Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 272

Thread: How true is the Bible?

  1. #221
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,076

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This was the original quote from basics:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    As we can see, basics speculated that in an untarnished environment (such that Eden is) all biological functions would operate without inefficiency or imperfection. This lead him to arguing that had Adam and Eve known one another carnally prior to the fall, each union would have resulted in the successful creation of offspring. Setekh angrily responded to this by accusing basics of "blasphemy", of "putting words into god's metaphorical mouth" and of having "absolutely no idea what god intended its perfection to be".


    epic_fail,

    Thanks for clearing that up. Words are so important as you know so what I said then is no different from what I say now and that is to reach deeper into what the Holy Spirit is telling us. That's what preachers do every time they give a sermon although I am no preacher in that sense. I don't need to add or subtract anything from Scripture because it's all there in the Bible if one looks for it and that's what I try to get across in my posts. So, thanks again!

  2. #222
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,219

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    The words do not necessarily show that God didn't know where Adam and Eve were. It would be like a mother asking out loud where her child wa when she can see the door of the pantry is slightly ajar and knows darn well where her child is, she just wants her child to come up and say it, not that she really didn't known. When God ask Adam ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, he knew Adam had, just as a mother when she ask her child if he ate the cookies she told him not to eat knows her child are the cookies, she can see the chocolate smeared around his lips and hands and knows he did. She asks the question because she wants her child to own up to the fact he had done what he had been told not to do, not because she didn't know the answer.
    The text does not state that God is actually a mother using irony.

    If you assert that God lies (that is, makes statements that are definitely untrue) fair enough, but of course that means that all the laws are potentially ironic statements and in no way binding.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Cyclops,

    The simple answer to the power of God is that for forty years I kidded myself on that my desiny was in my own hands when clearly it wasn't. Secularly I must be the luckiest guy alive yet now that I am saved I'm convinced that was never the case. He was always in control even when I was out of control as it appeared many times. When I read my Bible I can see many similarities in its stories and its explanations so I don't see where I can possibly add anything to what God has put down on behalf of others concerning Him. I can only give my message from what I see in Scripture and make a point of not trying to add to what is there. What we have to remember is that the Bible narrative is about God first and foremost. All creation was for His good pleasure, us being bit part players, supporting the central Character Who is Jesus Christ so what we think or what we do is to elevate that truth and never distort it. Paul goes to great lengths to proclaim this as do others and this I am very well aware of in what I write.

    Now concerning the scene in the garden Who was it that talked and walked with Adam? Were it the Father Adam and Eve would have been fried so it must have been Jesus and if so then He knowing what would transpire worded the scene as He worded many other scenes as if He didn't know but yet He did as can be found in other texts in Scripture. The number of times where Jesus knew or saw people before they actually met is well recorded in Scripture so Common Soldier hit the nail on the head in his explanation. I believe we are told these things to enhance the power that was given to Christ by the Father showing that He indeed came from God and is God. Regarding Britain and its rise to power I'll have to come back on that one as there is a Husky howling to get his walk done and if I don't do it he'll wreck this computer.
    Your assertion that Jesus is in the Garden of Eden is not borne out by the text: he is Yahweh in the text, not Jesus. I think your religion requires you to ignore the Bible.

    Do you agree with Common Soldier that God is a mother who lies to her children? If so we have to allow that the laws (eg the laws against homosexuality) are also lies.

    Please don't tell me Britain is in the Bible, I've read nearly all of it and the word Britain does not appear except when clumsily inserted in the introduction of bad translations like the KJV.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  3. #223

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    The text does not state that God is actually a mother using irony.

    If you assert that God lies (that is, makes statements that are definitely untrue) fair enough, but of course that means that all the laws are potentially ironic statements and in no way binding. ..........


    Do you agree with Common Soldier that God is a mother who lies to her children? If so we have to allow that the laws (eg the laws against homosexuality) are also lies.
    <

    Where is the lie your referring to? Asking a rhetorical question is not lying, and asking a question you already know the answer to is not a lie.

    How is a mother who asks a question of her child when she already knows the answer a lie? Where in the world does that meet any definition odnlying.. By your logic, any time a teacher asks a student a question, they are lying if the teacher already kno s rhe answer to the question.

    I think you, and only you says that most teachers around the world are liars, since most of the time teachers usually ask students questions that that teachers already know the answer to. You yourself are a liar by your standard, since you asked basic a question you already the answer to.


    Should we refer to you from now on as "Liar", since by your own standard that is what you are?
    Last edited by Common Soldier; September 22, 2019 at 08:07 PM.

  4. #224
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,219

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    <

    Where is the lie your referring to? Asking a rhetorical question is not lying, and asking a question you already know the answer to is not a lie.

    How is a mother who asks a question of her child when she already knows the answer a lie? Where in the world does that meet any definition odnlying.. By your logic, any time a teacher asks a student a question, they are lying if the teacher already kno s rhe answer to the question.

    I think you, and only you says that most teachers around the world are liars, since most of the time teachers usually ask students questions that that teachers already know the answer to. You yourself are a liar by your standard, since you asked basic a question you already the answer to.


    Should we refer to you from now on as "Liar", since by your own standard that is what you are?
    According the definition of Socratic irony I am a liar. I have lied in other contexts as well, and only a fool would attempt to deny that. This is however whataboutism, as we are not discussing who or what I am, but what you accuse God of.

    You believe than God says "where are you?" rhetorically? Fair enough, I had thought you represented God as speaking ironically. I apologise for my ignorant misunderstanding.

    I think there are other examples of God not speaking truthfully. In Genesis 2:17 Adam is told not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and if he does "in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die". Adam does eat it and lives for approximately nine hundred more years. That's not rhetorical, because he's uttering a rule, and the punishment for the transgression is very different to that promised (crawling and enmity for people for snakes, labour pain and obedience for women, and farming and snake bites for men). The very first rule God imposes is broken and the punishment is not followed through with.

    There's no mention of sin in the story, and no mention of eternal damnation either.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  5. #225
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,076

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    The text does not state that God is actually a mother using irony.

    If you assert that God lies (that is, makes statements that are definitely untrue) fair enough, but of course that means that all the laws are potentially ironic statements and in no way binding.



    Your assertion that Jesus is in the Garden of Eden is not borne out by the text: he is Yahweh in the text, not Jesus. I think your religion requires you to ignore the Bible.

    Do you agree with Common Soldier that God is a mother who lies to her children? If so we have to allow that the laws (eg the laws against homosexuality) are also lies.

    Please don't tell me Britain is in the Bible, I've read nearly all of it and the word Britain does not appear except when clumsily inserted in the introduction of bad translations like the KJV.
    Cyclops,

    As the Father is a bright shining Light upon Whom no man may look on and live then the Only Person Who could have walked and talked with Adam is Jesus Christ. In his opening regarding creation, John tells us by referring to Jesus as the Light and the Word, that He Jesus, created all things and that there was nothing created ever, but by Him. " In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth," the word Elohim having a plural meaning yet talking of a singlularity, God having three distinct Personalities. Moses wrote Genesis as directed by God, the Word so that the people would know how they came to be in all creation. So, just as at the new creation so it was at Genesis that the Light that shone until the sun and moon and stars were formed was Jesus Christ. In the new creation to come only the Light of Christ will shine since there will be no more darkness.

