tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post7067634595428125230..comments2008-06-03T06:50:56.448ZMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12892780628815273109noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-63995614867266504812008-06-03T06:50:00.000Z2008-06-03T06:50:00.000Z2008-06-03T06:50:00.000Z

Hi Nice Blog . In this, the body is studied by regions rather than by organs. This is of importance to the surgeon who exposes different planes after the skin incision and who, of course, must be perfectly familiar with structures as he explores the limbs and Human Anatomy study cavities.

Aneshahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06631310664955276174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-575103846563677182008-04-28T22:09:00.000Z2008-04-28T22:09:00.000Z2008-04-28T22:09:00.000Z

Hello,My paper on Genesis was published in the Occidental Quarterly Summer 2007. I believe it will come to be the definitive reading of Genesis. For a copy, write:rfaussette@aol.com

richnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-67308359690063815622008-03-06T18:24:00.000Z2008-03-06T18:24:00.000Z2008-03-06T18:24:00.000Z

Actually, to answer Mike's question more directly - what do I mean by "face value".well, that's clearly down tot he individual - and that's what we are asking people to do for themselves. The team who are running the challenge (all participating as well, naturally) will be putting our own thoughts together in a regular udpate, but the thing we will be encouraging readers to do is share their

Ian the Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17070505023741962838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-40243915625136157692008-03-06T17:47:00.000Z2008-03-06T17:47:00.000Z2008-03-06T17:47:00.000Z

Ian,Nice to hear from you again. I take the point about how your challenge is approaching this issue. I also agree with you that Christians tend to take the cuddly bits and forget all the evidence that the God of the Bible is a capricious, twisted so and so who just NEEDS to be adored.Like some celebrity Prima Donna! Mind you,there are some Christians I have met in the past who seem to model

Bunchttp://ayrshireblog.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-42977120729975956472008-03-06T17:33:00.000Z2008-03-06T17:33:00.000Z2008-03-06T17:33:00.000Z

Thanks for the kind words - clearly, we are not doing this because we want to see an army of christians baying for blood.I think it's more that we are reading the bible through modern eyes - and with a modern western morality.It's my own view that pretty much any person living in the modern world has a more robust morality than that ascribed to God through the bible, and outside of the fluffy

Ian the Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17070505023741962838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-3300523856654295402008-03-05T20:22:00.000Z2008-03-05T20:22:00.000Z2008-03-05T20:22:00.000Z

Apologies for the spelling in that comment - I didnt check it properly before posting !

Buncnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-91053039334737397132008-03-05T20:20:00.000Z2008-03-05T20:20:00.000Z2008-03-05T20:20:00.000Z

Hi Mike - thanks for the reference - I certainly will read that material and give some cmment on it. There is a lot of it so bear with me.I find Ian the Atheists challenge an interesting one but ,and Ihesitate to tweak the tail of a fellow Atheist here, the problem with the challenge is that it sets out by trying to read the Bible in modern terms.That is exactly the problem I have with

Bunchttp://ayrshireblog.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-40265245377100228282008-03-05T19:47:00.000Z2008-03-05T19:47:00.000Z2008-03-05T19:47:00.000Z

Looney,You wrote: Mike's argument is that because Genesis has meanings independent of historicity, then historicity couldn't have happened. It is tantamount to saying that because we can learn moral lessons from the battle of Waterloo, we can deduce that Napoleon and Wellington were mythological characters.Not quite, my friend. Modern expectations of historicity are fundamentally different than

Mike Beidlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10404666980227401390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-15454324474396725002008-03-05T17:32:00.000Z2008-03-05T17:32:00.000Z2008-03-05T17:32:00.000Z

Bunc, Mike's argument is that because Genesis has meanings independent of historicity, then historicity couldn't have happened. It is tantamount to saying that because we can learn moral lessons from the battle of Waterloo, we can deduce that Napoleon and Wellington were mythological characters. Not much logic there. Walton's methods only provide limited guidance to questions of historicity.

Looneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15801436449971512320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-80226597175034386942008-03-05T15:34:00.000Z2008-03-05T15:34:00.000Z2008-03-05T15:34:00.000Z

Hi Mike, Looney left a link to his own post on Dr Waltons book and said that he "had read this book" -but I note that in his post that he says he only read the introduction !Looney - I am still interested in your comments on the substantive issue of how the Bible Genesis account should be read in the light of the arguments on Mikes own Blog ( I assume you have checked that out?)and the arguments

Bunchttp://ayrshireblog.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-20516193716082304612008-03-05T15:21:00.000Z2008-03-05T15:21:00.000Z2008-03-05T15:21:00.000Z

Looney,His techniques are quite interesting, although not having a great impact on the final interpretation.Not a great impact? Did you and I read the same book? ;-)Seriously, I highly recommend you pick up Walton's Genesis commentary, in which he makes a solid case for a non-historical approach to Genesis 1, at the very least.As for the historicity of Genesis 2-12, most Evolutionary

Mike Beidlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10404666980227401390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-35157400486731481272008-03-05T03:34:00.000Z2008-03-05T03:34:00.000Z2008-03-05T03:34:00.000Z

I actually reviewed Walton's book, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament in a number of post starting here. His techniques are quite interesting, although not having a great impact on the final interpretation. The other point is that these methods are only minimally connected to the question of historicity. In some cases, however, he has clearly discredit early anti-Biblical

Looneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15801436449971512320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-44483071154111497842008-03-05T00:05:00.000Z2008-03-05T00:05:00.000Z2008-03-05T00:05:00.000Z

Ian,I like your challenge! Most Christians know next to nothing about their scripture. The same can be said for many atheists.However, I have a question about one of your rules: "simply read the verses at face value, just as we find them." How do you determine "face value"? What I consider to be a "face value" reading of Genesis can be completely different than someone else's "face value"

Mike Beidlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10404666980227401390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10587480.post-78923686201871814622008-03-04T21:16:00.000Z2008-03-04T21:16:00.000Z2008-03-04T21:16:00.000Z

A really interesting post - I agree that Genesis doesn't stand up to a literal interpretation, however, the truth is that it's not unique in that regards - none of the christian bible stands up to any degree of scrutiny, whether as a moral source or even as a particularly accurate historical record.I don't believe that this study is without merit though - I concur with Isaac Asimov, who said "

Ian the Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17070505023741962838noreply@blogger.com