Dear Rusty and CJ,

Just a little lesson about fundamentalists if I may.

Why do you think they do it, this continual defiance of scientific evidence?

At a very basic level it is about the integrity or foundation of their faith. To allow one crack is to see the lot tumble down. The creationists refer to themselves as 'true' Christians and those who don't hold young earth views aren't deemed to be Christians at all.

The question is who laid down this particular set of foundation stones in the first place?

From Wikipedia

The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals".
1. Inerrancy of the Scriptures
2. The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
3 The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith (Hebrews 9)
4 The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
5 The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming), e.g. healing, deliverance, and second coming.
End quote

In my experience the high turnover in Fundamentalist churches finds most of those who leave do not move on to a toned down version with a more established brand but instead drop away completely. This is understandable when you think once the whole edifice has come tumbling down then it is a big ask to build another. Often though the 'born again' experience has served its purpose and got them through a difficult time in their life.

If someone makes it past the 10 year mark then they are generally a stayer and tend to become even more strident in their views. Most are afraid of the rapid pace of change of the world and of things such as a one world government but the most striking characteristic is a far tighter grip on the 'fundamentals'. Runner is a case in point.

Cont

The Adam and Eve myth is an extract from a much more detailed Jewish folk tale.

Nothing is mentioned about Adam's first wife - Lillith - who was created as Adam's equal but refused to become Adam's servant.

This was God's first mistake (one of many He admits to in the Bible) and so he tries again by using Adam's rib to emphasise the lower status of women.

This abridged version begins the theme of the inferior woman which is perpetuated throughout.

Refreshing to see sane comments outnumber the insane!
The theory that 2000 year old folks with little to no understanding of natural processes were wiser and more in touch with God is a strange one...(At least it is to those of us that were taught to question.)
Funny that evolution came up in discussion: Religion itself has evolved so much in human history with many instances of "convergent evolution". E.g. Extremists of any religious flavour basically end up the same: intolerant, belligerent and most of all, ignorant. The tokenisation and idolatry seen in virtually all religions would have the original prophets rolling in their graves.
I am reminded of the saying: "When someone points at the moon, it is wise to ignore the finger once the moon is seen." Religion can be defined as the process of worshipping the finger whilst ignoring the moon. Scientific knowledge plus meditation / contemplation is the rational alternative.

csteele wrote: "I'm inclined to agree to a point but studying the bible is hardly the only thing one can do with it.

One can also use the Bible as doorstop, flower press or blunt instrument, but the many things one can do was not the article's theme. I asked my father what he would do if he heard the voice of God telling him to sacrifice me. He said he would see a psychiatrist. I felt secure with my father but could no longer believe in the horrible God who tells a father to murder his son. In the New Testament he does the dirty to his own son.

csteele also wrote: "Is a deep study of the Bible a necessary component of a deep faith derived and nourished from it? I would argue no."

I agree. A usual component of a deep faith is either ignorance and/or willful blindness.

Isaiah 7:14 from the KJV: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

The above is a mistranslation. In the original Hebrew an almah or young woman will conceive. They do it frequently. However, the Greek version translated almah as parthenos or virgin. The second fundamental is an example of faith depending on ignorance. Better reason and questioning than any kind of faith.

Rhian wrote: The bible contains some authentic history, but its authors’ purposes were not primarily the transmission of historical (or biological or geophysical) data.....The naive fundamentalists who insist that it’s all factually accurate are a pretty small minority among Australian Christians. They are easy to mock, but they’re not representative.

We really don't know the authors' purposes. They may have thought they were transmitting historical (or biological or geophysical) data. From people I meet I get the impression that there are many fundies.

Wobbles: Woman must work so man can live by sweat of frau. Apparently the Lilith folk tale derives from the Adam and Eve myth not vice versa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#Lilith_in_the_Bible tells about it. Sexy nude with snake pictured.

david_f raises an interesting point: Most bible study is based on an arbitrary translation. So even if the "original" Hebrew version was God inspired...it certainly isn't after several language translations! Many instances occur where the bible "lessons" are the exact opposite of the author's intent. Jesus must be really annoyed at the Christians who completely ignore his main themes and instead support a priesthood.
Each religion seems to push it's own interpretation of the mis-translated text...so we get more confusion. Once again, the confidence of the faithful relies on intellectual laziness, or ignorance of the alternative meanings let alone the original intended meaning.
For the "pick and choose" scholars...Surely God's Word should be done a bit better than an IPCC report! Shouldn't it reflect some of God's power of perfection? If not then you may as well admit it is simply a collection of stories from a time where anything written had a magical quality, and superstition ruled.
I find it fascinating...but to "teach" children with it's "truth" is a form of psychological child abuse. (Until they realise it is BS it can be *very* stressful to the intelligent child!)
The bible is an interesting historical compilation, nothing more.

David

While we can’t know exactly what all of the bible’s authors and editors intended, we can get a fair idea of much of it from the form and content of their work. Most of Paul’s letters are intended as instruction and advice to the Christian communities he founded, often responding to particular problems or issues. The form and content of the Eden story suggests legend. The structure of some of the psalms leads scholars to believe that they were probably liturgical songs. The prophetic books of Jeremiah, second Isaiah, Ezra, Nehemiah etc are fairly clearly efforts to grapple with the theological implications of the Babylonian exile and return – events for which there is sufficient evidence that they can be regarded as historical fact.

Historical and literary analysis such as you mention add to the picture, as do the techniques of literary criticism. For example, if we accept the two-source hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis) we can look at the way in which the authors of Luke and Matthew added to or altered the text of Mark and draw some inferences about their motives and priorities. Granted, this process is speculative and we can never know with certainty what their motives were, but when consistent themes and ideas emerge there is good reason to believe that these reflect the authors’ intention.

For example, Matthew’s account of Jesus' birth includes many features that suggest that he is trying to draw parallels with Moses – the infant imperilled by a brutal tyrant; the slaughter of the innocents; the association with Egypt etc. None of the other gospels nor Paul make reference to these stories. In his Gospel, Matthew also emphasises Jesus as authentic interpreter and fulfilment of the law – again, echoing Moses. These things could be just coincidence, but I think it unlikely