historical evidence for the miracles is good…”
Source?
As I asked above, do we have any contemporaneous Jewish or Roman sources that state that Jesus performed miracles, and, what those miracles were? There are 1,000 of “healers” around the world today, of many different religions, including in western countries, and few of us believe these claims of healings and miracles. If any one can find a Jewish or Roman source that says that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, fed 5,000 people, healed leprosy and blindness, and raised the dead…please provide the source. Otherwise, claims of Jesus being a healer or no more validation for his divinity that the same claim for the late Oral Roberts.
I challenged that statement, and provided references and quotes to show that there was a range of views and a lot of good scholars spread across the spectrum of views.
I went back to reread your comment in case I missed something from one of the archaeologists you reference.
You have not, in fact, presented their view here at all,other than to state there is a middle view.
That is unless it is buried somewhere as I could not find a single quote in your comments from any of the archaeologists you list, and certainly not regarding the Patriarchs and especially not concerning Moses and the Exodus.
Perhaps you would like to simply paraphrase what these alternative theories are and which are the archaeologists & scholars who hold them and where one might find a peer reviewed article/s; as much for my benefit as for the others reading this thread?
Thanks.
Ark
“It seems like some of you find it difficult to cope with the possibility that a christian might believe what they do because they think it is true and believe there is good evidence for this truth. It seems somehow some of you think that since you feel strongly about it, you must assuredly and obviously be right and no-one sensible could possibly think otherwise. And you don’t want to even think about the possibility that it may not be so. And so I must surely be devious, dishonest, have false motives, etc – but equally obviously you couldn’t possibly suffer from the same weaknesses.”
Baloney.
We believe you are wrong because we were once in your place using the same arguments. We have investigated the evidence extensively and have come to the conclusion that the “evidence” for the supernatural claims of Christianity are weak. We have no issue debating the evidence with you. Our issue with you is that you attempt to control the rules of discussion and have yet to answer our central question: What “strong” evidence do you have for the Resurrection?
“Remember, I’m supposed to be the intolerant one, not you, and yet I’ve never said those sorts of things about you. I disagree with you, I point out where my reading indicates you haven’t looked at the evidence, and if I meet a brick wall, I stop. I can cope with you guys without being intolerant or making crazy claims, so maybe you can too?”
Really???
Do you happen to remember your long diatribe on the “Gary Method” for looking at evidence? It was full of sarcasm and innuendo that my approach to evidence is “silly”, which is another word for “stupid”. Numerous other participants in this discussion have said they find you condescending. Conversations do not stay respectful for long when one participant is letting everyone else know that his knowledge and methodology are superior.
” The other thing that seems to aggravate you is my use of scholars as evidence. I’m not sure why, because we are all supposed to be evidence based, aren’t we? And on topics where we are not expert, we surely need to get our facts from those who are.”
Ok. My wife is having to restrain me and is getting out my straight-jacket.
What?? We have no issue with quoting “scholars”. What we have an issue with is that you fail to see the problem in using the term “the majority of scholars” to support supernatural claims when what you really should say is “the majority of NT scholars, the overwhelming majority of whom are believers….believe such as such.”
We have no issue with you claiming that most historians believe that Jesus existed, preached an apocalyptic message of repentance, angered the Jews, was crucified, and soon after his death his followers came to believe he had risen from the dead.
“Ark, you made a very strong claim that “regarding the Pentateuch the overwhelming, scientific and scholarly view based on what the evidence (or lack thereof) shows is the one held to be minimalist.” I challenged that statement, and provided references and quotes to show that there was a range of views and a lot of good scholars spread across the spectrum of views.”
I challenge UnkleE to deny that the majority of archaeologists, including the majority of Israeli archaeologists, reject as baseless the biblical Hebrew slavery in Egypt, Forty Years in the Sinai, Conquest of Canaan, and the great Kingdoms of David and Solomon.
“I have answered questions until it became clear there was no point in going further.”
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Where is your “strong” evidence for the central historical claim of the New Testament, the Resurrection. You have NOT answered the question.
“You have said heaps about how harmful christian belief is, “It is evil. Plain and simple.” But you provided no evidence for that statement. You probably think that it is obvious, but can you find good scientific and historical evidence for that statement? ”
If you do not believe the veracity of the many, many historical accounts of the mass persecution, mass slaughters, genocides, burning at the stakes, etc. perpetrated in the name of your God there is no point in giving you the web links to the evidence.
