NARRATIVE

265 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
"Its proof that it is written

"Its proof that it is written by someone that is recounting an event, as opposed to fabricating it."

I don't agree, but lets say for the sake of argument it is, you'd still need to demonstrate compelling objective evidence that it has been recounted accurately. Being wrong or inaccurate doesn't require intent, ignorance and superstition are a killer combination that will do it just as well.

"these are disparities you would expect to see, and do see, when people who experienced the same event retell their stories later. It has everything to do with the way memories are encoded and recalled."

In a flawed human narrative yes, not in a narrative claimed to be derived from an omniscient omnipotent deity, that was supposedly attempting to portray a message that EVERYTHING was created for.

arakish's picture
Breezy: "Its proof that it is

Breezy: "Its proof that it is written by someone that is recounting an event, as opposed to fabricating it. I don't know to what extent you think things like the gospels were fabricated and written years after the event by people that weren't there, vs written by the people that were there."

Because of evidential facts. Something you are incapable of understanding. The oldest copy of the Gospel of Mark dates to circa 112 CE. 82! years after the supposed event. And the other three are even younger.

rmfr

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
If the oldest copy is not the

If the oldest copy is not the original copy; so then what's the argument exactly?

arakish's picture
Breezy: "If the oldest copy

Breezy: "If the oldest copy is not the original copy; so then what's the argument exactly?

Point: None of the Bible is original. It is a complete plagiarization of myths and legends FAR! older than the Bible itself. The character "Jesus" (and I still pronounce it Hey-soos) did not exist until well int othe first century CE. You may be thinking of the character "Yeshua." However, there is absolutely NO evidence that Yeshua even existed. Not until the first fictional short story attributed to "Mark" was written almost a century later, circa 112 CE. You mentioned earlier:

Breezy: "However it's worth noting that a major difference between the bible and texts of other religions is that the bible story is embedded within a definite time and space."

Since when? The Bible contains absolutely NO definitive mentioning of time and space. Until you prove this with Objective Hard Empirical Evidence, then you are doing the FAITH (Falsehoods Assumptions Innuendos Treachery Hogwash) thing.

Breezy: "Do you know if the epic of Gilgamesh or other religious texts have that?"

The Epic of Gilgamesh does. It mentions dates, places, and occurrences. Far more than the Noah myth plagiarized and rewritten over 1100 years later.

Breezy: "So for example, can we know when and where the main character in the epic of Gilgamesh lived, the way we can know when and where Noah is claimed to have lived?"

Yes, because the myth explicitly states such. The Noahacian Flood Myth does NOT! There is no mention of where Noah lived. There is no mention of when it happened. Nothing. Only a plagiarized myth from far older myths. Here it is: Noahacian Flood Myth written circa 450 BCE, which is plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh written circa 1600 BCE, which is plagiarized from the Epic of Atra-Hasis written circa 1700 BCE, which is plagiarized from the Epic of Ziusudra written circa 1900 BCE, which is plagiarized from the Genesis of Eridu written circa 2000 BCE. Eridu was a neighboring city of Ur (Gilgamesh). And the Genesis of Eridu mentions "a great flood washed over." There is Objective Hard Empirical Evidence that the floodplain of the Tigris and Euphrates having suffered a catastrophic flood of "biblical" proportions circa 2900 to 3000 BCE. Sediment layers from shafts prove this. Thus, the Noah myth is nothing but a retelling of FAR! older stories.

Breezy: "I haven't looked into Hinduism enough to defend my point, but from the little I know their narrative appears to take place almost before time began."

Then why mention it. If you do not know enough about it, then shut the hell up. Don't mention it. Otherwise, you are doing nothing more than proving your incompetence and propensity for lying. Breezy, you do yourself a disservice by showing how ignorant you truly are. What was it Old Man said once (paraphrased), "It is damn shame these Bible thumpers come here having never read their obsolete Bronze Age text."

rmfr

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Arakish..

@ Arakish..

The partial text of Mark was at the earliest 150ishCE (One hundred and 20 years after the alleged events). The earliest fragment of the gospels is the Ryland fragment of John (P52) dated at the earliest to 125CE

Breezy is desperately trying to justify his beliefs in the face of facts and failing miserably.

Cognostic's picture
WOW! You can walk along the

WOW! You can walk along the street like a perfectly normal person but when you open your trench coat and expose yourself to the world, people just have to call you "NUTS"

RE: "Its proof that it is written by someone that is recounting an event, as opposed to fabricating it."

