Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

Apologies for likely starting more trouble - but can we admit (maybe) that the bible is more of a literary work edited by man rather than
anything else?

Um, that's kind of the basic distinction between accepting *Christianity or not. By definition, essentially "admitting" that is rejecting Christianity.




*a simplification, realizing that Jews and Muslims also view the Old Testament as something other than "a literary work edited by man rather than anything else".

The various pieces were written down centuries (or more) after the events were to have occurred. That's the classic "telephone" game. Then (forgetting which emperor did this), several were thrown out by a bunch of men because they didn't like what was written? And as we keep trying to interpret things without being in the century when they were put down, that just leads to more confusion. I'm not dissing the message of the bible, but when humans begin to edit the written word, well, you know...Roald Dahl...

This is part of the whole idea of "inspiration" of Scripture. If the process of writing Biblical texts was somehow under the influence of God, then it is similarly possible for subsequent things (like  the selection of the canon) to be under the influence of God. (One principle in various Christian denominations is that the ongoing interpretation of Scripture is a process under the influence of God.)

The above is obviously not "proof" of anything; it is presented as an explanation for a logically consistent position. The "game of telephone" analogy it a tautology- it assumes the thing it's claiming to prove.

[nebo113]

If the process of writing Biblical texts          Texts could not have been written Biblically, as there was no Bible when they were written.

[marshwiggle]

If the process of writing Biblical texts          Texts could not have been written Biblically, as there was no Bible when they were written.

So if someone referred to "the process of writing *geographical texts" that would mean that there was no geography when they were written?

*or historical, or ....

[Wahoo Redux]

So if someone referred to "the process of writing *geographical texts" that would mean that there was no geography when they were written?

*or historical, or ....

But there was geography.  There was geography long before we invented the word.  History too.

[marshwiggle]

So if someone referred to "the process of writing *geographical texts" that would mean that there was no geography when they were written?

*or historical, or ....

But there was geography.  There was geography long before we invented the word.  History too.

Obviously. And so texts that were eventually collected into "the Bible" weren't called "biblical" when they were written. (Duh!) Just like the recipes in "Grandma Smith's Cookbook" weren't created as "Grandma Smith's Cookbook Chicken Dumplings", for instance. They were just "Chicken and Dumplings" on a piece of paper in Grandma's cupboard.

[Wahoo Redux]

So if someone referred to "the process of writing *geographical texts" that would mean that there was no geography when they were written?

*or historical, or ....

But there was geography.  There was geography long before we invented the word.  History too.

Obviously. And so texts that were eventually collected into "the Bible" weren't called "biblical" when they were written. (Duh!) Just like the recipes in "Grandma Smith's Cookbook" weren't created as "Grandma Smith's Cookbook Chicken Dumplings", for instance. They were just "Chicken and Dumplings" on a piece of paper in Grandma's cupboard.

So, semantics considered, we have a series of texts which became numinous and "biblical" only after they were edited into a volume called "The Bible," at which point biblical is codified.  "Biblical" could not have existed beforehand.  We have a human industry, again, just like Grandma Smith's Cookbook, at which point Smithian (?) could be codified if we wanted.  That's not a bad analogy. 

The Bible and "biblical" did not exist until we glommed them into existence.

[marshwiggle]

So if someone referred to "the process of writing *geographical texts" that would mean that there was no geography when they were written?

*or historical, or ....

But there was geography.  There was geography long before we invented the word.  History too.

Obviously. And so texts that were eventually collected into "the Bible" weren't called "biblical" when they were written. (Duh!) Just like the recipes in "Grandma Smith's Cookbook" weren't created as "Grandma Smith's Cookbook Chicken Dumplings", for instance. They were just "Chicken and Dumplings" on a piece of paper in Grandma's cupboard.

So, semantics considered, we have a series of texts which became numinous and "biblical" only after they were edited into a volume called "The Bible," at which point biblical is codified.  "Biblical" could not have existed beforehand.  We have a human industry, again, just like Grandma Smith's Cookbook, at which point Smithian (?) could be codified if we wanted.  That's not a bad analogy. 

The Bible and "biblical" did not exist until we glommed them into existence.

Uh, yes-  the Christian position is that God guided the "glomming" process along with the original writing. A God who was capable of one would obviously be capable of the other. This ridiculous semantic game is like talking about why no WWI artifacts were engraved with something like "WWI" on them. (Until WWII, WWI was called "the Great War". Again, Duh!)

[Wahoo Redux]

So, the title comes in posterity.  Just as nebo posited.

But the point being that we are going to have to admit some problems with Biblical exegesis, at least involving truth and morality, if we acknowledge the nature of how it was constructed.  "Guided" is not the same thing as the Word of God.

[marshwiggle]

So, the title comes in posterity.  Just as nebo posited.

But the point being that we are going to have to admit some problems with Biblical exegesis, at least involving truth and morality, if we acknowledge the nature of how it was constructed.  "Guided" is not the same thing as the Word of God.

