Just got back from synagogue. So let’s see what’s going on.
9:45 Good fast defense of John Edwards and he’s talking about health care. Seems to be doing a good job.
9:47 Has Bush been sounding this whiney the whole time?
9:49 So Bush is blaming the recession on Clinton? Gee. There’s a surprise.
9:50 Thus far, Bush seems more comfortable in this format than he was last week. On the other hand, he had all the questions ahead of time. I’m not sure if he answered the question though.
9:52 Kerry’s doing a good presentation. On the other hand, I’m not sure if he’s answering the question either. For that matter, I’ve forgotten what it was.
9:53 Okay, the moderator just said, “How?” Bush is not answering it. Let’s see if Kerry presents how.
9:54 Nope. He didn’t either.
9:55 Well, if Kerry gets elected and winds up raising taxes, this answer’ll come back to bite him on the ášš.
9:57 Wait…”Either he’s going to break all these promises he made, or he’s going to raise taxes.” Bush just said the same thing twice. He should be writing Daily Bugle headlines. “Spider-Man: Threat or Menace.”
9:59 “Look at the record.” Mr. President, you really, REALLY don’t want your record looked at too closely.
10:00 I’ll be interested to see the fact checkers on Bush’s response about environmental initiatives.
10:02 Well, Kerry just lost Boston.
10:03 Good riposte on Kyoto by Kerry.
10:06 Good answer from Kerry about being competitive.
10:08 Bush continues to hammer the “didn’t show up” thing. I really think someone whose military history is criticized for his not showing up shouldn’t be going down that path.
10:09 Okay, DOES Bush own a timber company? Because if he does and it really is news to him, boy, that’s going to be all over the papers tomorrow.
10:11 “I don’t think the Patriot Act abridges your rights at all.” Oooooh, that may not have been the smartest thing to say.
10:12 “Whole bunch of folks.” Kerry’s starting to talk like Bush.
10:14 Kerry seems reaaaally uncomfortable in handling the stem cell question. Which is odd, because he’s been extremely firm on his opinion about it. He probably doesn’t want to risk offending the extreme religious folks any more than Bush does. Silly. They’re gonna vote for Bush either way. Might as well just go for it.
10:16 Never seen Kerry so tongue-tied.
10:17 Bush is doing better on this question than Kerry, which is interesting since so many people support stem cell research.
10:21 Kerry is absolutely knocking the judge question out of the park while Bush was muddy over it.
10:23 Kerry is doing only so-so with the question about tax dollars. I get the whole “respecting” thing, but it’s really all over the place.
10:27 “It’s never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.” And Bush is not getting it.
10:28 Ohhhhh,Bush is going right down the chute on ths question, I have a feeling.
10:28 Wow. Bush’s rebuttal was really quite awful.
10:29 Those last two should have been switched. Bush’s rebuttal on partial birth was awful. The down the chute is on the question about making mistakes, and yeah, I was right. Awful.
10:30 “Gut check time?”” I like that. “IT’S GUT CHECK TIME!”
10:31 “Saddam would be in power and the world would be a lot better off.”
10:33 You know waht would be interesting? If Kerry said, “If you guys want, I’ll hang out and answer more of your questions, unprepared. Just toss ’em out.”
10:35 Kerry’s closing was basic stump speech.
10:36 Same with Bush. “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” “9/11.” Typical buzz scare talk.
• 
See Luigi, Jim is a perfect example of the sad pathetic religious person I’m talking about. He has no identity of his own without his favorite fictional book.
When the Postal Service issued a 1928 stamp commemorating the apocryphal tale of Washington kneeling in prayer in the snow of Valley Forge, Rupert Hughes, a biographer of Washington
See Luigi, Jim is a perfect example of the sad pathetic religious person I’m talking about. He has no identity of his own without his favorite fictional book.
Bladestar,
Why do you find it necessary to personally attack someone with whom you do not agree? You know nothing about me, why I am a Christian, or the path I have traveled which has led me to believe Christianity is true.
You do have one thing correct: The Bible is my favorite book (oviously I don’t think it is fiction). Out of curiosity, what is yours?
Jim in Iowa
Karen wrote: Where do you get the idea that pro-choicers want abortion available throughout the pregnancy?
One more reason why: Partial Birth Abortion.
