The point is Joseph wasn't under the law either!

You're probably going by the NIV translation,

. It is not present nor implied in the Hebrew text

Genesis 2:18-22 is clearly sequential. Adam is lonely (18 ) so God creates the animals and brings them to Adam (19). When Adam doesn't find a suitable partner (20), God creates the woman (22).

Genesis 1:25-26 is also clearly sequential (as is all of Chapter 1).

Both sequences cannot be right. My argument remains valid.

Since when is eating rabbit meat in the same category as adultery?

I challenge you to find independent proof that mankind was vegetarian before Noah's lifetime.

The fact that he was born approximately halfway between The Jewish year 0 and 0 BCE does tend to be confusing. Either way (1950 BCE or 1950 years from Adam's creation), it's more or less accurate. Scholars place his birth between 2166 BCE and 1637 BCE.

I take it you're attempting to argue that God invented circumcision and Abraham was the first to practice it? If so, then why not just say so? Trying to pick apart the dates is not going to lend much to this debate.

I tend not to go by the NIV. Genesis chapter 1 is a preamble, Chapter 2 goes into things more deeply.

You seem to be caught up in the details.

You are reading into the narrative things which are not there.

The sequentiality of chapter one does not imply that chapter two is a follow on.

It is your conclusion that is not valid, your understanding of what is being said is incorrect.

The point is not whether or not eating rabbit meat is in the same category as adultery the point is that men knew that sexual immorality was a sin even before there was the written commandment, which contradicts Berg's ascersion that as these things are contained in the Law then as followers of Jesus we are no longer under these things. The so-called "Law of Love" is Berg's invention.

Independant from what? Genesis?--If that is so then we are at an impasse as Noah's story is a Bible narrative.

Noah's story is a Bible narrative.

It seems strange to describe this as an "invention", it's not like a watch or the wheel. But I guess it'll do.

However I do not accept that Abraham got the idea to circumcise himself and all the males of his household from Egyptian practice.

Not so in religion where the laws of cause and effect are arbitrary. Experiments performed on religious concepts cannot be expected to produce the same result every time. There are no tangible parts that may be examined and singularly defined. Correct answers become a matter of personal preference.

In short, the argument I am making, is that religion is an abstract. It is not even so much as a hypothesis. Therefore, it cannot be analyzed using the scientific methods. Until the concept of God and its effects become tangible or predictable in some way, it is a futile venture to try to define it scientifically or even hypothesize about it

Until such a time (I remain hopeful) I am content to accept only the existence of the arbitrarily defined concept of God. However, I cannot justify accepting the existence of a divine being merely because of my preference for one of those definitions.

Science may be made up of facts a preponderance of the time, but a lot of the time it is based on theory and presumptions, waiting to be proved or disproved.

Are you sure you're using the term 'theory' correctly? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)

Oh, you mean, there is nothing spiritual in science? It only happens in religion?

Oh well, this explains everything. I do not think in concrete terms, my brain prcoesses everything in the abstract, which would explain the more creative side of me - I would think. (Although I am meticulous at details and am finding a life passion in research - go figure) Maybe this is why a belief in a creator (however you want to think of that creator) makes more sense to me then the explanation of evolution in place of a creator.

I still don't see it as a preference. Can you explain to me the absolute mind-boggling experience when I prayed a little prayer to ask the savior into my life (pre-F, BTW)? I had no preconceived idea about it, I grew up in a strictly orthodox church that never heard or believed in such a thing. This shocked me so much that I found I had to follow this inanimate being or spirit. Science anyone? Concept?

Thank you for your jostling my brain around. It's good mind exercise.

Any phenomena that cannot be explained by contemporary science is not, by default, a spiritual one. What may now be considered a spiritual phenomenon by some, could be the subject matter of a 1st-grade science class in a few centuries.

Humans are superstitious by nature, and the tendency is to paint the inexplicable with the broad brush of spiritualism. If you could bring electricity back in time 500 years, people would have likely called you an angel or a witch (most probably the latter). It is this facet of human nature that causes people in TF, for example, to claim that a person suffering from bi-polar disorder is under the influence of demonic spiritual beings.