    The scene that played out was that God was in one part of the garden and Adam and Eve in another being tempted by the serpent little knowing that God already knew what was going on and what the result would be why? Because Jesus Christ was already ordained to be the Lamb of God sacrificed for the sins of the world before creation happened. We are given to see the narrative as authored by God from both sides or angles here so there was no deceit or lies on God's part. God played it out as if it were just happening. He played His part as though He was doing it for the first time. Of course He could have intervened and stopped Adam and Eve from falling but then that wouldn't have been the story yet to unfold by the coming of Jesus Christ as a man to die for the sin of the world and since this is all about God, not man, it's why we have a Gospel called the Bible.

    Every nation is in the Bible but only a few mentioned because of their intimacy with Israel. The others can be evaluated by their elevation and demise by any reader who knows a bit about history. God says He raises up nations and that being so, He certainly raised Britain to be the biggest empire the world has ever seen. One can see where its demise came about and that because of its turning away from God by its acceptance of other false religions. Our excuses may be many and varied but in the end it is a lack of enthusiasm for God and His Saviour Jesus Christ that lies at the root of the problem. Finally, I don't have a religion. I am a Baptist by faith and experience.

  6. #226

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    According the definition of Socratic irony I am a liar. I have lied in other contexts as well, and only a fool would attempt to deny that. This is however whataboutism, as we are not discussing who or what I am, but what you accuse God of.

    You believe than God says "where are you?" rhetorically? Fair enough, I had thought you represented God as speaking ironically. I apologise for my ignorant misunderstanding.

    I think there are other examples of God not speaking truthfully. In Genesis 2:17 Adam is told not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and if he does "in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die". Adam does eat it and lives for approximately nine hundred more years. That's not rhetorical, because he's uttering a rule, and the punishment for the transgression is very different to that promised (crawling and enmity for people for snakes, labour pain and obedience for women, and farming and snake bites for men). The very first rule God imposes is broken and the punishment is not followed through with.

    There's no mention of sin in the story, and no mention of eternal damnation either.
    When Adam ate the fruit he became spiritually dead. More over. God did not say, "On the day you eat ofnthr fruit of Tree of Knowledge you will drop dead immediately". Adam did did. As God said he would, just not immediately. Keep in mind, Genesis was written in Hebrew, a different language from English. In Indo European languages, you inflect (change) the verb to reflect who is doing the action. Whether the action is past, present, future, etc.

    English got rid of a lot of these inflections, but still retain some - saying "The man was rich" is not necessarily the same thing as "The man is rich", because in the first case the man was at one time rich, but might not still be rich today, having lost his money. Hebrew doesn't distinguish past and future tenses they way English does, and while the English translation might give the impression that Adam would drop dead the minute he ate the fruit, the original Hebrew would not give that impression - it meant that Adam would die. But not necessarily immediately, it could be some time in the future.

    By saying "On the day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die", thr Hebrew might mean that "on the day of your eat ofnthr fruit, your death becomes inevitable" not that Adam would immediately drop dead. When God says "I was, am, and will be" in Hebrew I believe you are not using different verbs to designate past, present, and future. Hebrew is more analytical, and more ambiguous, relying on context. In the original Hebrew, books like Kings and Chronicles were originally one book (scroll), butnwhen they were translated into Greek, they had to be split into 2 books (1&2) Kings, because the Greek text was longer.

    An interesting example to illustrate the point of the difference that language can make is that in black American English, which is a true English dialect spoken by African Americans, when they say "The girl be late", that does not mean the same thing as "The girl is late" or "The girl was late". It means that the girl is late and she was late in the past, that she is constantly late. Black English allows a way to distinguish an action grammatically in a way that Standard English doesn't. If someone were to translate "She be late" into standard "She is late" , you will miss some of the meaning. If you translate it as "The girl is always late", you are implying that there are no exceptions to the girl being latex which isn't necessarily implied in the original "Thr girl be late".
    Last edited by Common Soldier; September 23, 2019 at 04:14 AM.

  7. #227
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,219

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    When Adam ate the fruit he became spiritually dead. More over. God did not say, "On the day you eat ofnthr fruit of Tree of Knowledge you will drop dead immediately". Adam did did. As God said he would, just not immediately. Keep in mind, Genesis was written in Hebrew, a different language from English. In Indo European languages, you inflect (change) the verb to reflect who is doing the action. Whether the action is past, present, future, etc. .....
    There certainly are a lot of subtleties and I guess we both agree the KJV is a poor translation.

    Its remains a fact that there's no mention of Jesus in Genesis, nor is Satan mentioned. The story of Eden never once mentions the word sin (this first occurs in the story of Cain and Abel IIRC). To find sin in the Eden story you have to go beyond the text.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Cyclops,

    As the Father is a bright shining Light upon Whom no man may look on and live then the Only Person Who could have walked and talked with Adam is Jesus Christ. In his opening regarding creation, John tells us by referring to Jesus as the Light and the Word, that He Jesus, created all things and that there was nothing created ever, but by Him. " In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth," the word Elohim having a plural meaning yet talking of a singlularity, God having three distinct Personalities. Moses wrote Genesis as directed by God, the Word so that the people would know how they came to be in all creation. So, just as at the new creation so it was at Genesis that the Light that shone until the sun and moon and stars were formed was Jesus Christ. In the new creation to come only the Light of Christ will shine since there will be no more darkness.
    Nowhere does the Bible say this. You are adding to the Holy Words with inventions of your own. Revelations has a warning about this.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    The scene that played out was that God was in one part of the garden and Adam and Eve in another being tempted by the serpent little knowing that God already knew what was going on and what the result would be why? Because Jesus Christ was already ordained to be the Lamb of God sacrificed for the sins of the world before creation happened. We are given to see the narrative as authored by God from both sides or angles here so there was no deceit or lies on God's part. God played it out as if it were just happening. He played His part as though He was doing it for the first time. Of course He could have intervened and stopped Adam and Eve from falling but then that wouldn't have been the story yet to unfold by the coming of Jesus Christ as a man to die for the sin of the world and since this is all about God, not man, it's why we have a Gospel called the Bible.
    The Gospel is described by Paul and it is not the Bible. Paul definitely says the Good News supersedes the scriptures in First Galatians 4, and says in First Corinthians 15 that belief in Jesus' resurrection and reappearance is the Good News. You're changing scripture again.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Every nation is in the Bible but only a few mentioned because of their intimacy with Israel. The others can be evaluated by their elevation and demise by any reader who knows a bit about history. God says He raises up nations and that being so, He certainly raised Britain to be the biggest empire the world has ever seen. One can see where its demise came about and that because of its turning away from God by its acceptance of other false religions. Our excuses may be many and varied but in the end it is a lack of enthusiasm for God and His Saviour Jesus Christ that lies at the root of the problem. Finally, I don't have a religion. I am a Baptist by faith and experience.
    Nowhere is Britain mentioned in the Bible. Not once. Not ever.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  8. #228

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    There certainly are a lot of subtleties and I guess we both agree the KJV is a poor translation.

    Its remains a fact that there's no mention of Jesus in Genesis, nor is Satan mentioned. The story of Eden never once mentions the word sin (this first occurs in the story of Cain and Abel IIRC). To find sin in the Eden story you have to go beyond the text.
    The essential definition of "sin" is disobedience to God's will.and commands and the story of Adam and Eve qualified as a sin, even if the word isn't used. If the story od Cain and Abel, even if the actual word "murder" isn't used, that doesn't mean there was no murder.

