3 ms·

"a ... folklore collection" Are you implying the Old Testament is not historical? Or not accurate with regards to history? Or what do you mean by folklore?

MagnumOpus 9y ago
Yes, that is what folklore means. And apart from people who really believe that the world is 6,000 years old or that bronze-age jews lived hundreds of years, nobody takes the Torah as accurate history. Do you?
- jorangreef 9y ago
  "nobody takes the Torah as accurate history. Do you?" Sure, as someone interested in history, I certainly take the Torah as accurate history. And I think that not a few ancient historians and archaeologists would do the same, irrespective of their views on Genesis 1. For example, and I am referring to the entire Tanakh, I understand that Hezekiah was a real king in history who built a real tunnel which people really walk through today. I have no problem with that. I wouldn't consider that "folklore". As someone interested in the historical method, I understand that the fact of an event, whether it happened or not, does not depend on the perceived likelihood I myself or others impute to it. I don't have any Naturalistic presuppositions. I don't subscribe to Naturalism as a philosophy, nor would I mistake it for science. So I won't immediately grab at revising the date for say Isaiah if he happens to mention Cyrus ahead of his birth. Coming back to Genesis 1, you're forcing many literary and scientific issues if you want to tie Genesis 1 down (and dismiss it) as claiming a 6,000 (or 7,000) year old earth. From a purely scientific perspective, the "age of the world" discussion needs to be wary of Hume's is-ought distinction. It would be a mistake to assume that the laws of physics have always been (and always will be) as they currently are. That would be to derive an "ought" (they must always have worked this way) from an "is" (the way things work today as we observe them). In fact, from a literary point of view, if we read as far as Genesis 3, we see that Genesis itself suggests a seismic shift in the way things work, when death enters the world. The point of Genesis 1-3 is that the world as we know it, is markedly different to the way God created it. I don't think we should overlook that. So I see no contradiction between science and the Bible. In fact, I think they encourage and support each other.

MagnumOpus 9y ago

Yes, that is what folklore means. And apart from people who really believe that the world is 6,000 years old or that bronze-age jews lived hundreds of years, nobody takes the Torah as accurate history. Do you?

jorangreef 9y ago
"nobody takes the Torah as accurate history. Do you?" Sure, as someone interested in history, I certainly take the Torah as accurate history. And I think that not a few ancient historians and archaeologists would do the same, irrespective of their views on Genesis 1. For example, and I am referring to the entire Tanakh, I understand that Hezekiah was a real king in history who built a real tunnel which people really walk through today. I have no problem with that. I wouldn't consider that "folklore". As someone interested in the historical method, I understand that the fact of an event, whether it happened or not, does not depend on the perceived likelihood I myself or others impute to it. I don't have any Naturalistic presuppositions. I don't subscribe to Naturalism as a philosophy, nor would I mistake it for science. So I won't immediately grab at revising the date for say Isaiah if he happens to mention Cyrus ahead of his birth. Coming back to Genesis 1, you're forcing many literary and scientific issues if you want to tie Genesis 1 down (and dismiss it) as claiming a 6,000 (or 7,000) year old earth. From a purely scientific perspective, the "age of the world" discussion needs to be wary of Hume's is-ought distinction. It would be a mistake to assume that the laws of physics have always been (and always will be) as they currently are. That would be to derive an "ought" (they must always have worked this way) from an "is" (the way things work today as we observe them). In fact, from a literary point of view, if we read as far as Genesis 3, we see that Genesis itself suggests a seismic shift in the way things work, when death enters the world. The point of Genesis 1-3 is that the world as we know it, is markedly different to the way God created it. I don't think we should overlook that. So I see no contradiction between science and the Bible. In fact, I think they encourage and support each other.