earth/orbit/sun

[Pauliesonne]

This is what I'm asking, y'see, does the bible actually say that the earth dosen't orbit round the sun.

[kmortis]

No, but it does mention (in Is...Isi...Isha...that gamned prophet's book) that the "sun went backarwd in it's path". THere's a couple of other places with comments like this, mostly demonstrating the ignorance of the writers.

[Genesius]

This is what I'm asking, y'see, does the bible actually say that the earth dosen't orbit round the sun.
Well, let's see. In Genesis, first God creates the heavens and the Earth. Then in Genesis 1:6-10,

6 Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened: 7 God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. 8 God called the dome "the sky." Evening came, and morning followed--the second day. 9 Then God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear." And so it happened: the water under the sky was gathered into its basin, and the dry land appeared. 10 God called the dry land "the earth," and the basin of the water he called "the sea." God saw how good it was. So we now have the dry land established under the sky. Then in verse 14-18
14 Then God said: "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years, 15 and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth." And so it happened: 16 God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night; and he made the stars. 17 God set them in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw how good it was. Pretty much sounds like the Earth in the center, and everything else in the "dome of the sky" going around it.

[David Swidler]

*Sigh.*Here we go again.

I've said it before. I'll say it once more (who'm I kidding; this is one dead horse that can use a good flogging every now and then): Quit taking the thing literally. The Genesis narrative of the creation and Eden episode are allegorical. Stop pretending they were intended otherwise.

Does it surprise you that the Bible would employ imagery/concepts familiar to its audience as a dramatic or metaphorical device? If the point of the text is to teach moral messages (e.g. humanity as the apex of the initial creation process and its consequent moral responsibility), no one should expect an astronomy lesson. By analogy, would you disregard the moral of some fable of Aesop because foxes can't talk? Consider that the creation story in Genesis has antecedents in Near Eastern mythology - wouldn't it make sense for the author(s) to use a frame of reference familiar to the audience?

[/rant]

[Marquis de Carabas]

Unknot your panties. It is worth pointing out that a literal reading of the Bible leads one to conclude the Sun reveolves around the earth (and other such nonsense), for it then becomes a weapon in arguments with those who do maintain that the Bible (every last word of it) is meant to be taken literally. These people abound, at least in certain localities.

Were there a similar group of people who took Aesop's fables as literal truth, then pointing out that foxes don't talk would also be appropriate.

[BeProf]

Speaking as a literalist and an inerrantist, I don't (nor do any mainstream evangelicals) believe that the Bible requires that the sun revolves around the earth. Those passages are written from the perspective of a human observer.

People do it all the time. We say, "The sun rises in the East and sets in the West." Does that mean that we're affirming a belief in in geocentrism? Of course not. Einstein said that, "God doesn't play dice with the Universe." Was he affirming a belief in the Diety? Not hardly.

It's a figure of speech.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Figures of speech are not literal (that's kinda the point). If you believe the Bible contains figures of speech, you are not a literalist, or at least not a good one.

[BeProf]

That's not a realistic definition of literalism. By that definition, no Christian... not even the most strident, off-the-deep-end, snake handling, fundie freak show in the mountains of North Carolina, is a literalist.

The Literal Method means that you take the Bible pretty much at face value. You don't go looking to symbolic or hidden or encoded meanings in the passage unless you have reason to believe that that's what the author intended.

[Marquis de Carabas]

That's not a realistic definition of literalism.
I'm terribly sorry you don't find it realistic. (I wouldn't read that last sentence as a literalist.) That is the definition of literalism--adherence to the explicit substance of an idea or expression.* And let's just be clear: Explicit--fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent.*

By that definition, no Christian... not even the most strident, off-the-deep-end, snake handling, fundie freak show in the mountains of North Carolina, is a literalist.
Good, none of you are that kooky, so stop using the word.