So what is the "God-approved(TM)" meaning of Word of God, and where did you get it?

[apl68]

Darn it! That was supposed to be on the Inflation thread!

Well...it does have a way of inflating.  Over 80 pages and counting!

[apl68]

NY Times: UPenn Accuses a Law Professor of Racist Statements. Should She Be Fired?

The Amy Wax controversy resurfaces.  The university seems to be taking action.

The article also discusses academic freedom.

What's the gist of the article?  Our print copy of yesterday's NYT may take anywhere from a couple more days, to a couple of weeks, to never to get here.

[apl68]

Forbes: A Harvard Astronomer Is More Confident Than Ever That An Alien Probe Visited Us In 2017

Since then, Loeb has garnered worldwide media attention while others in the science community have been critical of his potentially revolutionary conclusion.

"It's a shocking example of sensationalist, ill-motivated science," fellow Forbes contributor and astrophysicist Ethan Siegel wrote in 2018.

In the new book, Loeb addresses some of the criticism:

"To be clear, although I made myself as available as my commitments allowed, I neither sought the limelight nor particularly enjoyed it."

He also accuses some of his critics of a sort of overly-conservative "group-think" when it comes to considering more exotic explanations for the anomaly that is Oumuamua.

I'm embarrassed that I managed to miss this book when it came out.  Wonder if I could justify ordering it for the library?  Probably not without actual patron demand.  Loeb can't be written off as a mere crackpot, but this is a little far out of the mainstream to make a good choice for a small library with limited collection development bucks.  We have to stick with more core-collection type materials.

[Wahoo Redux]

So, the title comes in posterity.  Just as nebo posited.

But the point being that we are going to have to admit some problems with Biblical exegesis, at least involving truth and morality, if we acknowledge the nature of how it was constructed.  "Guided" is not the same thing as the Word of God.

So what is the "God-approved(TM)" meaning of Word of God, and where did you get it?

I never said I got the meaning of the Word.  I don't know the meaning of the Word.  I am not convinced there is one past the beauty of the King James and the complexity of the mythology.  You are trying to change what I said.

I am saying that we have some problems if we argue, which some do, that we have the Word inscribed in the Bible given that is, admittedly, a construct. 

[apl68]

The various pieces were written down centuries (or more) after the events were to have occurred. That's the classic "telephone" game. Then (forgetting which emperor did this), several were thrown out by a bunch of men because they didn't like what was written? And as we keep trying to interpret things without being in the century when they were put down, that just leads to more confusion. I'm not dissing the message of the bible, but when humans begin to edit the written word, well, you know...Roald Dahl...

This is part of the whole idea of "inspiration" of Scripture. If the process of writing Biblical texts was somehow under the influence of God, then it is similarly possible for subsequent things (like  the selection of the canon) to be under the influence of God. (One principle in various Christian denominations is that the ongoing interpretation of Scripture is a process under the influence of God.)

The above is obviously not "proof" of anything; it is presented as an explanation for a logically consistent position. The "game of telephone" analogy it a tautology- it assumes the thing it's claiming to prove.

I'd second that it's possible to be well aware of the various controversies regarding the dating and authorship of Scripture and still regard it as divinely inspired.  There's quite a bit of the Old Testament where it's pretty clear to a trained historian that older oral accounts were incorporated by much later editors (The New Testament's another matter.  Even secular scholars generally agree that it was written within less than a century after the time of Jesus--and one can make a fair case that it was written within a few decades).  Which can be understood as showing that divine inspiration worked in different ways.

It doesn't have to be an "either-or" proposition--that the Bible was either written by human beings or is the Word of God.  It can be both at the same time. 

That's part of the fascination of it.  God works with people.  He is not impossibly remote.  It is possible for people, in some limited (in this life at least) manner to gain insight into the mind of God.  People can know God.  We see examples of it in the Old Testament.  The New Testament is about how anybody can know God--regardless of whether they're men, women, Jews, Gentiles, members of this or that nation, or the most downtrodden members of human society.  What's important is not who or what we are to start with, it's whether we're prepared to get over ourselves and admit that it's we who have to answer to God, and not God who has to answer to us.  Often it is the people least respected by society who have the humility to do this.

[Wahoo Redux]

NY Times: UPenn Accuses a Law Professor of Racist Statements. Should She Be Fired?

The Amy Wax controversy resurfaces.  The university seems to be taking action.

The article also discusses academic freedom.

What's the gist of the article?  Our print copy of yesterday's NYT may take anywhere from a couple more days, to a couple of weeks, to never to get here.

Well, part of it is old news.  Wax is a frothing bigot and probably has some pretty acute mental health issues.  She vents her spleen in exclusively extracurricular settings, however, and at first UPenn supported her "academic freedom" to be a complete jackass, but the tide has turned.  Students have made accusations about on-campus behavior, although nothing can be substantiated.  UPenn is not talking firing, but "severe censure." 

Wax has support, both internally and externally, from free speech and academic freedom advocates.