When this bill went before Congress, my understanding is that not a single medical doctor was willing to go on record and say this was a medically *necessary* procedure. Some said it was not wrong, but none could scientifically say it was a necessary procedure.
Within an hour of the bill being signed, it was challened in 3 Federal courts. Why? Because it was so strict it did not allow the loopholes doctors could use to come up with virtually any excuse to do the procedure.
When this went before the San Francisco Federal court, the judge acknowledged that this was not a medically necessary procedure. He also acknowledged that it was scientifically proven that the child (the word the judge used, not mine) felt pain and experienced trauma during the procedure. The judge then said that the woman’s right to have an abortion came before anything else.
What other conclusion could I reach but that pro-choicer leaders want abortion available throughout the pregnancy.
The argument that we should not impose our morality on others seems to ignore that it is the pro-abortion movement that is doing so. There has not been a single legislative action where abortion was made legal since 1973. It has only been made legal by the action of the courts.
Current surveys show 65% of the nation believe life begins at conception. So who is imposing their beliefs on whom? When slavery and discrimination were over ruled by the courts, laws protecting former slaves and laws helping those who were victims of segration soon followed. That has not been the case with abortion. The majority of this country does not agree with “abortion on demand.” Yet medical peronnel and pharmacists are being fired when they refuse to be involved with an abortion.
Someone is legistlating morality right now, and it is the courts, not the people. That is wrong.
Jim in Iowa
One of many internet articles about the faith of George Washington:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1976/jul-aug/edavis.html
Jim in Iowa
Here is another article, but one stating the other side:
http://www.virginiaplaces.com/religion/religiongw.html
As stated above, George Washington would not be a member of Jerry Falwell’s church. That does not mean he was not a religious man. Washington had a correct understanding of the separation of church and state, rather than the extreme one found today.
While Washington, Jefferson, and Franlkin may be 3 of the founding fathers we think of first, they are not the only ones. It is amazing how the pastors and those who were clearly strongly “evangelical” in todays terms are left off of the lists and out of textbooks.
Jim in Iowa
You are applying contemporary methodology for an ancient style of writing.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
The style of writing makes no difference.
The Bible could’ve been written by Shakespeare for all I care, and it is still the same fiction.
. Every day language is filled with expressions such as this.
Everybody walks on water too. Or is that an old expression for getting high? 🙂
There are very clear quotes that Washington makes that show without a doubt that he was indeed a very religous man.
It’s just too bad that so many think that, to be religious, you have to believe in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god (don’t forget the Muslim part).
Where do you come up with this stuff? The style of writing makes no difference.
There has been over 2000 years of work done on how to read literature. Perhaps “style” is not the best word, but I was using what was in the original response to my post.
If you write poetry and talk about how “your eyes make my heart to flutter,” it does not have to mean my heart is actually racing. When we talk about a “sunrise,” it is not meant to be a scientific description that the sun is revolving around the earth, rather than the other way around.
When the Bible says, “The trees of the fields will clap their hands,” it does not mean the author had read Tolkien and thought trees could actually walk, talk, and clap their hands.
Take Genesis 1 and 2, for example. If you know the gods that were respected by the Egyptians, you will suddenly realize that the Creation account was written in such a way to mock the Egyptian Gods. (Why do you think the “sun” is not revealed until day until day 4? Because the Egyptian Sun God was similar to the Greek God Zeus or the Roman God Juipter. It was deliberately offensive to Egyptian way of thinking, and was a not too subtle way of trying to break the Hebrews who had lived in Egypt for 400 years from an Egyptian mindset.) That does not mean it was not intended to be accurate in its basic detail, but it is not a scientific description like the current theory of evolution. (Whether it also was meant to be a literal 6 days or not is a separate issue for another time.)
The Bible is filled with hyperbole, metaphors, and other figures of speech the same as any English book today. It is made up of poetry, historical narrative (which is an accepted and valid and accurate way of conveying actual historical events), proverbs, letters, and apocalyptic writings. Each has its own “style” and method of communicating.
The Bible is a collection of writings, not one single book. It was written in different cultures and different languages. Not many people could pick up an unedited version of Shakespeare today and understand it, and his writings were done in English within roughly the last 500 years. I am not making excuses or saying it is impossible to understand, just that it is common sense and normal literary practice to give the author the benefit of the doubt and try to understand what he means before condemning it.