The Literal Method means that you take the Bible pretty much at face value. You don't go looking to symbolic or hidden or encoded meanings in the passage unless you have reason to believe that that's what the author intended.
I have reason to believe that John 3:16 is sarcastic. Does the Literal Method support me in my interpretation?

*Definitions from http://www.m-w.com

[kmortis]

That's not a realistic definition of literalism. By that definition, no Christian... not even the most strident, off-the-deep-end, snake handling, fundie freak show in the mountains of North Carolina, is a literalist.

The Literal Method means that you take the Bible pretty much at face value. You don't go looking to symbolic or hidden or encoded meanings in the passage unless you have reason to believe that that's what the author intended.
Um...I wouldn't go too far with that. I have run across some people who take the position that "if'n it's written, it's true" when it comes to the Bible. Granted, these are the kinds of people who probably get deep messages from Snap, Crackle and Pop in the morning, but you can't say that it doesn't occur.

And, I think, that if you were to actually think that pciking up a snake to "test your faith" that you'd have to be that kind of nutter literalist.

After talking to you at FS and the few comments you've made here, you don't come of as an Inerrantist. Yes, you appear to deeply revere the Bible, but you also seem to understand that there are certain...issues with it.

[KingMerv00]

*Sigh.*Here we go again.

I've said it before. I'll say it once more (who'm I kidding; this is one dead horse that can use a good flogging every now and then): Quit taking the thing literally. The Genesis narrative of the creation and Eden episode are allegorical. Stop pretending they were intended otherwise.

Does it surprise you that the Bible would employ imagery/concepts familiar to its audience as a dramatic or metaphorical device? If the point of the text is to teach moral messages (e.g. humanity as the apex of the initial creation process and its consequent moral responsibility), no one should expect an astronomy lesson. By analogy, would you disregard the moral of some fable of Aesop because foxes can't talk? Consider that the creation story in Genesis has antecedents in Near Eastern mythology - wouldn't it make sense for the author(s) to use a frame of reference familiar to the audience?

[/rant]

I think it is perfectly ok to use Genesis to question the Bible. What is the point of putting a false cosmology into a book of Truth? Surely God knew that this would cause trouble by the year 2000.

Why not have a more accurate story? What if Adam and Eve were apes that had awareness? It would be less confusing for everyone involved.

[BeProf]

I'm terribly sorry you don't find it realistic. (I wouldn't read that last sentence as a literalist.) That is the definition of literalism--adherence to the explicit substance of an idea or expression.* And let's just be clear: Explicit--fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent.*

OK, that's the Merriam-Webster definition of the word, but that's not the definition you're going to find at any theological seminary in the world. You're making a kind of category error. You're applying the linguistic definition of the word "literal" in another unrelated subject. It's like your saying that electricians must think that electricity is wet because they keep talking about 'current'.

[c4ts]

*Sigh.*Here we go again.

I've said it before. I'll say it once more (who'm I kidding; this is one dead horse that can use a good flogging every now and then): Quit taking the thing literally. The Genesis narrative of the creation and Eden episode are allegorical.


Allegory for what?

[Marquis de Carabas]

OK, that's the Merriam-Webster definition of the word, but that's not the definition you're going to find at any theological seminary in the world.
Please quote me that definition, with a source if you don't mind. I don't have any theologians handy.

You're making a kind of category error. You're applying the linguistic definition of the word "literal" in another unrelated subject. It's like your saying that electricians must think that electricity is wet because they keep talking about 'current'.
Now, you're just being silly. Current doesn't mean wet. It denotes movement or flow, and is literally correct both for electricity and for wet flowing things.

Literalism means literalism. Why when it becomes Biblical literalism should it mean "literalism except when that would lead to patently silly s:Dt, then you can just weasel around a bit"?

[gnome]

That's not a realistic definition of literalism. By that definition, no Christian... not even the most strident, off-the-deep-end, snake handling, fundie freak show in the mountains of North Carolina, is a literalist.