” I was taught to believe in a literal Genesis and disbelieve in evolution. The first step for me came about 10 years later when I read Genesis and felt sure it was a folk tale or the like – what would now be known as an aetiological myth.”
And I read the Resurrection story and feel sure it too is a folk tale or the like…
How can UnkleE view one statement by God as myth and another statement by God as historical fact? Based on what objective criteria does he make this distinction? I believe that it is this: once scientific evidence becomes so overwhelming against the literal interpretation of a biblical claim, Christianity dumps the literal interpretation and declares it to be hyperbole, metaphorical, or a folk tale. Of course this means that every Christian apologist, theologian, and bishop/pastor/priest has been deceived for the previous 2,000 years and that modern apologists are so brilliant to see something in the Bible that all these previous apologists missed.
“More importantly, what is being communicated? If God inspired the Bible, what is he saying through different parts of the text? That is only a question for believers, and as a believer I can echo CS Lewis’ trust that God will make important things clear to us if we seek him.”
Yes, God has made the Bible very clear to believers, hasn’t he? That is why there are over 30,000 different denominations, sects, and cults of Christianity, each one believing that they alone have the REAL truth; they alone are really in tune with God; they alone speak for God. If we were to give the Holy Spirit a grade for “making things clear” to believers, he would have to receive an F minus. He has failed miserably.
“You were included in unklee’s ”challenge” by the way.” – I saw that, Ark, and considered it, but Nate, whose blog this is, insists that we be civil to Unk, and my distaste for him is such that I find it simpler to comply with that edict by not responding to him at all. Besides, your dinner-time is my lunch-time.
Finding Truth 
Hi Peter, it is interesting to read this. In my early christianity (back in the early 1960s), I was taught to believe in a literal Genesis and disbelieve in evolution. The first step for me came about 10 years later when I read Genesis and felt sure it was a folk tale or the like – what would now be known as an aetiological myth. I still thought evolution was unbelievable, but I now thought a literal Genesis was unbelievable too. It was another couple of decades before I came round to accepting the science of evolution, but for that intervening period, I didn’t believe either.
I am a fan of Peter Enns, He has taught me a lot. His book “Inspiration and Incarnation” is well worth reading, and I’m told “The Bible Tells me so” is good also. For more on evolution, I recommend Denis Lamoureux who has 3 PhDs – in dentistry, evolutionary biology and Old Testament theology. He has done a series of short illustrated talks on interpreting Genesis in the light of evolutionary science, and you can find them here. The following lectures have the same address, but replace the 1 in the URL with 2 etc. Hope you find them interesting.
LikeLike
Hi unkleE I have ditched totally inerrancy of the Bible as a viable concept. There remains the view put forward by scholars like Enns and Crossan that it is possible to see it as a form of pious fiction. My problem then is how does one differentiate between the human part and any divine inspiration.
I was reading an article from Paul Davidson’s excellent website on the David and Goliath story:
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/the-men-who-killed-goliath-unraveling-the-layers-of-tradition-behind-a-timeless-tale-of-heroism/
he makes an interesting observation at the end of his article which I will repeat here:
“For those with a devotional interest in the Bible, the story demonstrates that ancient scribes and religious devotees had no problem filling their scriptures with folktales, myths, and hagiographic legends. It is the modern reader, not the ancient one, who insists that for a book to be sacred, it must be divinely inspired and contain only sober historical facts. “
LikeLike
“My problem then is how does one differentiate between the human part and any divine inspiration.”
I don’t think there is a human part and a divine part. It is all human and it is (arguably) all divinely inspired. I think there are two other questions.
1. Which is historical and which isn’t? For some parts, I don’t see why this matters. For other parts, I think the genre makes things pretty clear.
2. More importantly, what is being communicated? If God inspired the Bible, what is he saying through different parts of the text? That is only a question for believers, and as a believer I can echo CS Lewis’ trust that God will make important things clear to us if we seek him.
I think that quote is pretty good.
LikeLike
Ah the key question ‘If God inspired the Bible’?
When I see a book that has all the hallmarks of human fallibility and clear evidence of progressive re-writing. I ask myself ‘what would now allow me to believe the Bible is divinely inspired’?
On Violet’s blog we had even set God a challenge yesterday to heal Violet, then Violet and I would believe again:
https://thereisnorainasd.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/throwing-off-indoctrination/
But alas Violet says she is as bad as ever today. I just don’t know anymore what it would take for me to regain a belief in a divine hand behind the Bible? Perhaps the Bible is right about one thing at least – faith itself really is a gift from God.
LikeLike
Hi Peter, I know the feeling.
Keep reading, I know, it will be fun
LikeLike
I did not say that no competent scholar holds a different view. You, however, are the champion of consensus and the vast majority of competent scholars and archaeologists beleive – based on evidence – it is simply historical fiction. Period.
I am sure you are aware of Wolpe’s announcement?
I am equally sure you are aware of Sherman Wine’s response,
Finkelstein’s view,
Devers view
Herzog’s view and a host of others.
These are simply the vanguard of the minimalist school as well you know.
I am not going to bother trawling through endless documentation simply to provide an indoctrinated Christian with the overwhelming scholarly and scientific view of the Pentateuch.
Yes, you are most certainly being disingenuous as there is not a single recognized secular Egyptologist that has produced any evidence, or as far as I am aware will state there is any veracity to the biblical exodus.
What really makes me laugh is you have access to Wiki ( and all its links and references) and yet you seem to enjoy playing ignorant of the facts.
Why is that?
I shall quote Wiki, if this is okay?
My emphasis.
Note: one of your favorite words/phrases.- Overwhelming majority of biblical scholars.-
You have a problem with this? Don’t shoot the messenger.
Maybe a little humble pie once in while would be good for your constitution?
LikeLike
“you don’t have to go to Uganda to find Christians that call for killing gays” – Looks like the Catholic church is going to be short on priests in Georgia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought you might like this quote as well ….
Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now.[3]
—Philip Davies, “Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?”
LikeLike
“Does anyone have a quote from Josephus” – I don’t see that it matters, as Josephus wasn’t even born until 7 years after Yeshua’s alleged death.
LikeLike
As far as the Pentateuch and your position as a Christian stand:
Whether you view the character Jesus of Nazareth as the human version of your creator god, or the Son of God, without Yahweh you have no god.
LikeLike
“leaning more towards the radical than Nate is” – I’d certainly like to think so, but I work with words, not bombs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“But this was because I initially harbored the delightful idiocy that fact/truth would triumph over stupidity” – If that would ever happen, from wherever would our next generation of politicians come?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Hope your going well for you, it’s been awhile” – Quite well, and yes, it has – I’ve whiled away the hours sharpening my tongue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or Christian apologists …
You were included in unklee’s ”challenge” by the way.
I am gong for dinner in a mo, why not draft something for me to read when I have finished?
A bit of humour might aid my digestion.
LikeLike
“This was like an Epiphany to me.” – “I was blind, and now I see —” It’s a miracle!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So I said that the historical evidence for the miracles is good…”
Source?
As I asked above, do we have any contemporaneous Jewish or Roman sources that state that Jesus performed miracles, and, what those miracles were? There are 1,000 of “healers” around the world today, of many different religions, including in western countries, and few of us believe these claims of healings and miracles. If any one can find a Jewish or Roman source that says that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, fed 5,000 people, healed leprosy and blindness, and raised the dead…please provide the source. Otherwise, claims of Jesus being a healer or no more validation for his divinity that the same claim for the late Oral Roberts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Unklee
I went back to reread your comment in case I missed something from one of the archaeologists you reference.
You have not, in fact, presented their view here at all,other than to state there is a middle view.
That is unless it is buried somewhere as I could not find a single quote in your comments from any of the archaeologists you list, and certainly not regarding the Patriarchs and especially not concerning Moses and the Exodus.
Perhaps you would like to simply paraphrase what these alternative theories are and which are the archaeologists & scholars who hold them and where one might find a peer reviewed article/s; as much for my benefit as for the others reading this thread?
Thanks.
Ark
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It seems like some of you find it difficult to cope with the possibility that a christian might believe what they do because they think it is true and believe there is good evidence for this truth. It seems somehow some of you think that since you feel strongly about it, you must assuredly and obviously be right and no-one sensible could possibly think otherwise. And you don’t want to even think about the possibility that it may not be so. And so I must surely be devious, dishonest, have false motives, etc – but equally obviously you couldn’t possibly suffer from the same weaknesses.”
Baloney.