Jim in Iowa
It’s just too bad that so many think that, to be religious, you have to believe in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god (don’t forget the Muslim part).
I agree that you can be religious and believe in a different “god.” I do want to point out that in the 1700’s, the Muslim popluation was virtually non-existent here. In the culture of Revolutionary America, the Christian God was overwhelmingly the agreed upon worldview.
Jim in Iowa
The following link has some bad language (it deals with anonymity and on line communication)
http://penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-03-19
Blogs occasionally make me wish for the ending credits resolution, from “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” (which I’m probably the only person reading this blog low-brow enough to have watched it)
bryan
ps. This is not referring to the preceding post….
Ok, this is WAY off topic. I am relatively new at PAD’s site. Is 261 the highest number of comments posted? It definitely far exceeds the average.
Jim in Iowa
earlier comment: Funny how belief in the Bible as true should be respected, but belief that it is fiction is not, and is actually considered an
“Blogs occasionally make me wish for the ending credits resolution, from “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” (which I’m probably the only person reading this blog low-brow enough to have watched it)”
Oh THAT’S rich! I just sat througha double DVD session of THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA and GODMONSTER OF INDIAN FLATS. The latter in particular makes J&SBSB look like something Jean Cocteau might have come up with.
Bill (Happy now that his dvd restoration of THEY CALL HER ONE-EYE just arrived.)
Thanks Bill, I think 🙂
bryan (who has seen too much Lion KIng II with his daughter)
Wrong again braindead Bill, I have beliefs and act on them, but I don’t force them on others.
And you obviousl;y must be another terrorist lover since you love those who act on beliefs, like say the 09/11 hi-jackers who were willing to give their lives to strike a blow against those who their beliefs told them are their enemy.
Yep, acting on your beliefs can be a good thing sometimes, eh?
The Bible is filled with hyperbole, metaphors, and other figures of speech the same as any English book today.
Ahh, so this would explain why you guys only take seriously what you want to, and then come up with excuses to explain the rest? Just kidding. I think. 😉
That still doesn’t explain the “magic” that people still automatically assume as literal truth – parting the sea, walking on water.
When I read Romance of the Three Kingdoms, I read it knowing it’s “7 parts truth, 3 parts” fiction. But if I try and apply that to the Bible, it’s an insult. I just don’t get that.
But don’t insult your opponent, not least because you’re asking to have the allegation blow up in your face.
Ok. Smart people believed in god so that makes me wrong? Now, I find *that* rather insulting.
Nothing is blowing up in my face, because there are no allegations. This isn’t a criminal trial. It’s simply fact versus fiction.
That still doesn’t explain the “magic” that people still automatically assume as literal truth – parting the sea, walking on water.
Fair question. I don’t “automatically” believe the “magic” stuff. This is the part where it clearly is a matter of faith — not blind faith, but reasoned faith. I have spent over 20 years reading a wide variety of material on this issue, including those critical of the Bible. I have also spent the last 30 years in an active relationship with God. And that is why I believe the “magic” parts are literally true. I have seen what God has done in my life. If God can transform me as radically as he has, then it is really not a stretch for me that he can part the waters or walk on them.
I have no problems with honest questions about the Bible. It has survived over 2,000 years in a way no other piece of literature ever has. I agree with your skepticism and your need to examine it rather than blindly accept it. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I do suggest that it is easier to understand it from the inside rather than the outside. Not a criticism, just a suggestion that the “fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa: Your definition of an “accurate historical document” is faulty. You are applying contemporary methodology for an ancient style of writing.
Luigi Novi: The modern practice of historiography IS a contemporary discipline. Of course we
Luigi Novi: The modern practice of historiography IS a contemporary discipline. Of course we
You are imposing a burden on the Bible that is not on other ancient literature.
I don’t recall any Civil War literature claiming that a general parted a river so his men could get across, either.
Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which is quite likely to be the second most widely read book in the world, uses magic and some potentially other fantastical events in it’s “3 parts fiction”, but people acknowledge the fiction for what it is.
Those that read the Bible, however, do not. So it is a well deserved burden.
I don’t recall any Civil War literature claiming that a general parted a river so his men could get across, either.
I understand your point. My point is that, leaving aside the miracles, the Bible has been shown to be highly accurate in the history it records.