    As far as Jesus goes, when God curses the serpent and says "I will enmity between the woman seeds and you, he will bruise your head and you will bruise his heel", the "he" of the passage is Jesus and the serpent Satan, and refer to Jesus' future triumph over Satan. Again, here is where the ambiguity kf Hebrew can lead ro different translational. Some translations have "he$, meaning one person, and others use "they will bruise your head", meaning descendents od Eve in general, but the Hebrew isn't as specific as English, where either using He or They changes the meaning, the same word is used for both. How it is translated reflects the bias of the translator.

    In the book of Daniel, there is the story.the 3 Jews who were thrown into a fiiery furnace because they would not worship an idol. The 3 are unharmed, but there was a forth person who appears in the furnace with the appearance of "a son of man" (Jesus favorite termnfor himself). Jews take that 4th person merely as an angel, but Christians take that 4th person to be Jesus.

    In Genesis, God said "Let us make Man in our own image". So who were the "us" God was talking about? No angels appear in the first couple pages of Genesis, they only show up after Adam and Eve are kicked out of Eden. Christians are taking that to be a reference to the Trinity, the "us" being "God the Farther", "God the Son", and "God the Holy Ghost". Since the Jews always.referred to God as spirit, making man in the image of God did not mean making man with 2 arms and legs, but making man with the capacity to create, to reason and think, and communicate.

    The Bible is the first book in history that has foreshadowing as far as I know. Moses told the people that God would send another prophet, which was Jesus (Jesus was a prophet, the greatest one, but much more than merely that.). Jesus said that the fate of Jonah prefigures his own death and resurrection. Job 19:26 says "even though my body may be destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God" is an early veiled reference to the ressurection of the dead. Like one of the mystery novels, where the clues to the killer's identity are planted throughout the novel, but only become apparent after the killer is revealed at the end of the book, so too in the Bible, where many references to Jesus and future events are in the Old Testament, but only become apparent after Jesus death and resurrection.




    Note, the Bible is often subtle and understated in what it says. The massive destruction of Judean cities during the Assyrian's attempt to capture Jesusalem, which we known from the archeological record, is summed up in a single line "the king of Assyrians took all the fortified cities of Judah". When John the Baptist sent messengers to ask if Jesus was the one (Messiah) they were expecting. Jesus did not give a direct answer, but listed the miracles he performed and warned people not to take offense at him - essentially saying "do the math". When asked about how Jesus could have seen Abraham, since Jesus was not old, yet Abraham lived long ago, Jesus said (John 8:57-59) "before Abraham was born, I am", the crowd picked up rocks to stone Jesus, because Jesus was claiming to be God by saying "I am" - "I am" is what God said to Moses from the burning bush.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; September 23, 2019 at 06:34 AM. Reason: fix spelling

  9. #229

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    As far as Jesus goes, when God curses the serpent and says "I will enmity between the woman seeds and you, he will bruise your head and you will bruise his heel", the "he" of the passage is Jesus and the serpent Satan, and refer to Jesus' future triumph over Satan. Again, here is where the ambiguity kf Hebrew can lead ro different translational. Some translations have "he$, meaning one person, and others use "they will bruise your head", meaning descendents od Eve in general, but the Hebrew isn't as specific as English, where either using He or They changes the meaning, the same word is used for both. How it is translated reflects the bias of the translator.
    He and they are not the the same word. It's clearly singular. Literally: "And enmity I will put between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He shall crush your head and you shall strike his heel". Translating any of it as plural is an interpretation. All the verbs and the possessive pronominal suffixes are also singular in agreement with the singular pronouns. One can imagine it's meant to be abstractly plural, considering it comes from a story in which the man is literally named "man".

    I have a few more comments on this post. To be clear, I'm not trying to debate anyone's religious perspective, I'm just talking about the plain reading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    In the book of Daniel, there is the story.the 3 Jews who were thrown into a fiiery furnace because they would not worship an idol. The 3 are unharmed, but there was a forth person who appears in the furnace with the appearance of "a son of man" (Jesus favorite termnfor himself). Jews take that 4th person merely as an angel, but Christians take that 4th person to be Jesus.
    I've never heard that Jewish interpretation. The term "son of man", which is ben-adam, occurs over a hundred times in the Hebrew Bible, where it is almost always translated into English as "a human being" because that is what it means - literally a descendant of Adam. Take Psalm 8:4 for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    In Genesis, God said "Let us make Man in our own image". So who were the "us" God was talking about?
    It actually says Gods (plural) but uses a singular verb form. This is common in Semitic languages. It's called "plural of majesty" in modern academia. Pretty much the whole Quran is written that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Job 19:26 says "even though my body may be destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God"
    What he literally says is "after my skin is destroyed, then in my flesh I shall see God".

    From a historical perspective, I think this is the most likely meaning (I'm copy-pasting an old post of mine):

    The Book of Job explores an issue that would seem very foreign to most monotheists today, but makes sense in its original context – what legal recourse does a mortal have when a deity doesn’t uphold his end of a treaty. The Hebrew word for the covenant is “brit” which simply means “treaty” and is also used for treaties between rulers. The covenant in the Bible is written in the same form as those made between powerful rulers and vassals. We know this from various archaeological sources – the Amarna letters, The Ugaritic texts, etc.

    Essentially Job wants to bring a legal case against God, but how can he do this when he can’t even see God? Who will be his advocate? How can he plead his case to God directly? Job has lived a righteous life - he has upheld his end of the brit, so why has God wrongly punished him?

    “For he is not a mortal, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together. There is no umpire between us, who might lay his hand on us both. If he would take his rod away from me, and not let dread of him terrify me, then I would speak without fear of him, for I know I am not what I am thought to be.” (Job 9:32-35)

    The word translated as “umpire” is a noun formed from a verb that means “to decide, judge, or convict”. It is a term for a legal arbiter.

    “I would speak to the Almighty, and I desire to argue my case with God.” (13:3)

    “Listen carefully to my words, and let my declaration be in your ears. I have indeed prepared my case; I know that I shall be vindicated.” (13:17-18)

    But Job’s problem is that he knows he can’t face God himself so he pleads:

    “Only grant two things to me, then I will not hide myself from your face: withdraw your hand far from me, and do not let dread of you terrify me. Then call, and I will answer; or let me speak, and you reply to me.” (13:20-22)

    He calls God out and implies he’s been convicted by God before his trial:

    “Why do you hide your face, and count me as your enemy? Will you frighten a windblown leaf and pursue dry chaff? For you write bitter things against me, and make me reap the iniquities of my youth. You put my feet in the stocks, and watch all my paths; you set a bound to the soles of my feet. One wastes away like a rotten thing, like a garment that is moth-eaten.” (13:24-28)

    Job pleads that God allow a member of the Divine Council to be his advocate, to do what is fair and uphold the rights of a mortal:

    “Even now, in fact, my witness is in heaven, and he that vouches for me is on high. My friends scorn me; my eye pours out tears to God, that he would maintain the right of a mortal with God, as one does for a neighbor. For when a few years have come, I shall go the way from which I shall not return.” (16:19-22)

    But in this last line we see that it must be done before Job's death. The judgment he demands is in this life before he goes to where he cannot return - “down to Sheol, to sleep with his ancestors” as the biblical idiom goes.

    “O that my words were written down! O that they were inscribed in a book! O that with an iron pen and with lead they were engraved on a rock forever! For I know that my redeemer lives, and that at the last he will stand upon the earth; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then in my flesh I shall see God”

    Job knows that he is right, he is determined to continue his case whatever God throws at him. He has demanded to see God in person to make his case. The word translated as “redeemer” here, is a legal term for a “next of kin” who can carry on a case after the death of the original litigant. But without fear Job faces death and continues to demand God show himself, even if the diseases God has inflicted upon him destroy his skin, then in his flesh he will see God.