The "spiritual things", as you say, that happen in religion, may well have a simple scientific explanation.

As I see it, there is nothing wrong with that belief. The problems arise when you let the abstract laws of the spiritual govern the tangible.

Taking a purely biological perspective, the feelings and emotions you experienced were the product of chemicals and firing synapses in the brain--nothing more.

If you claim they were spiritual, I am in no position to contest that. I'm sure you're aware that similar experiences have been had by believers of religions you dismiss.

Regarding my use of the term "preference", think of it this way: Would you hold the same beliefs you do now if you had not had that experience? Would you have converted to another religion if saying one of their prayers had produced the same or similar experience? Has your good experience with Christianity influenced your perspective on God?

It's human nature to establish comfort zones. We prefer that which we are familiar with.

Admittedly, "preference" may not the best term to use, but I cannot yet think of a better fitting English word. What do you call the distinction between what one accepts and what one rejects?

On the subject of mind exercise, there's an oft-used tag line written by the otherwise unknown Stephen F. Roberts that got me thinking when I read it. It says, "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

And what would that problem be?

But as I study Christianity itself without all the human traps, I find it still to be the best religion, the religion of forgiveness, of a closeness to God, if people follow it in truth.

Hmmm...ok, but I don't dismiss all the other gods. Actually, it only proves the bible to me even more. The bible speaks about how God has put in every person to know him. So, these many ways are man's attempt to find his creator.

Why would nearly every culture be trying to worship something, even if it's the sun or the moon?

Before I present my response to your claim of "inconsistency" or "inaccuracy" in Torah, let's understand the nature of the text.

We look to the Torah for Life Lessons on man's relationship with God; man's relationship with each other; and man's relationship with nature.

The Torah begins with the Creation Story taught in two pedagogical formats, each of which presents creation from a different perspective and with a different focus. We refer to the first format as Perek Alef (chapter one) and the second format as Perek Bet (chapter two).

Chapter One presents creation from the perspective of all-of-each-creation's-potentialities-all-at-once, and with a God-centric focus.

Chapter Two presents creation from the perspective of creation-as-perceived-by-man-within-man's-environs, and with a homo-centric focus.

Rich in metaphor and meta-physics, the Creation Story is one of the most complex portions of Torah. Its depths are comprehendable really only after a solid foundation has been built on the rest of Torah. Just as a math student can not hope to master Einstein's theories without first mastering the rest of mathematics. The non-advanced student can reasonably expect to catch just a glimpse, a hint, a foretaste of full comprehension.

As a non-advanced student, my response to you will be based upon a plain understanding of the original Hebrew text within the context of perspective and focus of Chapters One and Two (as outlined above).



Chapter One

On the third day, the SEED of every herb ("herb-yielding seed") and the SEED of every tree ("tree-bearing fruit") came into existence (verses 11-12). On the sixth day, MAN was created (verse 27). The SEED precedes MAN.

Remember that Chapter One presents creation from the perspective of all-of-each-creation's-potentialities-all-at-once.

From this perspective, along with the existence of the seed of each vegetative species, the entire spectrum of each vegetative species existed - in the sense that the full potentiality of each SPECIES was encompassed within each seed's creation. For example, all of the lifecycle stages of each vegetative species (such as the mature stages that we call plants, herbs, and trees) were created along with the creation of each seed.

From this perspective, along with the existence of the adult of the human species, the entire spectrum of the human species existed - in the sense that the full potentiality of the human SPECIES was encompassed within the adult's creation. For example, all of the lifecycle stages of the human species (such as the youthful stages that we call fetus and infant) were created along with the creation of the adult.

Creation of the vegetative SPECIES precedes creation of the human SPECIES.



Chapter Two

"All the trees of the field were not yet on the earth and all the herbs of the field had not yet sprouted, for Hashem God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to work the soil." (verse 5)

Remember that Chapter Two presents creation from the perspective of creation-as-perceived-by-man-within-man's-environs.

From man's perspective, seeds GROW into trees and herbs after man works the soil and after the rains fall. However, this is just a GROWTH process, from seed stage to plant stage, not an act of new CREATION.

CREATION of the vegetative species precedes CREATION of the human species. There is no internal inconsistency between Chapter One and Chapter Two.