The Literal Method means that you take the Bible pretty much at face value. You don't go looking to symbolic or hidden or encoded meanings in the passage unless you have reason to believe that that's what the author intended.
As soon as you apply your own idea of what the author intended, you are ceasing to be a literalist in the same sense as someone that claims that the bible is inerrant and absolutely not open to interpretation. That philosophy is ubiquitous... and I am glad you do not associate with it.

In fact, half of the arguing about literalism in the bible is an attempt to convince the "literalist" that in fact they are not literalists themselves. It appears you are already aware of it, and a good thing too!

From that point, it's only a matter of degree how much "interpreting" you do. You've stated that you try to take it at face value except where you notice that the author probably didn't mean it literally.

What's your opinion on some of the odder rules in, say, Leviticus? Do they mean exactly what they say?

[BeProf]

Please quote me that definition, with a source if you don't mind. I don't have any theologians handy.

Precisely because of this kind of confustion, you won't find the word "literalism" in most Theological textbooks (except those that talk about Dispensational Eschatology). The Theological term closest to what you're driving at is the historical-gramatical principle. Like any field, the definitions of this term tends to vary from book to book, but they're all generally variations on the following theme (taken from Section III-C of the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy):

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.


Now, you're just being silly. Current doesn't mean wet. It denotes movement or flow, and is literally correct both for electricity and for wet flowing things.

Nevertheless, what a oceanographer means by "current" in completely different from what an electrical engineer means by it.

Literalism means literalism. Why when it becomes Biblical literalism should it mean "literalism except when that would lead to patently silly s:Dt, then you can just weasel around a bit"?

Sure... why not? It wouldn't be the first time that an academic subject appropriated a common term for it's own jargon.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Precisely because of this kind of confustion, you won't find the word "literalism" in most Theological textbooks (except those that talk about Dispensational Eschatology). The Theological term closest to what you're driving at is the historical-gramatical principle. Like any field, the definitions of this term tends to vary from book to book, but they're all generally variations on the following theme (taken from Section III-C of the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy):

Sure... why not? It wouldn't be the first time that an academic subject appropriated a common term for it's own jargon.
Ummm...did they appropriate it or not? If they don't include it in their textbooks to avoid confusion, it seems they have not appropriated it, but rather eschewed it (probably because they realised that it wasn't what they bloody well meant). Where do you get your definition of the word from?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I'm not going to argue the definition of "literalist". But I know lots of people who believe that God made all of creation in 6 standard days, that Noah actually loaded 2 of every animal into the ark, that Eve was created from Adam's rib, that the sun stopped in the sky for Joshua (was it Joshua?), and other mindless garbage that most reasonable people (Christian or not) do not believe.

The fact is that LOTS of people believe the bible "word for word" in the United States. One look at that dinosaur with a saddle from the creation museum should be enough to convince anyone that lots of people take these stories in Genesis at "face value".

LLH

[BeProf]

Ummm...did they appropriate it or not? If they don't include it in their textbooks to avoid confusion, it seems they have not appropriated it, but rather eschewed it (probably because they realised that it wasn't what they bloody well meant). Where do you get your definition of the word from?

Freshman Theology 101 at ole Bob Jones University (not that I agree with nearly everything they say... not by a long shot) and a whole bunch of Sunday school classes and sermons. Heck, every time I can recall a pastor talking about 'literalism'... that's how he meant it. Forgive me if I can't remember the actual textbook we were using.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Freshman Theology 101 at ole Bob Jones University (not that I agree with nearly everything they say... not by a long shot) and a whole bunch of Sunday school classes and sermons. Heck, every time I can recall a pastor talking about 'literalism'... that's how he meant it. Forgive me if I can't remember the actual textbook we were using.
Wait... so was it in the textbooks or not?

[BeProf]

Wait... so was it in the textbooks or not?

I don't recall.

[Pauliesonne]

I don't recall.

What kind of answer is that supposed to be?