The reason the date for many of the books of the Bible is such an issue is because a contemporary date with the events would lend more weight to the possibility that eyewitnesses who saw the miracles agree with what was in the books (particularly the Gospels and the book of Acts, but also various books in the Old Testament).
If there was a book that was clearly written in 1865 that did talk about the parting of the waters, and did so in a way that indicated it was meant to be seen as literal, it would not make it true automatically, but it would be different than if a book was written in 1965 claiming the same.
If the Bible is filled with made up places, people, and events, then it would be very obvious that the miracles are also fictious. Because the Bible is an accurate history of actual events, it then leaves you with a question: What do you do with the miracles. The answer to this question depends enormously on your presuppositions. If you believe that miracles, supernatural events, are not possible, then you would treat the book as fictious. That does not “prove” it did not happen, but I can understand why you would come to that conclusion. If you believe that miracles are possible, then the accuracy of other events would suggest the miracles may also have acutally occured.
Jim in Iowa
David Bjorlin: Albert Einstein and Thomas Aquinas were both theists, Actually, it appears I was wrong about Einstein. and I can guarantee either of them was smarter than anyone on here, so show at least a minimal level of respect.
Luigi Novi: First of all, this is a blatant ad hominem argument, and I
David Bjorlin: The best argument you could marshal would be that several of them were in fact Deists, and perhaps a couple of Unitarians (arguably making them heretical Christians).
Luigi Novi: Which is pretty much the only argument I need. That Jefferson and Paine, to name two, were Deists, and that Washington and Franklin were said to have been Deists (later in life for Washington) means that the Fathers were not, as a group, Christians, nor was this country founded as a Christian nation on what were solely Christian principles. They were a product of Christian society, and some of them may have been Christian to one degree or another as individuals, but they embraced many new ideas that they incorporated into this nation, including the ideas of the European Enlightenment, Deism, Christianity, Roman Law, Greek Philosophy, the Iroquois Federation, English Common Law, and even Freemasonry.
There are a few assumptions within this posting that I’d like to address. First is the straw man argument, one of the sort that you generally accues other people of making. Jim in Iowa said that the nation was founded upon Christianity. You actually concede that in your last sentence. Nobody in this blog has argued that the Republic was founded upon “solely Christian principles,” to the exclusion of other influences. You’ve disproven that rather well, but it doesn’t really help the argument against Jim in Iowa. The Republic didn’t entirely come from Christianity, but it was suffused with Christian ideology. That claim cannot be so easily dismissed.
The second is your denial that the Founders were, “as a group, Christians.” Jefferson was quite manifestly anti-Christian; Paine was Christianity-free but not as hostile to Christianity as Jefferson. But Washington was at least nominally an Episcopalian; unless someone has a functional “window into men’s souls” (dead men’s souls, no less) I’d be reluctant to claim he wasn’t really Christian. Nor is it clear that deism requires a wholesale rejection of Christian values. Consider Franklin’s speech at the Constitutional convention, requesting that each session begin with a prayer. He worries that, “In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights, to illuminate our understandings” (James 1:17), and remembered that “All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth
Your statement that religion is bad for people because it diminishes their critical faculties makes you an ášš.
I’d say the bigger ášš is the person who hides behind their religion and all in entails. This may not be you, but I think Bush and a few well known terrorists would qualify.
Lev. 11:20-3 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
HAte to admit when creationists get something right but I got gobsmacked by this one a few years back when I was arguing with one. One must keep in mind that the words we read are translations–according to some sources I’ve seen “Fowl” comes from a word that refers to a creature with wings, not a chicken.
It’s also clear from the entire passage that locusts are NOT considered 4 legged animals. They have 4 legs for creeping and 2 “legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth”–the back legs, in other words.
So I’d always heard that the Bible says that insects have 4 legs so I brought it up when arguing with a guy who believes it to be without error. Imagine my joy when he flips the book to the exact passage and I had to admit I was wrong. I’m talking to a guy who thinks Noah managed to shove a few million animals, including dinosaurs, into an ark and I’M the one who has to admit he’s wrong??? WTF?
It’s perfectly legit to argue that the King James Version etc of the Bible has mistakes but to prove that the mistakes are inherent to the original texts would be more difficult.
Isn’t it about time for someone to jump up and say “strawman”?
…that’s a joke folks…
Luigi Novi —
Bill gave a good answer about the insect issue. Let me address another: the “rabbit” that chews the cud.