Which of your other claims would you like me to address next?

We look to the Torah for Life Lessons on man's relationship with God; man's relationship with each other; and man's relationship with nature.

Rich in metaphor and meta-physics, the Creation Story is one of the most complex portions of Torah.

Its depths are comprehendable really only after a solid foundation has been built on the rest of Torah.

Chapter One

On the third day, the SEED of every herb ("herb-yielding seed") and the SEED of every tree ("tree-bearing fruit") came into existence (verses 11-12). On the sixth day, MAN was created (verse 27). The SEED precedes MAN.

Remember that Chapter One presents creation from the perspective of all-of-each-creation's-potentialities-all-at-once.

[...]

Chapter Two

"All the trees of the field were not yet on the earth and all the herbs of the field had not yet sprouted, for Hashem God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to work the soil." (verse 5)

Remember that Chapter Two presents creation from the perspective of creation-as-perceived-by-man-within-man's-environs.

Which of your other claims would you like me to address next?

Walker wrote: "So, if I understand correctly, portions of the Torah such as the Creation Story are not to be taken so much as literal history, but rather as metaphor and moral guides. If that is so, then scientific logic is clearly useless in this debate."

Walker wrote: "...Without a creator, there is nothing to worship or aspire to fellowship with in the afterlife....

"I maintain that the Creation Story is the sole foundation of the entire Torah. Thus, to say that one must gain a solid understanding in the rest of the Torah before understanding the story of creation is akin to saying one must build the house before one builds the foundation. Do you disagree?"

Walker wrote: "I don't dispute the chronology of the creation of the plants. Regardless of the perspective, both narratives have them created (in seed form or otherwise) before man was created.... When I posted my arguments, it was late at night and I realized only the next morning that I had posted a passage in error. That passage may have been the portion of the narrative regarding the plants. If so, and you read the uncorrected version, I apologize for the confusion."

Walker wrote: "My issue is with the creation of the animals. In chapter 1, they are created before man, in chapter 2 they are created after man. One sequence is inaccurate ergo it must be the product of an imperfect being.... If you don't mind, since my first argument remains unaddressed, I would still like an answer to it."

By "scientific logic," do you mean the following?

"[...] Scientific logic, on the other hand, is simply our natural logic trained and developed to expertness by means of well-established knowledge of the principles, laws, and methods which underlie the various operations of the mind in the pursuit of and attainment of truth." ~ Logic and Critical Thinking by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.

If this is what you mean by "scientific logic," then I do think that scientific logic is useful in the discipline of Torah study.

Scientific logic can be applied to TEST this thought system's internal consistency and coherency. Are you agreeable to this sort of testing, which would make scientific logic useful in this debate?

The deepest metaphors and metaphysics within the written Creation Story are an important source of intimate (within human limits) knowledge of God. And a solid understanding in the rest of Torah is indeed a prerequisite to this knowledge.

In Torah Judaism, the single most important foundation of the entire Torah is the demonstration at Sinai.

I see. Yes, I received the uncorrected version. But, no problem, it has given us at least a point of agreement.

Hey Walker, my GF (she resides in the U.S. BTW), is down for minor surgery and told me to let you know that she will respond when she is on her feet again.

I don't pray, but I'll be keeping her surgery in my thoughts and will send positive vibes in her direction (or whatever it is we agnostics are supposed to do ).

WalkerJ wrote:

I don't pray, but I'll be keeping her surgery in my thoughts and will send positive vibes in her direction (or whatever it is we agnostics are supposed to do ).

I wonder what the appropriate term is for that.

Quote:
In Torah Judaism, the single most important foundation of the entire
Torah is the demonstration at Sinai.

1a. Man is created before the plants:

Quote:
Genesis 2:4-7
In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

======================================================
Walker wrote:
My objective, as stated at the onset of this debate, is not to study
the Torah or to "test this thought system's INTERNAL consistency and
coherency" it is to test its EXTERNAL consistency and coherency...".