[Marquis de Carabas]

All right, then.

I will just say that I was raised attending a Souther Baptist church in Texas, and knew quite a few people (most without benefit of special theological training about the meaning of the word "literal") who said they believed every word of the Bible was literally true. And they meant it literally. For such people, passages whose literal interpretation presents obvious absurdities are useful for showing them that either they are wrong that the Bible is literally true or that they need to carefully redefine the word "literally" until it is.

[BeProf]

All right, then.

I will just say that I was raised attending a Souther Baptist church in Texas, and knew quite a few people (most without benefit of special theological training about the meaning of the word "literal") who said they believed every word of the Bible was literally true. And they meant it literally. For such people, passages whose literal interpretation presents obvious absurdities are useful for showing them that either they are wrong that the Bible is literally true or that they need to carefully redefine the word "literally" until it is.

I think we were approaching this from different perspectives. Yes, what the average person sitting the pew means by "literalism" is idiotic. Theologians call that kind of literalism "wooden literalism" or "hyper-literalism" and see it as being just as much an error as overly allegorizing the scriptures or "bible-coding". It's root cause isn't ignorance so much as it is lazyness - folk just don't really care about the Bible enough to really go study it for themselves.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think we were approaching this from different perspectives. Yes, what the average person sitting the pew means by "literalism" is idiotic. Theologians call that kind of literalism "wooden literalism" or "hyper-literalism" and see it as being just as much an error as overly allegorizing the scriptures or "bible-coding". It's root cause isn't ignorance so much as it is lazyness - folk just don't really care about the Bible enough to really go study it for themselves.
I quite agree. It struck me that a lot of these folks probably have not read the entire Bible (the subject of another thread around here), and so it's more likely they only believe they believe the Bible literally.

ETA: I'm still uncomfortable with your usage of the word "literalist" but as I've oft said: it's far more interesting to find out what someone believes than to find out what label they affix to themelves.

[Pauliesonne]

Yoda raised his head high and replied, " convenience, I presume, will be the downfall of your logic".

[Pauliesonne]

BTW-I was talking to BeProf.

[BeProf]

I quite agree. It struck me that a lot of these folks probably have not read the entire Bible (the subject of another thread around here), and so it's more likely they only believe they believe the Bible literally.

Yeah... I know what you mean.

It's an effect of lazy pastors preaching to lazy congregants who want everything spoonfed to them in nice little sound bites... and *that's* just another symptom, I think, of the overall dumbing down of America.

EDIT: I too am more concerned with what people actually believe (esp. as revealed by their actions) than their labels. For the record, I believe the Bible to be the word of God, but that belief doesn't require each and every little number and historical tidbit to be 100% on-the-nose court-of-law accurate. My inerrancy is the kind that says, "the Bible, as we have it today, is essentially free from error, although our understanding of it may not be".

[David Swidler]

And possibly a holdover from a less literate time. The environment changed, but the practices didn't.

[Beerina]

*Sigh.*Here we go again.

I've said it before. I'll say it once more (who'm I kidding; this is one dead horse that can use a good flogging every now and then): Quit taking the thing literally. The Genesis narrative of the creation and Eden episode are allegorical. Stop pretending they were intended otherwise.

They weren't originally. They were intended to be as-is.

People actually believed all that existed originally were these chaos waters and God. Then God separated the waters and put this firmament up there (note: firm, not gaseous sky with outer space above it) to hold the waters above back.

There are later mentions of this in the Noah story where the vaults above open up, and the springs from below are busted up, allowing flooding from both sides.

It wasn't until science discovered otherwise that the religious believers invented the story that it was intended to be allegory.

Currently a battle is going on between regarding the validity of evolution vs. direct creation and design by God. I predict within 100 years, direct creation by God will be considered allegory as well.