    In the end God does show himself and proves that he is more merciful than an ancient Near Eastern monarch. Job’s case is vindicated.
    Last edited by sumskilz; September 23, 2019 at 09:34 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  10. #230

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    He and they are not the the same word. It's clearly singular. Literally: "And enmity I will put between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He shall crush your head and you shall strike his heel". Translating any of it as plural is an interpretation. All the verbs and the possessive pronominal suffixes are also singular in agreement with the singular pronouns. One can imagine it's meant to be abstractly plural, considering it comes from a story in which the man is literally named "man".
    Oh, my mistake. I have seen some Bible translate it as "they will bruise your head", and since it is traditionally translated as "he will bruise your head", ai assume the difference was due to ambiguity of thr language. Thanks for the correction.

    I have a few more comments on this post. To be clear, I'm not trying to debate anyone's religious perspective, I'm just talking about the plain reading.

    I've never heard that Jewish interpretation. The term "son of man", which is ben-adam, occurs over a hundred times in the Hebrew Bible, where it is almost always translated into English as "a human being" because that is what it means - literally a descendant of Adam. Take Psalm 8:4 for example.
    Ok. Angels often appear as looking like ordinary human beings, such as the angels when they visited Sodom before it's destruction. At the end of Mark's Gospel, it refers to a youth at the tomb telling the women Jesus has risen (Mark 16:4 -5) while in Mathew's Gopsel the same being is called an angel (Matt 28:5). In Luke, we see 2 men in dazzling garments appear to the Marys and in John we see 2 angels appear to Mary. Whether they specifically stated it or not in the Gospels, they were clearly intended to be angels, nor ordinary human beings.

    Likewise, in the story of the Fiery Furnace, an ordinary human being simply couldn't miraculously appear in the furnace without being fried, so the story clearly meant the man was some divine being, an ordinary man just didn't wander into the furnace by mistake. Although I recently looked it up, and in the translation I have at hand said the fourth man was said ro be like "the son of a God" so that clearly implies a divine being.(English Standard Version). Nor sure what the Hebrew/Araimic is. In the Gospels. It is clear Jesus is using the phrase Son of Man to mean a lot more that an ordinary human being,

    It actually says Gods (plural) but uses a singular verb form. This is common in Semitic languages. It's called "plural of majesty" in modern academia. Pretty much the whole Quran is written that way.
    Like the Royal "we" in English? Can youngivr an example outisde of the Bible or Koran where the plural is used with the singular verb? Note, the plural noun but so singular verb fits in with the concept of the Trinity that was later developed. 3 Persons, one essence. I wonder if the theologians who developed the concept of the Trinity had much knowledge of Hebrew, and used the language to support their concept.

    What he literally says is "after my skin is destroyed, then in my flesh I shall see God".

    From a historical perspective, this is the most likely meaning (I'm copy-pasting an old post of mine):

    The Book of Job explores an issue that would seem very foreign to most monotheists today, but makes sense in its original context – what legal recourse does a mortal have when a deity doesn't uphold his end of a treaty.
    Yet the words as Job spoke would fit the concept for a bodily ressurection ofntur dead that came to be believed by both Jews, Chrisrians and Muslims..

    Also, note that Abraham also challenged God about adhering to his (God's) open moral code when God announced he intended to destroy Sodom and Gommorah. Nor quite the legal lawsuit against God Job was envisioning, but still rather unique for religions, that the god was challenged to adhere to his own moral code and laws - in Greek mythology, Zeus would have tried with a thunder bolt anyone who would have challenged him in the same way. And Allah announced the destruction of Sodom.and Gommorah in the Koran, essentially all Ibrihim said was ok, and wasn't shocked like Abraham in Genesis. I can't image Muhammad challenging God thr way Abraham xid in Genesis

    The Hebrew word for the covenant is “brit” which simply means “treaty” and is also used for treaties between rulers. The covenant in the Bible is written in the same form as those made between powerful rulers and vassals. We know this from various archaeological sources – the Amarna letters, The Ugaritic texts, etc.

    Essentially Job wants to bring a legal case against God, but how can he do this when he can’t even see God? Who will be his advocate? How can he plead his case to God directly? Job has lived a righteous life - he has upheld his end of the brit, so why has God wrongly punished him?
    But we the reader know the reasons behind Job sufferings, even if Job doesn't know them. God eventually dismissed Job's lawsuit as "who are you to judge the creator of the universe, where do you know a the facts?"��

    “For he is not a mortal, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together. There is no umpire between us, who might lay his hand on us both. If he would take his rod away from me

    “Only grant two things to me, then I will not hide myself from your face: withdraw your hand far from me, and do not let dread of you terrify me. Then call, and I will answer; or let me speak, and you reply to me.” (13:20-22)

    He calls God out and implies he’s been convicted by God before his trial: .....��

    Job pleads that God allow a member of the Divine Council to be his advocate, to do what is fair and uphold the rights of a mortal:

    “Even now, in fact, my witness is in heaven, and he that vouches for me is on high. My friends scorn me; my eye pours out tears to God, that he would maintain the right of a mortal with God, as one does for a neighbor. For when a few years have come, I shall go the way from which I shall not return.” (16:19-22)

    But in this last line we see that it must be done before Job's death. The judgment he demands is in this life before he goes to where he cannot return - “down to Sheol, to sleep with his ancestors” as the biblical idiom goes.

    “O that my words were written down! O that they were inscribed in a book! O that with an iron pen and with lead they were engraved on a rock forever! For I know that my redeemer lives, and that at the last he will stand upon the earth
    Just a note, the Christian's concept of Jesus is exactly the kind of advocate Job is asking for. You could not ask for a higher member of the Divine council than Jesus.

    Also, there is very little evidence in the Old Testament did life after death, except the Book of Daniel, yet Jews all came to believe, the Rabbis having piece together argumenr for it from subtle interpretations of biblical passage. What is interesting that Jesus when debating the resurrection with the Sadducees, the one Jewish group that did not believe in a resurrection of the dead, he Jesus argues for it on the basis of some obscure biblical passage that is what the Rabbis apparently did, but on a key passage of the burning bush. By God saying he is the God of Abraham, Jaccob, and Issac, he implies they were either alive or would be alive in some future time, since the dead were considering unclean and defiling. No way the holy God would associate himself with some modlering corpses, the Hebrew God was a god of the living, not dead. It were the pagan gods who were the gods of the dead. So God's associating himself with the patriarchs implies in some sense they still lived.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; September 23, 2019 at 01:12 PM.

  11. #231

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    epic_fail,

    Thanks for clearing that up. Words are so important as you know so what I said then is no different from what I say now and that is to reach deeper into what the Holy Spirit is telling us. That's what preachers do every time they give a sermon although I am no preacher in that sense. I don't need to add or subtract anything from Scripture because it's all there in the Bible if one looks for it and that's what I try to get across in my posts. So, thanks again!
    He showed people once again how you added words in god's mouth, claiming things about god's creation that doesn't exist in the Bible. Why are you thanking him?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  12. #232

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Nor sure what the Hebrew/Araimic is. In the Gospels. It is clear Jesus is using the phrase Son of Man to mean a lot more that an ordinary human being
    I just looked, the Aramaic of Daniel 7:13 is "like a son of man", so not simply "a son of man". I can't comment on the Gospels with any authority, but the internet tells me this "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου" has a definite article so "the son of man".