This issue is actually a textbook example of the point I was trying to make, namely, that it is a false burden to impose a modern definition on an ancient writing.
Today the term “chew the cud” has a very definite, scientific meaning. It refers to an animal who basically swallows food to store in a stomach, then later bring it back up to rechew it thoroughly and swallow again.
That is our definition today. That is *not* what it would have meant in the time of Moses.
The text lists rabbits, as well as coneys, as chewing the cud. By the modern definition, they do not. But in the time of Moses, they did not do dissection to look at the stomachs to see whether the animal actually regurgitated and rechewed its food. Instead, it referred to the mouth movements where it would appear they were doing so. The appearance of them doing so is so convincing that Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778), to whem we owe the modern system of biological classification, at first classified the coney and the rabbit as ruminants (an animal that chewed the cud).
You suggested at another point that according to my view of the Bible an “omniscient God” should have known the truth and not allowed the author to make such a mistake. I would disagree, since it was not a mistake in the first place, not according to the definitions of the time. To question Moses’ use of a term to which Linnaeus eventually gave a more restrictive meaning is anacrhonistic argumentation.
When we are dealing with the Bible, we are dealing with an ancient text written in a foreign culture in a foreign language anywhere from 2,000 to 3,500 or more years ago. It is not special pleading to suggest that it is an unfair standard to take an English translation and on first reading insist there is a mistake. At the very least, it is valid to go back and try to understand the text in the original language and context to make sure you are understanding what it originally said. That does not mean we cannot have some confidence after studying the text. It just means reading an English translation is the beginning of study, not the end. (This is not special pleading; this is true for reading any translation of a work. That is why I would have had to have learned German and French to get a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies, so that I could read the original works of theologians from France and Germany.)
On another note, let me make one other observation. Today we use history and science textbooks in schools across the country. If you were to pick up one of those texts, you would find not 1 or 2 errors, not even 100 errors, but well over 1,000 errors per textbook. Some of these are minor typos. Others are major mistatements of facts. Do we toss out those textbooks as works of fiction? No, we correct the errors, but we still use the textbook as an authoritative source. Even if you don’t believe the Bible is “inspired by God,” it is extreme to call the Bible a “work of fiction” because of a few errors (assuming there are some) and because it suggests there is a supernatural world. The work should be looked at as a whole before making a judgment.
Here is my personal belief about errors in the Bible: I don’t believe the Bible has errors in the original documents. That is a matter of faith, not something that can be proven since the originals do not exist.
I also believe we have a very reliable record of what the original documents actually said. In fact, the record we have is light years better than any other ancient document. That is not an opinion, that is well established fact. While I believe 99.9% of the original has been carefully preserved, there are some problems. Some of the so called “errors” in the Bible are based on these issues. At least for me, I would expect there to be these problems, especially since these documents had to be copied by hand for close to 1,500 years. (This is especially true when you find differences in dates, names, etc., in the Old Testament. Since Hebrew does not have numerals back then, they used letters instead. That practice easily led to some mistakes in copying.)
There are other suggested problems, such as the issue of the insect or rabbit. These are not copy errors. Some may be translation issues (we do not exactly have an ancient Greek or Hebrew dictionary laying around, so there are times when later discoveries help us better understand the meaning of a word). Others are cultural issues (such as biographies written in the first century often being written by themes, not chronologically, leading to events being in different orders when comparing the Gospel records). Some are issues of applying modern definitions to ancient writings. These issues are not as easily resolved. But if you are willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt, there are reasonable ways to answer the questions.
Next, there are historical issues. There are names of leaders, locations of cities, etc. Some of these can be proven. Others cannot. There are at least 2 problems with 100%verification. First, there are cases where two different cities can have the same name (this happens here in America). There are different people with the same names. So even if an inscription is found with a name of a person or a city, it is not always definitive either way. Second, almost by definition, we have very few records from ancient times, and those records are often incomplete. To require there to be “independent” verification of every person or place or event is not a reasonable burden to put on the document. You can say you are not sure it is true or not, but you cannot say it is a work of fiction unless there is a very clear, demonstrable mistake (or better yet, string of mistakes). This is the area that is the easiest to “factually” try to prove an error in the Bible since it deals with hard facts.