Of course, what really happened, which there is documentation within the Bible itself of, is that the creation story is based on an earlier story, where the god kills the great chaos dragon Leviathan (or, in another version, the great chaos beast Behemoth), then cuts it in half, and uses its body halves to create the land and hold back the waters above. These stories exist, and pre-date the Bible. Clearly the Bible is a derivative of them, wherein the monotheistic redactors (those re-writing scriptures in pre-written history, who wanted to convert Yahweh from just another god in a pantheon to the one and only god) felt the need to get rid of this great chaos dragon because it was unseemly for the most powerful god to have to fight some beast, once all the other gods were gone too.

So they removed Leviathan/Behemoth from Genesis. Sadly, they forgot to remove other references to him, notably in Psalms, wherein mention is made of god defeating the dragon Leviathan. Pretty poetry and all, don't wanna touch it.

Later apologists claim this is not what's going on but given the known, existing stories that predate the Bible, that's ludicrous.

[Beerina]

I think it is perfectly ok to use Genesis to question the Bible. What is the point of putting a false cosmology into a book of Truth? Surely God knew that this would cause trouble by the year 2000.

Why not have a more accurate story? What if Adam and Eve were apes that had awareness? It would be less confusing for everyone involved.

My mother, who was light years beyond most apologists, once told me that this was merely a simple tale God told to ancient, scientifically illeterate people. It was all their minds could handle.

At least she could acknowledge the silliness of it all and get on with her Christian life. No need to pretend it's a meaningless allegory for something else.

[Renee Rynn]

It was interesting to read that there is a reference in a Prophet's book that the "sun went backarwd in it's path".
As we all know, the earth has undergone magnetic changes several times in it's life. The quote above shows that the author knew that the north had changed its polarity at one time.
We ourselves are in a change of magnetic polarity at the moment. This has been verified through the cameras on saterlites circling the air that take studies of the ionosphere above the air and the magnetic flux around the earth, especially at the north and south poles. Nasa has found out that where we think our north is, in reality is really our south and that the magnets in our compass points to the south because it can only point in the oposite direction to its own polarity, ie the north of the compass must point to the south of the earths magnetic field.
So, knowing that, our sun actually goes backwards in the path that we imagine it to take, even as I speak now.

[gnome]

All right, then.

I will just say that I was raised attending a Souther Baptist church in Texas, and knew quite a few people (most without benefit of special theological training about the meaning of the word "literal") who said they believed every word of the Bible was literally true. And they meant it literally. For such people, passages whose literal interpretation presents obvious absurdities are useful for showing them that either they are wrong that the Bible is literally true or that they need to carefully redefine the word "literally" until it is.

Unfortunately all too often all that it winds up doing is make them start arguing that the absurdity is, in fact, how things are.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

It wasn't until science discovered otherwise that the religious believers invented the story that it was intended to be allegory.

Currently a battle is going on between regarding the validity of evolution vs. direct creation and design by God. I predict within 100 years, direct creation by God will be considered allegory as well.

I agree with you. God/religion exists in the margins of science. As science explains more and more of our world, god/religion will have to give ground. Since science will likely never explain "everything" there will always be room for god, but he certainly has lost some good acreage in the last few hundred years!

LLH
*edited spelling

[epepke]

OK, that's the Merriam-Webster definition of the word, but that's not the definition you're going to find at any theological seminary in the world.

Yeah, of course.

But every day I run into people who tell me that every word in the Bible is to be taken as literal truth. You know what? You won't find them in theological seminaries, either.

Theologians are a lot smarter. However, these other people do exist, and they do take the Bible literally, and there are a lot of them, and they are a significant political problem for the United States.

We didn't come up with the idea. They did. We're responding to them. And by lecturing us rather than them, you are de facto running interference for them, and I think you should stop.

[KingMerv00]

My mother, who was light years beyond most apologists, once told me that this was merely a simple tale God told to ancient, scientifically illeterate people. It was all their minds could handle.

At least she could acknowledge the silliness of it all and get on with her Christian life. No need to pretend it's a meaningless allegory for something else.