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Like the Royal "we" in English? Can youngivr an example outisde of the Bible or Koran where the plural is used with the singular verb? Note, the plural noun but so singular verb fits in with the concept of the Trinity that was later developed. 3 Persons, one essence. I wonder if the theologians who developed the concept of the Trinity had much knowledge of Hebrew, and used the language to support their concept.
    Augustine knew Hebrew and, as I remember reading, commented on how similar it is to Punic.

    There are some expressions in Akkadian that use ilānu (gods) with singular verbs. Ishtar refers to herself in plural "My Ishullanu, let us have a taste of your strength. Stretch out your hand and touch our vulva". That's the example I remember of course. In the Amarna letters, the vassals address the Pharaoh as ilīya, literally "my gods".

    The plural of majesty is not so trendy in secular scholarship these days. The more common explanation is that God is addressing the divine assembly. Think Psalm 82: "Elohīm stands in the divine assembly. He judges among the elohīm." Obviously in a secular academic context, anything anachronistic is dismissed, whereas in a religious context, there is no issue with revelation emanating from God who exists outside of time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  13. #233

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I just looked, the Aramaic of Daniel 7:13 is "like a son of man", so not simply "a son of man". I can't comment on the Gospels with any authority, but the internet tells me this "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου" has a definite article so "the son of man".
    So the translations that have Daniel "like a son of a god", really are going it a meaning in English not really supported by the text and get possibly opposite of the meaning of the author. Of course dying "like a son of man", almost implies it was not a "a son of man ", i.e., human. But only something similar to human. Seems a rather backhanded say of saying it is a divine being, but I suppose it is possible.

    By the way, does the Greek have thr distinction between the definite article and indefinite article, between "the man", meaning specific man, or "a man", any old generic man, not anyone in specific. And does Hebrew have that distinction?

    Augustine knew Hebrew and, as I remember reading, commented on how similar it is to Punic.

    There are some expressions in Akkadian that use ilānu (gods) with singular verbs. Ishtar refers to herself in plural "My Ishullanu, let us have a taste of your strength. Stretch out your hand and touch our vulva". That's the example I remember of course. In the Amarna letters, the vassals address the Pharaoh as ilīya, literally "my gods".

    The plural of majesty is not so trendy in secular scholarship these days. The more common explanation is that God is addressing the divine assembly. Think Psalm 82: "Elohīm stands in the divine assembly. He judges among the elohīm." Obviously in a secular academic context, anything anachronistic is dismissed, whereas in a religious context, there is no issue with revelation emanating from God who exists outside of time.

    I wonder if the shift away from the plural of majesty isn't due to a subconscious influence of the Koran. .in the Koran, Allah is most certainly addressing angels and jinn in the creation of Adam, and so scholars are subconsciously reading into the Bible the case of the Bible.

    Christians frequently read into Old Testament passages their understanding of Jesus, as in the Genesis phrase "he shall bruise your head", where they take it to mean Jesus (or I suppose the Messiah, whoever that may be.). I think your plural noun singular been makes more sense than the current scholarship thinking.

  14. #234
    Carmen Sylva's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Palace of Neuwied
    Posts
    2,179

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    ...
    Every nation is in the Bible but only a few mentioned because of their intimacy with Israel. The others can be evaluated by their elevation and demise by any reader who knows a bit about history. God says He raises up nations and that being so, He certainly raised Britain to be the biggest empire the world has ever seen. One can see where its demise came about and that because of its turning away from God by its acceptance of other false religions. Our excuses may be many and varied but in the end it is a lack of enthusiasm for God and His Saviour Jesus Christ that lies at the root of the problem. Finally, I don't have a religion. I am a Baptist by faith and experience.
    Even if the british and commonwealth soldiers would have engraved "God with us" on the buckles of their belts and singing Gospels while driven by their incompetent upperclass officers in german machine gun fire, i doubt that the Battle of the Somme in 1916 would have ended with a british victory.

    And in 1916 the UK was definitely more prudish than today and so more morally good in your traditional christian belief.

    The decline of the British Empire was caused by economical overstraining, not because of wrong beliefs.
    Last edited by Carmen Sylva; September 23, 2019 at 02:46 PM.
    Christ was crucified, Socrates was poisoned, Phidias was accused of theft - it is almost an honor to be abused by contemporaries.

    Carmen Sylva (1843 - 1916), actually Princess Elisabeth Pauline Ottilie Luise zu Wied VA (Royal Order of Victoria and Albert), German writer and lyricist, by marriage Queen Elizabeth of Romania

    Proud Non-Citizen / End of Time / Unschuldsengel / My Mods

  15. #235
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,219

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    The essential definition of "sin" is disobedience to God's will.and commands and the story of Adam and Eve qualified as a sin, even if the word isn't used. If the story od Cain and Abel, even if the actual word "murder" isn't used, that doesn't mean there was no murder....
    Yes but given the word sin appears in the Cain and Abel story, you'd expect it to appear in the Eden story if it was about sin. They are both J stories IIRC. If you take a literalist word-for-word approach as out friend Basics sometimes does then you have to say sin does not appear until Cain kills Abel.

    My own position is I respect his faith and yours but I am interested in Scripture as a human creation. I don;t like having the meaning twisted, and if we can come at possible meanings from closer study would like to without requiring a pre-existing belief set to force the words onto. Ythis is further complicated by extreme positions like insisting the KJV is the best version when it is clearly a botched translations of older versions and differs from scriptures Jesus himself probably knew and quoted.

    I appreciate Sumskilz's posting about the original language of scripture, and i think Job is a fascinating moment in Jewish belief as a writer imagines a dialogue between God and a suffering believer. I don't believe for a second that an all-powerful Good god would take a dare from Satan to torture Job. That is a literary framing device for a dialogue, its a common literary trope. If you believe Job existed fair enough but the story as told is a corrup[ted version at best as it has a false start and then begins again as if a faithful recorder was trying to jot down multiple similar versions (this happens a lot in the OT eg the six or so jumbled versions of the revelation of the ten commandments).

    Scripture is incoherent, in that its not one work by one person. There are verses that are plainly polytheistic, (I have heard about the royal plural but its use is inconsistent and at times I think it does refer to multiple deities later edited out, eg in the expulsion from Eden, the Babel story etc). Polytheism is definitely present in psalms (eg 97:9) and at Deuteronomy 32:8-9 the Septuagint (but not the Masoretic version) distinguishes El Elyon as the creator of nations and Yahweh as the God who chose Israel as his: two Gods, with Yahweh a lesser deity. In other parts the two are conflated (this strains at the seams though, as when Abraham sacrifices at a number of shrines to God, who has a different name at each one), but I think this represents a polytheistic tradition later edited in to a monotheistic one. Of course I am happy to concede my ignorance and the strong possibility I am wrong, but I am a little familiar with the texts in question, and the history of those texts.

    If your position is a faith based one and you feel God's truth shines out through the words of scripture, and unbelievers cannot understand then we have nothing to talk about as I am an unbeliever: I respect you position and hope you respect mine. If you claim Scripture speaks plainly of one version of religion as Basics does then I will disagree as the text does not speak the words claimed by these religions.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  16. #236
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,076

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Cyclops,

    Sin is the result of Adam's failure to believe God and to obey Him. Death was its price. Was he put to death immediately as some others were deeper into Scripture? No, why? Because in God's plan the earth had to be inhabited by men and them have an opportunity to repent of that disbelief and disobedience through Jesus Christ. So as the story unfolds things that were unseen become seen and that by men and women who did believe God and did obey Him to the best of their ability. That belief was then that a " seed " would come to pay for their sin and so they were in God's eyes accounted righteous before Him. Paul tells us that that " seed " was Jesus Christ. Peter tells us that to understand Scripture one must have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for that understanding and as Jesus said, " He will lead you into all truth." So, as Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit an unbeliever cannot and will not see the depth of meaning unless the Holy Spirit breaks the bonds of their hearts thus opening the way for salvation to begin in them.