[capitalization added for emphasis, by Torah Friend]
======================================================

======================================================
Walker wrote:
1a. Man is created before the plants [sic; you meant "before the animals"]:
1b. Man is created after the animals:
Argument: Even if this inconsistency is due to the compilation to two written accounts, the chronological orders cannot both be right. One is inaccurate. A superhuman being must above committing such an error.

2a. Noah is told (twice) to take one pair of every kind of animal, bird and insect:
2b. Noah is told to take seven pairs of all clean animals and birds
Argument: A divine being would have no inerrant reason to contradict him/herself in a matter regarding the life and death of all of his/her creations.

3. God makes a covenant (a formal agreement) with Abraham, promising to give him "all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession" if he and all descendant males will be circumcised.
Argument: The ritual of circumcision predates Abraham's time (supposedly @1950 BCE) by at least a full millennium. A divine being would have been aware that Abraham's religious (idol worshiping) counterparts, the Egyptians, were already mutilating their males in this manner and that the practice of this ritual would not make Abraham's lineage any more special than the Egyptians. A human author, on the other hand, could be excused for such an erroneous assumption.
======================================================

======================================================
Walker wrote:
This debate is a futile venture if I am going to attempt to debate
the Torah from the outside while you counter with internal logic. If
we are to have a productive debate, we must use the same methods of
logic and apply them to the same subject matter.
======================================================

======================================================
Walker wrote:
I am agreeable to debating these passages based on their external
empirical properties only.
======================================================

======================================================
Walker wrote:
A debate of the Torah's authenticity based
solely on its own contents leads quickly to circular reasoning.

======================================================

======================================================
Walker wrote:
If the line [between what is metaphor and what is litteral]
is so blurred that the distinction is indeterminable, then no
scientific logic can be successfully applied
======================================================

I repeat, in Torah Judaism, the single most important foundation of the entire Torah is the demonstration at Sinai. Without the Sinai demonstration, we have no logical reason to accept the rest of the Torah as True. Take out the Sinai demonstration, and the whole Torah loses credibility in the eyes of the Jew.

On the other hand, take away Genesis Chapters One and Two, and the rest of Torah still contains all of Judaism's core theological value. For proof, simply read Maimonides's "Thirteen Principles of the Jewish Faith." There is not a more authoritative description of core Jewish theology. Every one of the 13 Principles is based on Torah verses OTHER THAN Genesis chapters one and two.

Given the time elapsed between resonses - and the possibility that you are simultaneously debating other people, which is possibly causing confusion for you - I feel the need to recap the debate between us, up to this point.

I prefaced my next response by stating that - although the Creation Story is rich in metaphor and metaphysics - "MY RESPONSE TO YOU WILL BE BASED UPON A PLAIN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXT." I am using the plain text - NOT METAPHORS. And I did use the plain text to refute your claim of internal inconsistency between chapters one and two (regarding creation of plants).

[...]

But your latest response (below) seems problematic to me.

[...]

As I noted above, one of your arguments is that there are "INCONSISTENCIES AND INACCURACIES CONTAINED IN [TORAH]." In other words, they are INTERNAL.

[...]

I will continue to apply INTERNAL logic to refute your examples of INTERNAL inconsistency.

[...]

EXTERNAL empirical properties are of no use while debating INTERNAL inconsistency. Therefore, I am willing and eager to debate EXTERNAL elements - but only after we finish debating the INTERNAL elements.

Now, I concede that internal consistency DOES NOT prove the text is factual. As you wrote, "Pick any well-written novel off the shelf and you will find internal consistency to which scientific logic may be applied."

Nonetheless, showing that your claim of internal inconsistency is unsupported by the evidence DOES cause one of your initial arguments to fall apart. I am speaking about your ARGUMENT that "inconsistencies and inaccuracies contained in [Torah] support the hypotheses of human rather than divine authorship," which is dependent upon the PREMISE that internal inconsistencies and inaccuracies exist. If you can't prove your PREMISE, then your argument logically falls apart.

Once again, I concede that even an internally consistent text DOES NOT prove its authenticity (i.e., Truth). Nonetheless, as I said before, disproving your examples of internal inconsistency DOES mean that one of your initial arguments is based on an UNSUPPORTED PREMISE.

This was not a problem in my refutation of your "plants" argument (because I did not use metaphors).