Why were ancient people so stupid? Why can't they understand the concept of a 4.55 billion year old Earth or a 13.7 billion year old universe?

Evolution isn't difficult to understand in the broad strokes. The Bible could have said that our ancestors were the animals. You don't HAVE to get into DNA or atomic theory to give an accurate description of the universe.(Although that would have been really cool for God to do.)

[Iacchus]

No, but it does mention (in Is...Isi...Isha...that gamned prophet's book) that the "sun went backarwd in it's path". THere's a couple of other places with comments like this, mostly demonstrating the ignorance of the writers.Yes, and the sun still rises and the sun still sets. Do you think they'll ever get around to changing that in the books? Or, is it just much easier to refer to it from the standpoint of being ignorant?

[Dr Adequate]

As we all know, the earth has undergone magnetic changes several times in it's life. The quote above shows that the author knew that the north had changed its polarity at one time.
:notm

[Dr Adequate]

I've said it before. I'll say it once more (who'm I kidding; this is one dead horse that can use a good flogging every now and then): Quit taking the thing literally. The Genesis narrative of the creation and Eden episode are allegorical. Stop pretending they were intended otherwise. If they were intended as allegory, why didn't anyone notice this until they were shown to be wrong?

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters." (Martin Luther).

[Dr Adequate]

Of course, what really happened, which there is documentation within the Bible itself of, is that the creation story is based on an earlier story, where the god kills the great chaos dragon Leviathan (or, in another version, the great chaos beast Behemoth), then cuts it in half, and uses its body halves to create the land and hold back the waters above. These stories exist, and pre-date the Bible. Interesting. Do you have references for this?

[jjramsey]

It is worth pointing out that a literal reading of the Bible leads one to conclude the Sun reveolves around the earth

Actually, it gets you a flat earth.

Oh, and the name of the book where the sun went backwards: Joshua.

[David Swidler]

Did it go backwards or just stand still?

I seem to recall some archaeological finding indicating a "long night" in some Mesoamerican civilation corresponding to the estimated occurence of that battle in Giv'on. Made the NY Times science section, but it was a long time ago. Anyone know anything?

[BeProf]

Joshua 10:12-13 (NASB) (emphasis mine)

Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon." So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day."

[Beerina]

Interesting. Do you have references for this?


Secret Origins of the Bible contains a lot of good information about this and dozens of other, earlier stories and myths that preceed anything in the Bible. The parallels and derivatives are quite stunning.

Indeed, for these all to be "false" religions created by the Devil, the Devil would have had to know the Bible was on the way hundreds to several thousand years in the future, and then pre-created and taught these distorted stories over the centuries and millenia in anticipation of God revealing the Bible to humans, just to make them appear as if the Bible is a derivative, later work. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Dr Adequate]

Secret Origins of the Bible contains a lot of good information... And yet somehow the title sets alarm bells ringing in my head.

Village atheism makes jjramsey cry.

[LW]

So they removed Leviathan/Behemoth from Genesis. Sadly, they forgot to remove other references to him, notably in Psalms, wherein mention is made of god defeating the dragon Leviathan. Pretty poetry and all, don't wanna touch it.

Who are "they" here? When did they do the removing?

I'm not an expert on Bible scolarship, but what I've read about the authorship of the Books of Moses (namely, Friedman's Who wrote the bible? and various shorter articles by different authors) leads me to think that a more probable alternative is that by the time 'J' and 'E' wrote down the original written versions of the stories, the mythology had already changed or at least in the process of changing.

[LW]

I'm not an expert on Bible scolarship, but what I've read about the authorship of the Books of Moses (namely, Friedman's Who wrote the bible? and various shorter articles by different authors) leads me to think that a more probable alternative is that by the time 'J' and 'E' wrote down the original written versions of the stories, the mythology had already changed or at least in the process of changing.

I'll elaborate a bit.