    John tells us that our Creator is Jesus Christ, that there was nothing created that was created but by Him. He clearly defines Genesis and if he did not get that from the Old Covenant writings where did he get it from? Of all the disciples this was the guy who hung on every word that Jesus spoke, never doubting or debating what Jesus said. It was he who was taken into heaven to see the Lord as He now is and he who was to write down the finalising of this creation by seeing the arrival of the new one. There is not a shred of ambiguity in his writings and yet he never sought noteriety like what has been placed on Peter by some men. I don't know how long John was in the heavens nor had I read of it when my experience took place but for some four plus hours when in my bed I was taken back to see Jesus' final words on the cross. It was the most frightening thing I ever experienced waking up covered in sweat and fear. I had heard of the crucifixion bur had never read about it until after that. I realised for the first time what Jesus Christ did for me on that cross being called many things for sharing it but I look on it this way, if i am a fool then I am a fool for Jesus Christ my God and Saviour.

  17. #237

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Yes but given the word sin appears in the Cain and Abel story, you'd expect it to appear in the Eden story if it was about sin. They are both J stories IIRC. If you take a literalist word-for-word approach as out friend Basics sometimes does then you have to say sin does not appear until Cain kills Abel.
    The Bible is a collection of different writings with different genre's. You have to interpret a given writing in Bible in the genre it was written. For example, Psalms is a book of poems, and you don't read poetry with a literalist word-for-word interpretation. But King's and Chronicle are books of history, and should be read that way. Some it's not clear - Did the writer of Jonah intend for to be taken literally, or just a story to illustrate a moral truth, like Jesus' parables? I don't think the Parable of thd Good Samaritan was a story recounting a real life event, but a story to demonstrate an important moral truth and how you should behave. If you had a time machine, and went back in time, you would not see a Samarirsn helping some poor mugging victim along the road. But you would see Solomon building his temple if you had a time machine.


    My own position is I respect his faith and yours but I am interested in Scripture as a human creation. I don;t like having the meaning twisted, and if we can come at possible meanings from closer study would like to without requiring a pre-existing belief set to force the words onto. This is further complicated by extreme positions like insisting the KJV is the best version when it is clearly a botched translations of older versions and differs from scriptures Jesus himself probably knew and quoted.
    Humans wrote the books of the Bible, God did not dictate the books of the Bible its writers, God did not say to Moses "Now pay attention. This is how created I created the Sun on the fourth day ....Yes, there was only one flaming sword guarding the tree of life. What kind of fruit was the tree of life? It doesn't matter. Keep writing you got a lot more writing to do before we finish ... You need a break? There I fixed that, so you don't need a break anymore, I am all powerful after all", no that was not how it was written.

    But God. If he exists, could have used humans as his tools to get the Bible written. He could have moved and subconsciously inspired them to write what he wanted written. If you use imperfect tools, you get imperfect results. God could have written the book himself but chose not to.

    Have you have tried training someone to do a task that you could do yourself in a fraction of the time and better, but you want them to learn on to do it, so you make them do it? Like teach your kid how to change the oil in the car, it would have been so much easier to just do it yourself, but you want them to learn, so you make them do it, even though they will make mistakes. But in the end they were going tohe oil does get changed.


    The King James Version is not a bad translation so much as an out-of-date translation. We have made advances in our knowledge ancient scripture since the KJV day. But it's language is beautiful, and few of the more modern translations can match the power of its language. To successfully translate great poetry, you havd to be a great poet yourself to do justice to the poetry. Unfortunately, most modern translators are not very good writers. Their translation is more accurate, but the beauty of the language suffers. Besides, even if they wasn't how the wording was originally done. I prefer Joseph's many colored coat to the more modern translation, and it has been around that it should be kept.

    The Bible isn't some scholarly work, it is meant to be for believers, and I think the longer ending of the Gospel of Mark should be the one used, even if some of the oldest versions don't have it. A Quattro copy of Shakespeare's plays could be the oldest copy available, but that does not make it thr best. The First Folio version is better, even if not as old.




    I appreciate Sumskilz's posting about the original language of scripture, and i think Job is a fascinating moment in Jewish belief as a writer imagines a dialogue between God and a suffering believer. I don't believe for a second that an all-powerful Good god would take a dare from Satan to torture Job. That is a literary framing device for a dialogue, its a common literary trope. If you believe Job existed fair enough but the story as told is a corrup[ted version at best as it has a false start and then begins again as if a faithful recorder was trying to jot down multiple similar versions (this happens a lot in the OT eg the six or so jumbled versions of the revelation of the ten commandments).
    Yes, I don't think Job was intended to be a real person that if younuse s time machine you could go back and shake hands with him. The book was intended to illustrate some philosophical and religious truths. In Job, even though he did not understand the reasoning, there was a reason for his suffering, unbeknownst to Job. That we find the reason unsatisfactory isn't the point, the point being made is sometimes there is a bigger picture that we don't see, just like Job didn't see.


    Scripture is incoherent, in that its not one work by one person. There are verses that are plainly polytheistic, (I have heard about the royal plural but its use is inconsistent and at times I think it does refer to multiple deities later edited out, eg in the expulsion from Eden, the Babel story etc). Polytheism is definitely present in psalms (eg 97:9) and at Deuteronomy 32:8-9 the Septuagint (but not the Masoretic version) distinguishes El Elyon as the creator of nations and Yahweh as the God who chose Israel as his: two Gods, with Yahweh a lesser deity. In other parts the two are conflated (this strains at the seams though, as when Abraham sacrifices at a number of shrines to God, who has a different name at each one), but I think this represents a polytheistic tradition later edited in to a monotheistic one. Of course I am happy to concede my ignorance and the strong possibility I am wrong, but I am a little familiar with the texts in question, and the history of those texts
    Sorry. I don't agree with you. There is a very sublime coherence to the Bible it starts with the beginning of the world and it's creation, and it ends with the end of the world and its re-creation. That is pretty coherent. It tells a broad story ofnthe human condition, and you can see that like a novel, it is builds toward a dramatic climax in Revelations, with a lot of side plots along the way.

    Moreover, the Bible more than any other religious book is self referential - later books, like the Gospels, constantly refer to earlier books, and earlier books things hints and predictions of things that are to come that show up in the later books. As Moses said would happen, God did send another prophet similar to Misses only Jesus turned out to be even greater. And just as Isaih predicted, a child was born who was the prince of peace, who was called might God, and whose reign has no end, Jesus fits all of what Isaiah said. Just as Isaiah said in 9:1, Galilee was honored in future times, it as where Jesus had most of his ministry, the land was glorified as Isaiah said. That kind of predicting future events they come to pass is unique in the Bible.

