Where the Bible is concerned there is no discrepancy between the earthly writers an objective history. You are assigning motives to Moses based on what? If Moses got the facts on the six days of creation, where else did he get the facts wrong? If the Bible can be found to untrustworthy in some areas, what is the standard for trusting it at all? Is the Bible only true when it says what I am willing to accept as true? Who decides when the Bible is right and when it is wrong?
Sorry, life got busy for me. Two responses here and then a question (I'm trying to keep things short for the sake of energy and time)
"If MOses got the facts on the six days wrong........"
Once more, he didn't, if he wasn't writing an historical account. This is a major problem of yours. I know that you regard Genesis 1 as historical in genre; and if I did as well, then I would certainly be accusing Moses of getting the facts wrong. But then I do not think Genesis 1 belongs to the historical genre. Perhaps I am wrong. In fact, let's assume (to make a point) that I am wrong: I believe that Moses never intended Genesis 1 to be read as historical in its details: yet the historical Moses actually did so intend. Even so, I would still not be accusing Moses of getting facts wrong: I would be wrong; but I would not be criticizing Moses. Now if it were proven to me that Moses in fact did intend Genesis 1 to be read as you read it, and I accepted that proof, yet still denied a young earth, then I would be claiming Moses got it wrong. I recognize this is a hard distinction, and people without philosophical training tend to confuse this. But it is an important distinction and one that you miss again and again and again. If you still don't get it, let me know and I will try and make it even clearer...
As to "who decides when the Bible gets it wrong?" Well, I am not sure what we mean by wrong here. But I do believe that authors of the Bible held certain erroneous views, perhaps of history and certainly of astronomy. That is a major problem for you and I appreciate the problem. Later I will open a thread that addresses this very topic, but for now, to your question "So, who decides?" REASON. God gave me a brain. I am not a fideist. It is not blind faith that I rest on. the pious phrase "Because the Bible tells me so" is appropriate, if taken in a conditional sense, but absurd if taken absolutely. By conditional I mean that the Bible has proven itself again and again to be trustworthy on many matters, and so I will trust it on matters yet not proven. But if I believe the Bible simply because it tells me "it is inspired", well, the Koran demands my adherence just as much: even more so, within the first few sentences. So why should one embrace the Bible over the Koran? Is it a lottery, or a holy shambo!? Or "because the Bible is right and the Koran wrong"? But that obviously leads us into a vicious circle, in fact, naive fideism.
For me, my intellect perceives the Koran to be (I won't give the reasons here) a corruption of an earlier faith (Judaism) and a rejection of that faith's maturity (Christianity). My intellect tells me that the best explanation for the significant claims made by the Bible, and articulated in Christian theology, is that those claims are true. My intellect tells me that the best explanation for the universe, and my experience of it, is that there is a higher power (a God). My intellect tells me that the best explanation of the Old Testament is, in fact, that that superior power revealed itself (turns out to be Himself, in that He is a Person) to a particular people. The best explanation for the New Testament is that a certain man named Jesus (or Yeshua) died and was raised, and was in fact God Himself, though as Son.
There is obviously a complex relation here between faith and Reason. A classic conflict. The question I will pose in the next thread will be something like this: when does Christianity (or the Bible) demand that we abandon Reason/the intellect altogether.
And now the question: you said elsewhere that you were in fact concerned with stripping liberal Christians and atheists of any excuse. But then the term excuse needs a little more defining. Most people mean by "excuse" a reason the effect of which is a release from some consequence: i.e. the doctor's note as an excuse means I do not suffer negative remarks on my next review for missing work. Now, when we apply this definition to the current topic, do you mean that liberals who reject the Bible in toto based on readings of Genesis like my own actually are given an "excuse" in the sense just given? That is, will an atheist who rejects the rest of the Bible as a fiction or myth because people like me have presented the first part as a myth, will he be "forgiven by God of his unbelief"? i.e. will the reason for rejecting it be a legitimate excuse?
You see the point I am getting at? If readings of the Bible like mine actually give men a legitimate, effective excuse, then your objection is rather evil, almost diabolical--you don't want certain people to get into heaven if during all their lives they didn't read Genesis as you did (even supposing your reading is the correct one). It is your way or the highway. To make this clear I will give a different example. A boy who grows up learning that God is like a father, but whose father is an abusive alcoholic, may reject the entire Christian faith because of certain psychological associations between his father and the Father. Some Christians will say that such a boy has an "excuse"; that is, God will pardon that boy of his rejection (at least on those specific grounds) because the circumstances were against belief--his natural father made belief almost as impossible as infanticide in the womb makes belief impossible for aborted fetuses: once God shows the boy what true fatherhood is, nay, what divine FATHERHOOD is, the boy will realize the counterfeit fatherhood of his own father and accept the real as pure and holy. The boy will (in this case) have a legitimate excuse. (Of course someone like you might not even allow that: I furnish the example not as an argument but as a point of clarification).
However, if you do not think the "excuse" claimed by Liberals reading Genesis as I do to be legitimate; that is, behind whatever "explanations" they give for their unbelief (i.e. "even Christians say Genesis 1 is a myth!"), yet there is actually a deeper more fundamental rejection of the gospel that is not exegetical at all but tied up with a recalcitrant will (probably springing up from a reluctance to admit a power higher than themselves and a claim upon their souls that outweighs whatever ambitions they have for their own lives)........well, that case your objection is not diabolical, but rather impotent--it was never their reading of Genesis that prevented them from faith. They don't have an "excuse" in any potent, effective sense, and your project of stripping them of excuses is pointless. Whether they have your definition of "excuse" or not is irrelevant to the actual outcome for them.
You see the differentiation? You either do not wish the salvation of certain people (like Jonah) or are making war upon persons already defeated.
Edited by ConnorLiamBrown, 01 June 2014 - 07:29 PM.