The Pentateuch is composed of texts that were authored by folks who had very different viewpoints on religion. For example, the God of Jahvist is a very personal god: he wanders in the Paradise, he wrestles against Jacob and loses, etc. On the other hand, the God of Priest is the distant power much like he is nowadays pictured. Both Jahvist and Elohist have people sacrificing all over the land, but the first sacrifice in Priest is by Aron and everyone who doesn't belong to Aron's bloodline but still tries to sacrifice dies a horrible death.

There's some lingustical evidence that when Jeremiah speaks about 'the forged law of the Lord' and 'lying pen of scribes' in Jer. 8:8 he is refering to the Priest of the Pentateuch. (Friedman makes the case for it, I don't remember the exact details and I don't have the book at the hand right now. He also identifies Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah as Deuteronomist, the fourth main author of the Pentateuch).

My point being: The Redactor put all these different and differently motivated sources together making a great care to achieve a consistent narrative. However, where the versions were too different to make it impossible to completely reconcile them, he still chose to throw consistency away in favor of including all texts. This is a strong indication that he consired all his sources to be sacred writings. I don't see him throwing out anything, even references to primeaval battles.

And if it wasn't Redactor, who was it?

[Ladewig]

I've even met people who claim that only the King James Bible is inerrant and the literal word of God. All other translations are to be shunned because God was present for the translation of the KJV. In the southern U.S., these people are plentiful. Heck, even a casual glance at "Fundies Say the Darnedest Things" shows that these folks are out there.

[BeProf]

I'll elaborate a bit.

The Pentateuch is composed of texts that were authored by folks who had very different viewpoints on religion. For example, the God of Jahvist is a very personal god: he wanders in the Paradise, he wrestles against Jacob and loses, etc. On the other hand, the God of Priest is the distant power much like he is nowadays pictured. Both Jahvist and Elohist have people sacrificing all over the land, but the first sacrifice in Priest is by Aron and everyone who doesn't belong to Aron's bloodline but still tries to sacrifice dies a horrible death.

There's some lingustical evidence that when Jeremiah speaks about 'the forged law of the Lord' and 'lying pen of scribes' in Jer. 8:8 he is refering to the Priest of the Pentateuch. (Friedman makes the case for it, I don't remember the exact details and I don't have the book at the hand right now. He also identifies Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah as Deuteronomist, the fourth main author of the Pentateuch).

My point being: The Redactor put all these different and differently motivated sources together making a great care to achieve a consistent narrative. However, where the versions were too different to make it impossible to completely reconcile them, he still chose to throw consistency away in favor of including all texts. This is a strong indication that he consired all his sources to be sacred writings. I don't see him throwing out anything, even references to primeaval battles.

And if it wasn't Redactor, who was it?

Straight Dope has a good explanation of the JEDP theory:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html

[cyborg]

I see.

So we've learned literatist means:

"Literal in some much as it makes sense to people who are not mentally ill, metaphorical at all other times; the content determined as literal or metaphorical being subject to change dependant on how crazy it would make us look to believe in something being literal when reality contradicts it."

Sounds like an 'out' to me.

[epepke]

The Pentateuch is composed of texts that were authored by folks who had very different viewpoints on religion. For example, the God of Jahvist is a very personal god: he wanders in the Paradise, he wrestles against Jacob and loses, etc.

Technically, an angel wrestled Jacob and lost, but then God kicked Jacob in the nuts.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Technically, an angel wrestled Jacob and lost, but then God kicked Jacob in the nuts.

I thought God hit Jacob with a folding chair when the ref was not looking.

LLH

[David Swidler]

Technically, an angel wrestled Jacob and lost, but then God kicked Jacob in the nuts.

Actually, it was "the man" (angel) with whom Jacob wrestled. "And he saw that he could not overcome him; and he touched Jacob's thigh; and Jacob's thigh became dislocated as they wrestled."

God doesn't figure directly in the picture in that scene.