Have you lost your mind? Every post you make manages to sink to a lower and lower level of ignorance. Narration is a style of writing and NOTHING MORE. Think of all the books written in that style. You are asserting that the writers were recounting events? Really? That's just INSANE. You are allowing your OCD to run away with your brain.

Sheldon's picture
Even if his claim were true,

Even if his claim were true, and the writers were recounting real events, they were still capable of error. Given how much of the "inerrant word of god" has turned out to be erroneous how much confidence can any rational person place in it? However as you say the writing style alone tells us nothing about the veracity of what they have written, or even the intent of the writer.

Cognostic's picture
I think I mentioned that

I think I mentioned that point as well. Short stories are easily memorized. I think of Aesop's Fables. The issue is time and interpretation. How did the serpent in the garden become a snake, when was it changed from female to male, why is the apple commonly regarded as the fruit eaten in the garden. These are only a few of the changes that occur over time when fables are used to teach. Meanings change over time and interpretations are certainly different than simply stating facts. I have read at lease 5 different interpretations of the Adam and Eve story. (Just using it as an example.)

Sapporo's picture
I disagree that the bible was

I disagree that the bible was written in narrative format.

It seems more like a collection of books written by numerous different authors with different motives that was compiled at a later date.

Sheldon's picture
I'm inclined to agree, and

I'm inclined to agree, and Breezy's idea sounds like a rationalisation to me. Something believers do to try and maintain belief in the bible or koran.

A message from a deity that created everything and wanted us to know should rationally be expected to be infallible and definitive, not errant and ambiguous.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
Well, then give me your

Well, then give me your definition of narrative, as well as why the bible doesn't have it. Because authors and motives seem to be components of narrative.

Sheldon's picture
It's not an homogeneous

It's not an homogeneous narrative, it's a collection of separate narratives, cobbled together. My definition of an homogeneous narrative is that it would be consistent and coherent, rather than ambiguous vague and contradictory. If it were an homogeneous narrative it would still of course be entirely human in origin, unless compelling objective evidence could be demonstrated to show otherwise.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
You've created an adjective

You've created an adjective for the sake of arguing against it.

Sheldon's picture
That's very silly thing to

That's very silly thing to claim John, why would an atheists needs to invent words in order to disbelieve archaic myths about magic. Did you anticipate everyone rolling over and converting when you offered your opinion the bible is a narrative? It's demonstrably several narratives that have been cobbled together, many of them of them long after the events they are supposed to depict. Some of them are clearly not describing real events in any meaningful or objective way.

If you think that is the best an omniscient omnipotent deity can do, well then I remain dubious.

Which adjective was tripping you up John, I'm pretty certain homogeneous is in the dictionary, but do check it's meaning for yourself.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
You made up the phrase

You made up the phrase homogeneous narrative. What's the opposite, a heterogeneous narrative? Is the bible a heterogeneous narrative according to your definition? If so, then it's still a narrative.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Breezy - You made up the

Breezy - You made up the phrase homogeneous narrative.

Bullshit. It has been used for a long time to describe the telling of stories.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
Great, show me. It's that

Great, show me. It's that simple. It still produces a straw man that doesn't affect my claim.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Here is an example of it

Here is an example of it being used in 1857. Which leads us to the conclusions:

  1. Sheldon is an extremely influential time traveler.
  2. Or; you are full of shit.

I'm going to go with B.
---------------------------------------
/e

Breezy - It still produces a straw man that doesn't affect my claim.

The fact that you are full of shit, effects (or is it affects?) your claim. If for no other reason then we have to double and triple check everything you say because it is often wildly inaccurate. You can't seem to even get the easy stuff right.

arakish's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

In that context, it would be "affects."

rmfr

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
I'll gladly concede then. I

I'll gladly concede then. I definitely prefer being "wrong" to such an obscure example, than something more pertinent

Instead of presenting something that has actual meaning to the discussion, and can actually hurt my argument. You've turned it into a competition of whose the first human to use those words in that combination. So I'll take it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
If you didn't want the

If you didn't want the conversation to go down this road, perhaps you should not have accused Sheldon of making up that phrase.

If you don't want us to nitpick the details of what you say, you shouldn't just make them up as you go along. You are your own worst enemy here.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
I'm sure; but you already

I'm sure; but you already know I expect a certain level of common sense from others. I'm also aware that nitpicking is the best approach to take down my arguments. I wouldn't want you addressing my arguments head on, now that would be disastrous for me.