    And whether the original source material was pagan or not, it does not matter because it has been thoroughly reshaped to fit monotheistic themes. Just like it does not matter that Christmas started off as a pagan holiday, it is a thoroughly Christian holiday today. And if does not matter that the word Logos originally came from Greek philosophy, it is thoroughly incorporated in the Gospel of John and is essential in defining Jesus nature. Although translatdd as "the Word", the translation really doesn't do the word justice. Logos meant Jesus was the prototype, the template from which all of creations was fashioned. T

    The compilers of Genesis could read the 2 different accounts of Genesis, the 7 days of creations and the creation of Adam and the Garden of Eden, same as us today, they could read that there 2 stories were quite different, same as us today. They left in these different accounts not because the compilers were too stupid to see the difference between them, because they couldn't make up theid mind, as scholars and skeptics assume, but because the different stories conveyed important different truths (and different does not mean conflicting)

    1. In the first page of Genesis, some very important truths are conveyed

    A. God created the world out of nothing, by his will alone. He did not create it out of some old corpse like other mythologies. Nor did he need helpers. The God od thr Jews was the creator God. Note, the fods the Greeks and others worship, like Zeus, were not creator gods.

    B. The creation of the world was deliberate. He did not just dream it into existence while sleeping, like Brahma.

    C. The world was created in an orderly fashion, in stages. If was not randomly created, nor all at once.

    D. Mean and women were made in the image of God, sharing his nature - his power of ration thought and ability to create.

    E. Women were not created as an after thought, and are treated as equal.

    F. Man was given mastery of the world. It is implied by dressing and keeping it that mankind be expected to properly manage the world. The world belongs to God, and humans are just managing it. Like all stewards humans are accountable to God for proper management of the world.

    G. Humans are expected to be fruitful. Reproduction is natural.

    H. Creation is complete,


    2. The story of Adam and Eve also conveys some.important religious truths

    A. Woman was created as an equal to man, to be his companion, neither to rule or be ruled by him, but from his side, of his very clean, i.e. nature

    B. Death was a consequence of man's disoddience to God's direct commandment.

    C. Man's disobedience broke his fellowship with God, Adam and Eve his from God where before they did not.

    D. Man's struggles in life is a result of his disobedience to God

    E. Woman's subjugation to Man is an evil consequence of Adam and Eve's disobedience. They were originally intended to be equals.

    F. Even though God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden, he still cared for them, making clothes for them (replacing the fig leaves, which must have pathetic looking)

    G. Flaming swords are scarce - God only had one sword to guard the Tree of Life, but multiple angels.

    H. Tree of Life is sti in the Garden of Eden. If you eat off the fruit of the Tree of Life. You can live forever. But first, you to find the Garden, then you to figure out how to get last the flaming sword.


    If your position is a faith based one and you feel God's truth shines out through the words of scripture, and unbelievers cannot understand then we have nothing to talk about as I am an unbeliever: I respect you position and hope you respect mine. If you claim Scripture speaks plainly of one version of religion as Basics does then I will disagree as the text does not speak the words claimed by these religions.

    We must disagree, then. Because I do believe the Bible general speaks one message, with just minor differences on some of the minor points.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; September 24, 2019 at 04:49 AM.

  18. #238
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,219

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    ... if i am a fool then I am a fool for Jesus Christ my God and Saviour.
    I readily admit to being a fool, and I would be a hypocrite to criticize you for that. I have respect for the Bible and don't like it twisted or changed. Saying there's sin in Genesis when the word does not appear is a stretch if not a twist. Saying Jesus is present in Eden is definitely twisting the words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    The Bible is a collection of different writings with different genre's. You have to interpret a given writing in Bible in the genre it was written. For example, Psalms is a book of poems, and you don't read poetry with a literalist word-for-word interpretation. But King's and Chronicle are books of history, and should be read that way. Some it's not clear - Did the writer of Jonah intend for to be taken literally, or just a story to illustrate a moral truth, like Jesus' parables? I don't think the Parable of thd Good Samaritan was a story recounting a real life event, but a story to demonstrate an important moral truth and how you should behave. If you had a time machine, and went back in time, you would not see a Samarirsn helping some poor mugging victim along the road. But you would see Solomon building his temple if you had a time machine.

    Humans wrote the books of the Bible, God did not dictate the books of the Bible its writers, God did not say to Moses "Now pay attention. This is how created I created the Sun on the fourth day ....Yes, there was only one flaming sword guarding the tree of life. What kind of fruit was the tree of life? It doesn't matter. Keep writing you got a lot more writing to do before we finish ... You need a break? There I fixed that, so you don't need a break anymore, I am all powerful after all", no that was not how it was written...
    I agree completely. This has implications for dogmatists like Basics but even for mainstream Judaism and its Hellenic and Arab offspring. The Bible is a cacophony at times: six different versions of Moses getting the Commandments? One God with so many names he sounds like a pantheon? I mean if it sounds like pantheon it probably is one...

    The Eden story is a version of an older Mesopotamian (there's a pun on life and rib in Sumerian thats lost in Hebrew, hence the mysterious connection brtween Eve and the rib). The original is polytheistic. I think much of the OT was polytheistic and was (roughly and not completely) edited later to de-emphasise that. I think Abraham (real or not) was seen in his first iterations as a polytheist. Ditto David and Solomon. I think the story has changed and the views of modern Christians and Jews represent a late theme among the many themes of the OT. Dislike of women is one theme ( sadly a part of udaism, Christianity and Islam) , but the worship of a feminine divine wisdom is another contrary theme (found only in kooky sex cult Gnosticism these days). Xenophobia and universal love duke it out across the pages of Judges, Deuteronomy and Ruth.

    Back to the OP, I think much of the Bible is not true in the sense that much of it never happened nd even less happened precisely as described (eg the catalogue of incoherence and plain errors in the Gospels). I think much has been edited, and some writers conspicuously lie about who they are (eg some of the Pauline letters are in my view fakes, as is much of Moses laws).

    I think your faith is true, as its Basics'. But the Bible is not true in either strict or even a tolerantly loose sense. Anyone claiming to have an exact knowledge of a life after death (never mentioned in the Pentateuch) and the sins pertaining to such that bases it on a story about a talking snake can't really be taken seriously in my view.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  19. #239

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I readily admit to being a fool, and I would be a hypocrite to criticize you for that. I have respect for the Bible and don't like it twisted or changed. Saying there's sin in Genesis when the word does not appear is a stretch if not a twist. Saying Jesus is present in Eden is definitely twisting the words.



    I agree completely. This has implications for dogmatists like Basics but even for mainstream Judaism and its Hellenic and Arab offspring. The Bible is a cacophony at times: six different versions of Moses getting the Commandments? One God with so many names he sounds like a pantheon? I mean if it sounds like pantheon it probably is one...

    The Eden story is a version of an older Mesopotamian (there's a pun on life and rib in Sumerian thats lost in Hebrew, hence the mysterious connection brtween Eve and the rib). The original is polytheistic. I think much of the OT was polytheistic and was (roughly and not completely) edited later to de-emphasise that. I think Abraham (real or not) was seen in his first iterations as a polytheist. Ditto David and Solomon. I think the story has changed and the views of modern Christians and Jews represent a late theme among the many themes of the OT. Dislike of women is one theme ( sadly a part of udaism, Christianity and Islam) , but the worship of a feminine divine wisdom is another contrary theme (found only in kooky sex cult Gnosticism these days). Xenophobia and universal love duke it out across the pages of Judges, Deuteronomy and Ruth.
    Again. I can't agree with what you say. While the Genesis story shares a few features, overall it had many district features, and none of the other stories are convey some fundamenral theological claims in a such a brief amount of time:

    1. In none of the other creation stories is God shown creating rhe world our of nothing, in such a s systematic fashion.

    2. In none of the other creation stories is it specifically stated men and women were made in the image od God

    3. In none of the other creations stories was man specifically given Dominion over the earth and all life on it.

    4. In none of the other creation stories is man ,show to be the pinnacle of creation, the last thing created before God rested.

