So I was reading an argument between Evolutionists and Creationists (believe it or not I ended up there from an article that was reporting on some new finds at an archeological dig that we're building a website for). Anyways, I drop myself firmly in the Darwinist camp, but am not learned enough about evolution to contribute anything worthwhile to the debate so I simply read along. In doing so, I found myself interested in the arguments of the scientific people who want to believe the creationist view. One of them contributed this chart as a way of interpreting Genesis to work with current scientific understanding.
I mostly see the bible as a really great collection of stories but I did think this was a fairly interesting way of interpreting it for those who would prefer it to be literal. As far as the collection of stories comment goes, one of the most interesting courses I ever took was entitled "Death, Devils and Daemons" and explored many of the books that didn't make it into the Bible (some here others Google'll find for you in a matter of seconds) and the implications thereof. How would things be different if the story of Jesus being an rebellious child was common knowledge? Or if Mary Magdalene being the one Jesus chose to speak to instead of the men were included? I might have more respect for that particular work as truth had its editors been less propagandist in its selections... hahaha ok flame suit on.... Comments?
Posts
4 comments:
Seems flame free for now!
Never had much respect for this debate, personally. From my first evolution class in college I was baffled by how pissed the two sides were at each other. The people at the time of the Torah's drafting didn't care how long it took to make the world. Most of the important ancient monotheistic theologians referred to the stories as potentially true, but also downplayed the importance of their truth - the emphasis was on their guidance and allegorical importance to the (then modern) individual. It wasn't for centuries until groups went ballistic about literal interpretation. It's like the old "world is flat" thing - it turns out many of the ancients knew the world was round, they just didn't care.
Yes but unfortunately logic is no longer highly valued. In most areas -- not just religion. Consider the whole zero-tolerance thing. Same concept, people fixate on the absolute and sense and thought go out the window...
occam's razor:
http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/occamsrazorbu0.jpg>occam's razor
just sayin'
You have *GOT* to read Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156
I can't emphasize how much you'll enjoy this one!
To give but just one example: punctuation is a modern invention. I'm sure you've come across instances where a simple change in punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence? Imagine reading or copying something the size of the bible with no punctuation! If not you need to read Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation written by Lynne Truss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_%26_Leaves
Post a Comment