David Killens's picture
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

"I'm sure; but you already know I expect a certain level of common sense from others. I'm also aware that nitpicking is the best approach to take down my arguments. I wouldn't want you addressing my arguments head on, now that would be disastrous for me."

Your OP hinges on the presupposition that at the instant of any biblical event that there was someone documenting it on paper. Or papyrus or clay tablets. No matter, it would be a permanent record.

And I easily discern that you are attempting to steer the conversation towards topics that favor your interpretation of truth versus fancy. But the OP fails from the beginning because all of those biblical events were not put to paper until at least a hundred years later.

I did not have to nitpick because I went after the simple fact that your presupposition was incorrect.

As far as nitpicking, are we as diligent as your instructors? I can give the answer. You make any mistake, just an incorrect punctuation mark, and he will rip you a new one. In comparison, we are exceptionally forgiving and lenient.

Sorry, the old "waa waa , feel sorry for me, they are picking on me" fails.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
My OP doesn't hinge on such

My OP doesn't hinge on such presuppositions. I don't even care who wrote Genesis; even basic Christian tradition claims it was Moses who wrote it, which duh, is supposed to have lived hundred of years after Adam and Eve.

I'm willing to bet I'm one of the best writers on here. Yet, even if that wasn't the case, have you ever published an article? Perhaps not in science, but in a magazine somewhere? There's a reason why editors exist, its their job to worry about commas. Even prolific authors such as Steven Pinker, who writes about language, and studies its rules, doesn't fail to acknowledge his editors. He has a funny anecdote in one of his books about arguing with one of them precisely over a comma.

Common sense ought to tell you to lower your expectations if you think I should put the same level of detail in random online discussions as I do the classroom. And yet I still take the time to research and format my citations properly for the thread, which I haven't seen very many people do. Most of you just give out youtube links and ask ppl to watch them.

Again, common sense; you won't learn about that in technical manuals. (You can probably learn it through narratives however: stories like goldilocks probably teach common sense."

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Breezy

@ Breezy

I'm willing to bet I'm one of the best writers on here.

Now that is the funniest thing I have read from you....got dibs on your little unpolished and unpublished ass have you not? Just as well Arakish C3 is now embedded in my behaviour and no comestibles were being consumed, or, indeed within reach when I read that little gem....

*still laughing so hard it hurts*

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
My claim is testable.

My claim is testable.

Regardless, I do find your writing on here to be void of substances and also horribly and unoriginally written. By unoriginal I mean you've stolen Tin-Man's style.

*Cough, cough*

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Breezy

@ Breezy

Thanks for the compliment. If you think its 'void of substance" then it means to any rational human it has made points you cannot or will not refute due to your biblical blinkers.

As to stealing Tin Mans style...oh, that I could emulate that giant of clanking comedy....I guess I will just have to bow to your self professed superiority and throw out my Academy Award, tear up the last 15 years royalty cheques, cast my Equity Award into the trash and dote on every word that drips from your pen...Not to mention instruct the mining companies that use my texts to maintain, and operate safely, some of the biggest and nastiest machines in Australia that, in John Breezy, a student's venerated opinion they are "void of substance'. Should cause some angst in the boardrooms...

You really are a pratt sometimes...oh wait....

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
That just make things worse

That just make things worse for you; so many awards but so little to show for it on the forum. The point I made was precisely to make a distinction between the type of writing that occurs within the thread, from the type of writing that occurs outside it. You don't have to put an ounce of substance into your comments, and I don't have to write for you guys as if I'm writing for academia (even though I often do).

Yet, within the confines of this thread I maintain I'm one of the best writers. So if anyone, like David, wishes to nitpick at the placements of my commas, but their writing is worse than mine, it essentially voids their nitpicking.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Breezy

@ Breezy

Lets have the link to your published papers then....as you "often write for academia", unless you mean turning in your student assignments.

You should really know who you are writing to, before you shoot your mouth off. This forum is awash with better minds and better writers than you.

Your behaviour is showing a pattern Breezy... you should take some counselling.

1. Bald statement
2. Attempt to justify when errors pointed out
3. Get angry
4. Ad hominems
5. Announce your not playing anymore ...

Wow, sounds like the behaviour of a socially inept 12 year old doesn't it? Take some counselling.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
What does knowing who anyone

What does knowing who anyone is on here matter? Your credentials are Christmas ornaments to me if they're not mine. So my only interest is in what you are able to contribute to these conversations, irrespective of credentials and awards.

I've rarely come across anything written by you here worth reading twice. That's my fault.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.