The atheist response to the text of the Bible is based primarily upon the young earth creationist interpretation, which is flawed. If I put myself objectively in the position of the atheist attempting to debunk the Bible I would start with Genesis Chapter 1. The Chapter passed the inspection of this former atheist.
The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.
At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.
What this means is that the creation was complete even before the six "days" of creation even began, in fact, later verses in the chapter reveal it was more than likely a long time in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
"The atheist response to the text of the Bible is based primarily upon the young earth creationist interpretation"
That is a blanket statement.
I think it's interesting that the interpretation changes so conveniently. It's like watching someone that has no identity of their own.
The teachings of apostate Christianity are the majority by far. 99% at least. It is only natural that the antithesis of that is apparent.
Ah, I see. You are in the 1% who espouse The Truth.
Sounds like a Gnostic to me --
No. Maybe. Maybe you are, huh? Ever think of that? What I mean by what I said is that 99% adhere to the teachings of a pagan conflict with the Biblical. For example. I don't believe in hell because the Bible doesn't teach it. It was adopted later. This is well documented and can even be established by referencing their own admission. The Catholics believe in hell and the Catholic Encyclopedia plainly states it was a pagan teaching not a scriptural one.
That isn't to say that I have any sort of infallible claim to truth any more than the atheist do.
That's a very linear process.
I might add that IF your 99% figure is correct it is still a blanket statement.
So what terms would you like to set on debunking genesis? Obviously being a part of this %99 percent is going to be frowned upon here so then what terms will make you smile david? Please supply your sources for this 99%.
It doesn't mention hell much... But it does Hades so this must be a apart of your beliefs. right?
When I die I want to be buried dressed like obi wan kenobi. I'll be holding a copy of "starwars" so that the "uncomplicated" people in the future have a new faith to believe in.
I found the conclusion of your post to be amusing as it was obviously intended, but as for the rest of it I don't know what you are talking about.
If it is a blanket statement then so be it.
The 99% influences the thinking here. It influences the atheistic thinking in that it is the product which is under scrutiny.
You have no recourse but to include me within the lot. They are either for or against.
If I say the majority of Christian teaching is founded, not upon the Bible but pagan myth this may be something the atheist is already aware of but nevertheless has to focus upon the teachings which it is the antithesis of.
On one hand, if the pagan influence were not known I could be a useful tool had I presented myself as atheist. Since I am theist what then?
Do you deny that hell, for example, isn't pagan in origin? You still have to deny me.
It affords you the opportunity to reexamine your own position while still having to deal with mine, which supports you in a sense but leaves you in the dust.
All we are is dust in the wind. Just joking.
I like that the issue posed here by the OP in a civil manner is limited to Genesis, and don't mind sticking to that in civilized debate. (Even when some TA people's postings are the first to discourage civilized debate, at least in this thread. Even if Dave's a genuine Bad Guy who deserves to be punished in other threads, why react so automatically-negative to his graceful opening?)
So David, I'm new to your writings and have (potentially) dumb questions.
* Is the Hebrew translation therefor the only valid version of scripture?
* Who actually wrote Genesis, and how do you know it's really the word of God?
Thanks for the encouragement, but I have found all posters thus far in this thread to be surprisingly civil, perhaps due to my own civility?
There is no such thing as a stupid question, they say.
The Hebrew / Aramaic / Greek are simply the original languages. Of course, it is difficult to translate these into more modern day languages, I suppose, but the translation supplies what we need. The translation itself isn't inspired, the result isn't infallibility, but we have a growing body of manuscripts meticulously copied and even notoriously faulty manuscripts that afford a glimpse into cultural understandings the more reliable ones don't.
Genesis was written by Moses in 1513 B.C.E. in the wilderness of Sinai. How do I know it's really the word of Jehovah God? Lets say that at this point in this discussion that hasn't been established. In fact, have I said that anywhere here?
RE: 'Genesis was written by Moses in 1513 BCE' - the Jews didn't even develop writing until 1000 BCE, about the same time that they domesticated the camels that Abraham claimed to have in 2000.
Genesis was written by four different groups between 950 BCE and about 550 BCE, then woven together like a patchwork quilt by a redactor in 400 BCE. Moses had nothing to do with it.
RE: "I have found all posters thus far in this thread to be surprisingly civil, perhaps due to my own civility?" - that couldn't be it, Dave, because we remained civil even when you didn't.
- that couldn't be it, Dave, because we remained civil even when you didn't.