We believe you are wrong because we were once in your place using the same arguments. We have investigated the evidence extensively and have come to the conclusion that the “evidence” for the supernatural claims of Christianity are weak. We have no issue debating the evidence with you. Our issue with you is that you attempt to control the rules of discussion and have yet to answer our central question: What “strong” evidence do you have for the Resurrection?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Remember, I’m supposed to be the intolerant one, not you, and yet I’ve never said those sorts of things about you. I disagree with you, I point out where my reading indicates you haven’t looked at the evidence, and if I meet a brick wall, I stop. I can cope with you guys without being intolerant or making crazy claims, so maybe you can too?”
Really???
Do you happen to remember your long diatribe on the “Gary Method” for looking at evidence? It was full of sarcasm and innuendo that my approach to evidence is “silly”, which is another word for “stupid”. Numerous other participants in this discussion have said they find you condescending. Conversations do not stay respectful for long when one participant is letting everyone else know that his knowledge and methodology are superior.
LikeLiked by 2 people
” The other thing that seems to aggravate you is my use of scholars as evidence. I’m not sure why, because we are all supposed to be evidence based, aren’t we? And on topics where we are not expert, we surely need to get our facts from those who are.”
Ok. My wife is having to restrain me and is getting out my straight-jacket.
What?? We have no issue with quoting “scholars”. What we have an issue with is that you fail to see the problem in using the term “the majority of scholars” to support supernatural claims when what you really should say is “the majority of NT scholars, the overwhelming majority of whom are believers….believe such as such.”
We have no issue with you claiming that most historians believe that Jesus existed, preached an apocalyptic message of repentance, angered the Jews, was crucified, and soon after his death his followers came to believe he had risen from the dead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Ark, you made a very strong claim that “regarding the Pentateuch the overwhelming, scientific and scholarly view based on what the evidence (or lack thereof) shows is the one held to be minimalist.” I challenged that statement, and provided references and quotes to show that there was a range of views and a lot of good scholars spread across the spectrum of views.”
I challenge UnkleE to deny that the majority of archaeologists, including the majority of Israeli archaeologists, reject as baseless the biblical Hebrew slavery in Egypt, Forty Years in the Sinai, Conquest of Canaan, and the great Kingdoms of David and Solomon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I have answered questions until it became clear there was no point in going further.”
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Where is your “strong” evidence for the central historical claim of the New Testament, the Resurrection. You have NOT answered the question.
“You have said heaps about how harmful christian belief is, “It is evil. Plain and simple.” But you provided no evidence for that statement. You probably think that it is obvious, but can you find good scientific and historical evidence for that statement? ”
If you do not believe the veracity of the many, many historical accounts of the mass persecution, mass slaughters, genocides, burning at the stakes, etc. perpetrated in the name of your God there is no point in giving you the web links to the evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” I was taught to believe in a literal Genesis and disbelieve in evolution. The first step for me came about 10 years later when I read Genesis and felt sure it was a folk tale or the like – what would now be known as an aetiological myth.”
And I read the Resurrection story and feel sure it too is a folk tale or the like…
How can UnkleE view one statement by God as myth and another statement by God as historical fact? Based on what objective criteria does he make this distinction? I believe that it is this: once scientific evidence becomes so overwhelming against the literal interpretation of a biblical claim, Christianity dumps the literal interpretation and declares it to be hyperbole, metaphorical, or a folk tale. Of course this means that every Christian apologist, theologian, and bishop/pastor/priest has been deceived for the previous 2,000 years and that modern apologists are so brilliant to see something in the Bible that all these previous apologists missed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“More importantly, what is being communicated? If God inspired the Bible, what is he saying through different parts of the text? That is only a question for believers, and as a believer I can echo CS Lewis’ trust that God will make important things clear to us if we seek him.”
Yes, God has made the Bible very clear to believers, hasn’t he? That is why there are over 30,000 different denominations, sects, and cults of Christianity, each one believing that they alone have the REAL truth; they alone are really in tune with God; they alone speak for God. If we were to give the Holy Spirit a grade for “making things clear” to believers, he would have to receive an F minus. He has failed miserably.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You were included in unklee’s ”challenge” by the way.” – I saw that, Ark, and considered it, but Nate, whose blog this is, insists that we be civil to Unk, and my distaste for him is such that I find it simpler to comply with that edict by not responding to him at all. Besides, your dinner-time is my lunch-time.
LikeLiked by 1 person