Finally, there are the supernatural events included in the Bible. By definition, these are not normal events. And when you read, for instance, that Jesus turned the water into wine at a wedding in Cana of Galilee, it is unlikely in the extreme that there would be an independent verification of this fact from another source. Your presupposition about miracles will influence your answer to this question as mentioned above. If you reject the possiblity of miracles, then by definition, these parts, at least, would be fictious. That conclusion is based on a prior belief/conviction, not on the evidence about the event.
I go through all of this for one reason: I research any error that people mention to me. My belief that the Bible is the Word of God is not just a blind acceptance of what someone else has said. I have looked into it myself.
My request is this. If you believe there are errors in the Bible, then please post them. I would welcome the challenge. I will not post my answer if I think you are incorrect since it is pointless to keep trading replies when we most likely will not convince each other. But I am sincere when I say I will research any you post. If I decide you are right, I will post that. Otherwise, I will spare everyone else long posts like this where I disagree with your point.
Jim in Iowa
Actually, the bit about rabbits is even better than you think. Not only do they appear to be chewing but they also have the habit of eating their feces to digest the food contained therin better, similar to the way cow barf up food and chew and swallow it again.
Ðámņ, biology is disgusting.
One “mistake” that is often pointed out is that in the KJV of the Bible you find mention of the “unicorn”. What is interesting is that the unicorn is found nine times in the KJV of the Bible. So, does this prove that the Bible is a work of fiction? Hardly.
while it is the critics who pull out single verses or a couple words to use as an argument against the validity of the Bible.
Oh, I’m sure that critics have used far more than that. You guys just gives yourselves too much credit.
Jim in Iowa: Your definition of an “accurate historical document” is faulty. You are applying contemporary methodology for an ancient style of writing.
Luigi Novi: The modern practice of historiography IS a contemporary discipline. Of course we
Jim in Iowa: If the Bible is filled with made up places, people, and events, then it would be very obvious that the miracles are also fictious. Because the Bible is an accurate history of actual events, it then leaves you with a question: What do you do with the miracles. The answer to this question depends enormously on your presuppositions. If you believe that miracles, supernatural events, are not possible, then you would treat the book as fictious. That does not “prove” it did not happen, but I can understand why you would come to that conclusion. If you believe that miracles are possible, then the accuracy of other events would suggest the miracles may also have acutally occured.
Luigi Novi: No it does not. Accuracy of non-supernatural events does not prove supernatural events possible, and with this
Where do all the dinosaurs whose remains scientists say are millions of years old fit into the popular fiction-book “The bible”?
Blade, that depends on just how one-sidedly literal you want your interpretation to be. For instance, when I read the tale of Creation in Genesis, ch 1, it works as a retelling of current understanding of cosmology – as best a tribe of illiterate goatherds could comprehend it. You couldn’t expect these people to grasp the concept of “billions of years ago”, when the largest number they probably used in daily conversation was about a hundred, and a long lifespan was one that lasted fifty whole years…
(Yes, I know the older books of the Bible speak of ridiculously long lifespans for the Patriarchs. Think of it as poetic license, remembering that as best we can tell, the first literate Patriarch was Moses, meaning that until the Exodus from Egypt, everything had to be passed down orally.)
The Bible does not speak of dinosaurs. It also doesn’t speak of relativity, wavicles, or the germ theory of disease – does that “prove” or “disprove” anything?
Ultimately, of course (and I’m sorry, Jim, but it’s true), one cannot “prove” or “disprove” the Bible. Its message can be taken on faith, or ignored on faith. Evidence doesn’t properly lead one to a conclusion either way. In faith, without proof, I choose to believe that the Old Testament is a collection of history, folk tales, and allegorical allusions, all trying to teach a squabbling tribe how best to live as God wanted them to (a process which seldom worked, judging from the events in the Pentateuch alone…). I also choose to believe that the Gospels, while hardly inerrant (the four included Gospels give us three separate death speeches for Christ), do essentially give us the life of Jesus Christ, the mortal avatar of Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Odin/the Great Bird of the Galaxy/what-have-you, in an easily-digestible format, with most of the important lessons underlined (pay attention to what He says – and to what He doesn’t say). The remainder of the New Testament is, of course, the collected works of commentors on the epxerience of Christ, with the exception of Revelation, which strikes me as being an over-the-top adaptation of the later parts of Daniel and Isaiah, included only because it struck the fancy of a vengeance-minded medieval audience.