    And besides the half dozen other differences if is all the same. What you are seeing is what you want to see, not what is there.





    Back to the OP, I think much of the Bible is not true in the sense that much of it never happened nd even less happened precisely as described (eg the catalogue of incoherence and plain errors in the Gospels). I think much has been edited, and some writers conspicuously lie about who they are (eg some of the Pauline letters are in my view fakes, as is much of Moses laws).
    Ahab and his father Omri were real king's, the Babylonians really did capture Jerusalem and haul it's leaders into captivity. The Assyrians really did capture cities ox JudH lay siege to Jersualem, etc. Can I find some errors it if? Yes, but that is true does every ancient book. Do you really think Tacitus really recorded the actual speeches of those Roman enemy leaders he records in his works in the battle just before they are slaughtered by the Romans. If you believe that's ai havs a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you. Prime location


    Actually, thd Gospels are quite coherent, they a tell the story in pretty much the same way, and agree on most of the important details. There are differences and errors, but even in modern historical works we have errors. If the same standard of criticism leveled at the Gospels were leveled at the biographies od Alexander the Great, we would have to reject most of them. For example, we do not have any contemporary biographies of Alexander. They were written but they have been lost. The bigraphies we do hav are further removed in time from the piece of Alexander than the Gospels are from Jesus. There is a famous story of how exander had a childhood friend killed. None of the biographies exactly how Alexander's friend was killed, the methods were a different. If that is the situation for the most powerful man of his time, the Gospels are doing pretty good for a carpenter.

    Also, if you have ever listen to real people remembering real events, you know thar people won't all remember the events the same way, different people will often remember the same event differently.








    I think your faith is true, as its Basics'. But the Bible is not true in either strict or even a tolerantly loose sense. Anyone claiming to have an exact knowledge of a life after death (never mentioned in the Pentateuch) and the sins pertaining to such that bases it on a story about a talking snake can't really be taken seriously in my view.
    Serpent, really that is your problem? Your like those people who criticized Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull for the refrigerator scene, but not the other scenes in the movie (hiding out in the refrigerator mass a lot of sense, because it shieldex Indy from blast debris). The entire Genesis story may not have been historical in the sense that Jesus or Pontius Pilate was historical, it gave been an allegorical story to illustrates some moral and religious truths nor necessarily a historical event that you could observe if you had a time machine. Note, I recall speech where Dumbledore od Harry Potter was quoted giving life lessons to graduating seniors. The character may have been fictional, but the advice was not.

    Yes, I see what you think, if you thought otherwise you a would be a believer and not a skeptics.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; September 26, 2019 at 10:32 AM. Reason: fix spelling mistakes

  20. #240
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,219

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Again. I can't agree with what you say. While the Genesis story shares a few features, overall it had many district features, and none of the other stories are convey some fundamenral theological claims in a such a brief amount of time:

    1. In none of the other creation stories is God shown creating rhe world our of nothing, in such a s systematic fashion.

    2. In none ofnrhd other creation stories is it specifically stated men and women were made in the image od God

    3. In none of the other creations stories was man specifically given Dominion over the earth and all life on it.

    4. In none oodnrhe ther creation stories is mN show to be the pinnacle of creation, the last thing created before God rested.

    And besides the half dozen other differences if is all the same. What you are seeing is what you want to see, not what is there.
    I see two creation stories that do not cohere. I think they were both written by people who loved God and wanted to describe humans through a creation story. In one men and women are created at the same time, after animals: in the other man is created first, then animals (to be his helpmeet) and then women. These are contradictions. We can try to understand the variant positions, but I don;t thin we can say they come from the same place: some Bible stories are a collision of beliefs in my view.

    The writers and editors that gradually accumulated the Bible felt Scripture was important but some did try to reconcile (by editing) conflicting traditions. Seriously take a look at the ten Commandments. Moses goes up the mountain at exodus 19 and gets the Law and writes it down, then again with seventy elders at exodus 24 (this after being told anyone that climbs the mountain must be killed-then no one but Moses can see God but the seventy see God), then he reads it to the people, then he goes up again and gets the law again.

    To my eyes its at least three (maybe many more) narratives hashed together, with a bunch of laws inserted later. The different stories have different ideas about whether you can see God or not, if you can climb Sinai or not, who did what when. I think an honest scribe found a bunch of old traditions about the story and jotted them all down in short form so nothing would be lost. It looks like a mess but I respect the honesty of the complier.

    Other stories run smooth as silk, they look like literary inventions (eg Ruth). they convey a truth but I think they are fabrications with some tue sounding bits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Ahab and his father Omri were real king's, the Babylonians really did capture Jerusalem and haul it's leaders into captivity. The Assyrians really did capture cities ox JudH lay siege to Jersualem, etc. Can I find some errors it if? Yes, but that is true does every ancient book. Do you really think Tacitus really recorded the actual speeches of those Roman enemy leaders he records in his works in the battle just before they are slaughtered by the Romans. If you believe that's ai havs a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you. Prime location
    I agree, there is much in the Bible that is history flavoured. Jesus birth story is varied because the writers wanted to make different rhetorical points about him. Those points may be theologically true they are inventions and in some sense lies. Jesus can't have two genealogies in a real DNA sense, especially if he's the Son Of God. Some of the stories look like hurried answers to awkward questions that got folded into the tradition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Actually, thd Gospels are quite coherent, they a tell the story in pretty much the same way, and agree on most of the important details. There are differences and errors, but even in modern historical works we have errors. If the same standard of criticism leveled at the Gospels were leveled at the biographies od Alexander the Great, we would have to reject most of them. For example, we do not have any contemporary biographies of Alexander. They were written but they have been lost. The bigraphies we do hav are further removed in time from the piece of Alexander than the Gospels are from Jesus. There is a famous story of how exander had a childhood friend killed. None of the biographies exactly how Alexander's friend was killed, the methods were a different. If that is the situation for the most powerful man of his time, the Gospels are doing pretty good for a carpenter.
    I agree: the zeal and belief of the Gospels i think show there was a really inspiring teacher, and after he died his followers sincerely believed he came back to life. It also shows that zeal was unconnected to a lot of facts as they are freely invented to patch holes in the story. Jesus' life was clearly a very bright light in the life of his followers but they didn't remember everything about him. The parts for me that are true is they loved him, the parts that are false are made up and contradictory stories about his childhood that none of them saw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Also, if you have ever listen his real people measure real events, you know thar people won't all remember the events the same way, different people will often remember the same event differently..
    Absolutely, the Bible is a human document.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Serpent, really that is your problem? Your like those people who criticized Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull for the refrigerator scene, but not the other scenes in the movie (hiding out in the refrigerator mass a lot of sense, because it shieldex Indy from blast debris). The entire Genesis story may not have been historical in the sense that Jesus or Pontius Pilate was historical, it gave been an allegorical story to illustrates some moral and religious truths nor necessarily a historical event that you could observe if you had a time machine. Note, I recall speech where Dumbledore od Harry Potter was quoted giving life lessons to graduating seniors. The character may have been fictional, but the advice was not.
    I agree completely and its a very fine point. The Bible contains a great deal of human truth, and honest attempts to understand God. It is immature to think is somehow 'all lies", just as its childish to think it is an email from God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Yes, I see what you think, if yo thought otherwise you a would be a believer and not a skeptics
    Its a weakness on my part I know. The faith of believers I know makes them strong and often very good people and I respect it.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •