And for many, probably correct.

Seems to me the Bible suppresses inspiration by claiming to already have answers. A case in point comes from the quoted material: "Our answer to all this is that the Creator, who was the architect of the very concept of infinity, had the energy beyond infinity to bring about the Big Bang."

Unfortunately, that answer is no more explanatory than, "Magic happened."

"We don't know" would have been a perfectly fine and more accurate answer. Indeed, that answer would inspire us to seek more knowledge. Therein lies true inspiration, as I see it. Inspiration compels us to want to learn more rather than rely on an unfalsifiable answer.

like the Big Bang theory. And he did so far earlier than scientists.

The point is that the Bible can be read, and is read, in multiple levels, and a focus on the literal reading misses the rest.

Last edited Wed Mar 27, 2019, 02:05 AM - Edit history (1)

The y chromosome is not an X without one little piece like a rib or a leg. It's a tiny little nothing compared to an X. It's about 1/10 the size. And it started out as an X, so if we are going to be scientifically accurate, Adam would have been made from Eve's rib.

Nahmanides said something that sounds sort of like the Big Bang. He said lots of things. He speculated. He was a smart guy. Maybe if he were born in the 20th Century, he would have been a great physicist. But he was a 12th Century Rabbi so all he could do was speculate.

Now if he had said there was no real Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden was a metaphor for the dawn of civilization, that would have been something. But then nobody would have believed him and they probably would have burned all his books. As a Jew in the 12th century, he's lucky they didn't burn him anyway for not believing that Christ literally rose from the dead.

Nahmanides had no education in physics. What prompted him to speculate about something, and describe it so accurately, 800 years before scientists arrived at the same theory?

Yes, he was undoubtedly intelligent, but what, or who, was the inspiration for this?

And he did speak for a metaphoric reading of the Bible, and for that he had to leave his home country.

He studied medicine, philosophy, and Kabbalah. This would have included physics. Kabbalah is based in neo-Platonic thought. He may or may not have known this.

Fifteen hundred years before Nahmanides, the philosopher Democritus proposed the existence of atoms. He made no claim to divine inspiration, just rational thought. He had no way to test his theory, nonetheless, he gets credit for the idea. Does this require we assume some sort of external "inspiration" like nobody in ancient times could ever speculate accurately?

He was not forced into exile for metaphorical thinking. He was forced into a disputation about the Bible with a Christian monk. He argued well, so he was brought up on charges and forced to leave.

And he never said the creation story was NOT literal. As all Jews and Christians of his day said, the Bible has BOTH literal and metaphorical meaning. But to my knowledge, none of them said there was never a literal Adam and Eve, or that any historical narrative in the Bible didn't actually happen.

As to inspiration versus insight, I make no claim for either possibility.

And Nahmanides argued that the Bible must be read literally and figuratively. Some parts are strictly literal, others are not.

[link:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_(Aristotle)

You are mischaracterizing Nachmanides' view. He believed that every word of the Bible was literal. All the historical stories were accurate. Jonah was really eaten by a big fish, not that it was a made up story or that he dreamed about giant guppies. He also believed that the story had metaphorical meaning, that is, the fish represented something. But it was a real fish.

And though you say you make no claim about insight vs. inspiration, your question and answers seems to imply that it could have been inspiration. Once again, you are making unclear claims so you can plausibly deny saying anything at all.

They are blasphemy to gil's theology!

The whole chromosome thing was discarded ages ago.

There is no clear line between men and women, gender is weird and complex and we have religion to thank for making it a million times harder than it should be.

and the antiquated binary notion of gender. He doesn't seem to care though, as long as he can promote his religious beliefs.

And a weaker assignation of motive.

You, like the RCC, apparently have a difficult time accepting that people are more complicated than a pair of chromosomes.

The whole chromosome bit is used to reinforce sexism. It's now known (and probably always was, tbh) to not be the case, they come in all manner of combinations, and gender is a very complex thing. And there's no difference between sex and gender either, but we let that stay cause too much at once is confusing for people and they already get violent at the suggestion that the binary is wrong.

Amazing the all the things that have nothing to do with religion have been fundimentaly shaped by it.

And this was written 5800 years ago.

Maybe update your genetics? (Learning, not personal, I would never force transhumanism on anyone)

And mine is a metaphoric reading.

I'm telling you your whole basis about the chromosome thing is wrong. It is not science.

And once you get to bringing science into it, you don't get to hide behind metaphors anymore.

You really think that's evidence of Adam and Eve?

Wow.

Last edited Wed Mar 27, 2019, 10:13 AM - Edit history (1)

That would be more accurate if "said" were replaced with "speculated." At the time he wrote that, nobody knew anything about black holes or cosmological theories. People have been speculating about cosmic origins since humans first looked at the night sky. Almost any concept you can imagine has been thought of to explain it. It's not inspiration; it's just imaginative thinking. Cherry-picking uninformed speculations retroactively is not a logical process.

Your chromosome thing, though, is way off the mark.

Almost as if he were inspired by something.

And the XX/XY explanation, rendered metaphorically, is accurate.

Let's take a look at Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 1. For nostalgia's sake, i'll quote from the KJV

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water.

So everything was formless, empty, and dark. God couldn't see, so he made some light.

Now, try to envision such a situation from a 11th or 12th century perspective. Where was everything? It's not a stretch to imagine that it was all packed into a tiny space, waiting to expand into the actual unverse instead of a black dot in the void.

That's one of the possibilities. Maybe the most likely one.

So, God figuratively poked the little dot with his stick and it ended the equilibrium and everything happened, expanding so fast you can't even imagine it. A flash of light, too, might have been part of such an event, since enormous energy would have been released in the explosion.

Your ancient Jewish philosopher might have seen it that way as a possible explanation for Genesis 1: 1-3. Maybe God took his stick and stirred up the mess to try to sort it out. I have no freaking idea.

Or, maybe there wasn't any God, and the thing just spontaneously expanded into the universe. That seems even more likely, since where did this God come from and where did he get that stick?

Imagination, trying to fill in the gaps in the story in some way. The old guy's sitting around, scratching a flea bite on his arse, and it comes to him.

Once again, the initial premise is that God exists. Ignore that, and it doesn't matter. The Universe is. It seems to have expanded from a point source. The trouble is that the Genesis account doesn't stop there. It immediately has God stirring things around with his stick, making stuff and critters. There's much more to creation that the initial moment. Maimonides just imagined one possible scenario

Really, it's all just part of a lot of Jewish philosophers over the centuries trying to interpret Genesis in one way or another. There are many stories.

I understand that there are many literalists here, and in this group, most seem to be atheists.

"Men are XY, and women are XX."

Not only is that transphobic and sexist, but...

https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm

XX and XY doesn't tell the story of human sexuality and gender. It does no one any good for you to push antiquated binary bigotry.

Nice title. Not correct, but it makes a good headline.

Your claim that "XX is female and XY is male"?

That's refuted.

From the link:

I said this earlier:

And that is the general understanding. No one said that they were the only possible combinations, but they are the most likely.

You seem honestly confused by the terms sex and gender identity.


Biological Theories of Gender

I will simply remind everyone again that these are YOUR WORDS from the OP:

If God was going to give us the science on this, he really should have advised us that there were people who didn't fit neatly into either category, in both physical and mental capacities. It would have prevented a lot of harm over the last three thousand years. Instead, he told us the opposite and caused those people harm.

Understood.

But that precludes the possibility of growth.

Of course, if it's all just a metaphor, I'd argue that the God of the Bible is a metaphor for a cruel capricious universe that demands we placate it with the blood of others. We can see that circumcision, animal sacrifice, genocide, and the crucifixion are all metaphors for the price of life being in blood, for that which is dead cannot grow, but only disintegrate.

A puppet master would have prevented that.

Speaking, of course, of the metaphoric story.

Such a universe would present innocent creatures with harmful choices that they do not understand. How could they know that dying was a bad thing in a world that had no death? Likewise, in the real world, we make choices we don't understand and can pay a dreadful price in unexpected consequences.

You might be straying into theism.

Can the Creator truly be separate from the creation?

And for you, that might be your own view,

Again, you are walking close to that theist/atheist line.

But if you are an agnostic, that makes sense.

There is no evidence for one, either. No need, no evidence, no Creator. Sorry. So, show me the need, show me the evidence, and I'll entertain the idea.

I'll wait here...

But in the absence of evidence, or in the absence of what constitutes evidence, people rely on faith.

You have no need. You have said this before. Understood.

You figure it out. I'm fine with no Creator.

His wikipedia clapback to your .edu article collapsed your entire argument!

Why don't you submit to his outdated pseudoscience in regards to gender!

... would you try to figure out why men don’t have one fewer finger?

Which is my position,

In an entirely literal reading of the story, Adam would have one fewer finger...

... but there's no reason to believe that this would change his DNA so that all male offspring after that point had only nine fingers.

from the text and cultural context. If it were, I could argue the Bible says just about anything. Do you think there is something I could not make the Bible say just by claiming its a metaphor? Try me. Pick an idea, any idea, no matter how far fetched or abhorrent, and I'll find it in the Bible and call it a metaphor.

Why push the patriarchal notion that women came from men? Why perpetuate the primacy of men?

The rib story was used to support the notion that MEN were god's creation, and women were an afterthought.

Sexist antiquated bigoted rubbish. Throw it on the trash heap of bad ideas.

You should be ashamed.

Why someone would want to defend it I have no idea.

I could go more into it, but I respect my time, and I know he'd hyper-fixate on a spelling error, or some literal interpretation of something I typed and ignore the content.

Eve's curse was that her husband would be her lord but she will desire his love.

And many modern age humans.

Not only will her husband lord over her, he will write a book that says it's her own fault.

And it still applies in many families.

Argue your point if you can.

Bet you can't though.

also speak in harmony with the physicists of this century predicting the Big Bang. I tend to believe they simply have greater insight to Truth.

Or Truth.

But my statement is my own belief.

The Bronze Age writers of the Eden story wrote in English?

Speak English Dammit!

the Greek Gods spoke with British accents.

And in French when posting on another site.

premeditated that one day, thousands of years from then, English speaking people would use Y and X (which look nothing like that in Aramaic) to describe chromosomes?
So this Bronze Age writer used the metaphor of the rib to describe it to the future English speakers.

I just found this:

https://www.bulldozerfaith.com/solving-for-x-and-y

Read it and tell me what you think.

This is a Yod


A short squiggle looks like many things, but not really like this.

Looking for patterns, even farfetched ones like this, is a human trait.

This Bible Code bullshit is unsubstantiated hooey.

Currently, I do not participate in any non-English sites. When I was in the mineral specimen business, however, I sometimes had to correspond in email with international customers whose English was not sufficient for the task. That was always interesting. Eventually, I learned how to use Google Translate well enough to communicate seamlessly in several languages. A lot of it had to do with how carefully I wrote in English and using back-translation to find and correct inadvertent errors. Some emails required several passes before I felt they were OK to send.

Before long, I developed a specifically limited vocabulary and clean business writing style in English which translated accurately using Google Translate. These days, those online translations have improved considerably, but proper preparation and use of English with translation in mind remains crucial. Also, learning the conventions of polite correspondence in each language was very important. The Internet is very helpful with such things.

Of course, I always disclosed that I was using Google translate, and that I was not fluent in whatever language I was using.

communications end up being translated poorly by Google Translate. The output in the target language depends on the source language's structure.

To achieve accurate results, one must forgo using colloquialisms and complex grammatical structures in English. And no matter what you write as the original, it's essential to back-translate the result. If it is not a perfect match for the original, then editing the original content is essential.

Using complex sentences, conditional phrases, and language-specific shortcuts are a mistake. Even common contractions often do not translate properly. Simple declarative sentences and questions, using unambiguous words, translate best. English is full of words with multiple meanings. Google Translate tries, but is often unable to use context to determine which meaning is intended. Wherever possible, word choices that are unambiguous and specific to your meaning are best.

Still, Google Translate continues to improve its capabilities. In the several years I have been using it, it has made giant strides, at least in translating to most European languages. The most comical errors I saw in corresponding with mineral collectors were with collectors in Japan. I do not know Japanese at all. Many times my original in English had to go through multiple back-translations before returning to me unchanged. Still, I heard compliments on my Japanese from several customers, despite my knowing no Japanese at all.

Often, translating to English from other languages is a challenge, because the writer doesn't understand Google Translate's limitations. However, creative interpretation usually can figure out what was meant.

In French, we have many forms that are rarely seen in English, but these forms convey specific information c that can be lost in translation.

At the University level, I would se it constantly among Anglophone students in French literature classes. They would use the incorrect tense but in a conversational setting, intent can be determined.

AMHO.

into French. Russian has similar issues. I do know how to write in English to generate the verb forms I want.

I learned far more about grammar by studying French and Russian than I ever did in English.

"I might have flown to Paris next week if my wife had not been hired by a new company."

Here's what Google came up with, which back-translated perfectly to my original:

J'aurais peut-être pris l'avion pour Paris la semaine prochaine si ma femme n'avait pas été embauchée par une nouvelle société.

This sort of illustrates the issue you mentioned about verb forms. Now, if I saw that sentence in French, I would understand it just fine. However, I could not possibly speak it in French directly from my own thoughts. Four years of high school French is simply not adequate preparation for that.

On the other hand, I was able to write an English sentence that would translate properly and back-translate to the identical English. But, would a French speaker with four years of taking English classes have been able to speak the English sentence directly? I doubt it. English is just as complex in its grammar, but uses different methods to deal with those conditional and tense complexities. English is also a bit more efficient in expressing the same thought and uses fewer words.

The languages are quite different, but can both express the same sentence.

I would not write such a sentence, however, in a business correspondence. I would write much more simply to ensure a good translation. I would probably write:

I planned to fly to Paris next week. However, my wife was hired for a new job.

That also translated correctly in Google Translate:

Je prévoyais de voler à Paris la semaine prochaine. Cependant, ma femme a été embauchée pour un nouvel emploi.

In that case, I could say those sentences in French after thinking for a moment. They are within my active speaking abilities. So, I would be more comfortable using the English in composing a business letter. In that case, as well, I might still have used Google Translate and back-translated to make certain, as well as to avoid typing the French with its diacritical markings.

Simpler is, if possible, better.

Legal matters are an exception, of course.