Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!husc6!m2c!wpi!bakken@cs.arizona.edu From: bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam Subject: Re: Biblical corruption - where is the evidence? Keywords: poisoning the well, bias Message-ID: <7512@wpi.wpi.edu> Date: 1 Feb 90 17:29:21 GMT References: <7458@wpi.wpi.edu> Sender: shari@wpi.wpi.edu Reply-To: bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 71 Approved: shari@wpi.edu In article <7458@wpi.wpi.edu> tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) writes: >It should be noted, in response to Dave Bakken's denials, that all >modern Biblical *scholars*, as opposed to ideologues, recognize that >the Bible has indeed been heavily modified over the millenia. I'm really glad I took philosophy 101 (elementary logic) in my undergraduate tenure. This way, I know that the word for the above logical fallacy is `poisoning the well'. It does make things simple, though. If anyone has evidence of Biblical continuity , no matter their credentials or how scholarly their evidence, they are an idelogue to be ignored. I'm sure the converse holds for many people, too: If anyone comes out with a detailed attack on the Bible, then they are scholars. This could save people a lot of reading and even thought :-). But had it occurred to you that some or even many or even all dogmatic Biblical critics may also have an ax to grind? It has been my observation that many of them have one of two problems: 1) they refuse to accept the possibility, and indeed are angered and insulted by it, that there could be an infinite God compared to Whom they are (and I am, too) a pea-brain. Or, more often, 2) They refuse to accept the possiblity of the Bible, since it could have serious consequences on their sexual promiscuity. Indeed, Aldous Huxley stated ("Confessions of a Professed Athiest", Report: Perspective on the News, vol 3, June, 1966, p19.) I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. So both sides or neither can be biased, too. > The two incompatible versions of the >creation in Genesis are only the most well-known example. There is one version of creation in Genesis. Chapter one gives the big picture, and chapter two summarizes a bit and then gives a lot more detail into the creation of Adam and Eve. As Gleason Archer notes in "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", page 69, "... it becomes quite apparent that this [chapter 2] was never intended to be a general creation narrative. Search all the cosmologies of the ancient civilizations of the Near East, and you will never find among them a single creation account that omits all mention of the formation of h sun, moon, and stars or ocean or seas - none of which are referred to in Genesis 2. It is therefore quite obvious that Genesis 1 is the only creation account to be found in Hebrew Scripture and that it is already presupposed as the background for Genesis 2." > Often requirements of jewels, >precious metals, rare spices, and so forth are made which obviously >could not have been performed by the Hebrews at the time of the >Exodus. I'm not sure what you mean here, but it seems clear to me that you believe there is no God and thus discount any sort of supernatural help from Him. -- Dave Bakken Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu 721 Gould-Simpson Bldg UUCP: uunet!arizona!bakken Dept of Computer Science; U of Arizona Phone: +1 602 621 8372 (w) Tucson, AZ 85721 USA FAX: +1 602 621 4246