A little late yes, but I haven't had time to reply.
@Urbanmonk: (Regarding your last reply on mine) I just need to clarify that all of my responses regarding the bible where I have quoted KJV, pointed out inconsistencies, contradictions etc. have been made using a literalist rule-set on how to approach the bible, i.e your way. I personally don't interpret the bible literally, so it isn't a problem for me. I have only shown that when using a consistent, literalist approach to the bible you end up with inconsistencies. Our discussion on that point is now over since I lack the time and energy to discuss it with you.
I'm astonished to see you being credited with such punchy titles as 'Defender of the Faith' and such, I would title you 'Agressor of the Faith' instead, seeing as you have such a ridiculing approach to faith other than your own. I wish your fanclub would do their homework too, hopefully they'd grasp a better approach to faith in general. But whatever.
On to the 'new' topics!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
And Matt Boothman already answered your so-called "unnamed couple", even those who read the Bible as a literary work acknowledge that much.
I suppose you mean this;
@Phredreeke: Not that I'm saying the Bible isn't full of contradictions, but nowhere in the first sentence does it mention that God created man and woman at the same time. It just said he created them. The first sentence is a pre-amble to the story.
If you skip down four passages you see that God did indeed create them at the same time(at least the same day):
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
So I don't see how that fixes the whole unnamed couples thing.
And on the Genesis note, they are an awesome band! Return of the Giant Hogweed FTW! And on the second Genesis note, according to the bible it was written by Moses, according to most people it was a mash-up of several sources. I won't however stay on that topic seeing as literalists become so very upset by the outlook of it.
@david-clarke: What made you feel so passionate about Christendom and why would different kinds of eternal torture be proper punishment for bad behaviour? Should children and animals be tortured for 'bad behaviour' too? (I'm not being sarcastic btw, I'm just asking)
Just stumbled across this thread and thought i would throw my two penneth in.
I am a stout disbeliever(?) in any form of Religion. I, mistakenly or not, subscribe to the theory of Evolution. Science has been able to prove links between species that show some form of evolutionary process.
If we are to believe that a Higher Power creeated the Earth and all Life in 7 Days then we are to believe that Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed. We know this not to be true however.
Not intended to offend anyone who believes the idealogies of Christianity but if we are to believe that Adam and Eve were the First Man and Woman on the planet then we are ALL related. Does this not in it's rawest form mean that we are all committing incest?
Another argument for me that steers me clear of believing in any religion is that if there was a Higher Power then the bad things that occur on this planet would not actually happen at all!?!
How can an all seeing entity such as a God allow such atrocities as War and Earthquakes? You may well think that this is God's way of punishing the inhabitants of the planet or that He does not always get involved as it is upto us to live our lives however does the bible not condemn acts of violence?
Matthew 7:12:
12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Again, I am not intending for my comments to aggravate people, I just cannot believe in a Centuries old idea that has no grounded proof.
Don't get me wrong, Science is flawed too. I believe, contrary to popular belief, that there exists other entities of intelligence either elsewher in our Solar System or outside of it but that is a whole other discussion.
Those are my thoughts however wrong or right you feel they may be.
Hey everyone, I popped back in to throw in Jim Jeffries.
And now the conversation is over.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] @Urbanmonk: (Regarding your last reply on mine) I just need to clarify that all of my responses regarding the bible where I have quoted KJV, pointed out inconsistencies, contradictions etc. have been made using a literalist rule-set on how to approach the bible, i.e your way. I personally don't interpret the bible literally, so it isn't a problem for me. I have only shown that when using a consistent, literalist approach to the bible you end up with inconsistencies. Our discussion on that point is now over since I lack the time and energy to discuss it with you.
Regardless of what "rule-set" you use (whether literalist or otherwise) there still isn't any inconsistencies, contradictions ect. and you have yet to show one.
And besides I think it's silly to even form distinctions between "rule-sets" and "approaches" to reading the Bible.
If you believe the Bible is the truth and you believe in the God of the Bible then you have to read it literally, because if God didn't literally create us, love us, and die for us then the Bible wouldn't be useful at all.
There isn't a distinction there, so I think it's rather redundant to even mention it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] If you skip down four passages you see that God did indeed create them at the same time(at least the same day):
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
So I don't see how that fixes the whole unnamed couples thing.
Firstly there was nothing to fix in the first place.
Secondly I don't see how that quote proves anything, how exactly does it show that he created both man and woman on the same day?
Sounds to me like you're grasping again.
Originally Posted by lembi2001 If we are to believe that a Higher Power creeated the Earth and all Life in 7 Days then we are to believe that Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed. We know this not to be true however.
How exactly do we "know" this isn't true?
I'm not going to try and prove it either way. I can't.
But if you're just going to accept that belief as fact based strictly upon your faith in evolution, then I guess that's your religion.
Originally Posted by lembi2001 Not intended to offend anyone who believes the idealogies of Christianity but if we are to believe that Adam and Eve were the First Man and Woman on the planet then we are ALL related. Does this not in it's rawest form mean that we are all committing incest?
No we are not all committing incest.
Incest would have to involve a close relative, and doesn't involve a very distant one.
I'm sure you knew the answer to this one when you asked it.
If we are to believe that God created Adam and Eve as the first humans than we can also believe that they had perfect genetic compositions since they were originally designed to live forever. Which means when their children had children then incest wouldn't affect them negatively at all.
Now obviously this didn't last, as you very well know God later gave a law that strictly prohibited incest, but this in no way contradicts the fact that he used it in the beginning to populate the Earth.
Originally Posted by lembi2001 How can an all seeing entity such as a God allow such atrocities as War and Earthquakes? You may well think that this is God's way of punishing the inhabitants of the planet or that He does not always get involved as it is upto us to live our lives however does the bible not condemn acts of violence?
I've already talked about this a few pages back, so I guess this will just be a rehash.
First on your point about the Bible condemning acts of violence; certainly violence is a vague statement, so what kind of violence are you talking about, and what scripture(s) are you referring to exactly?
As for war, it is caused by humans, who have free choice.
I don't think anyone can argue with that.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames Hey everyone, I popped back in to throw in Jim Jeffries
YouTube is blocked where I am right now, can you give me a quote or something from it that convinces you so much?
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman @Johnny: Who is to question the authorship of any myth, folk-story or indeed religious text, as if every idea has a single originator? There is no single source. The Bible's teachings are thousands of years old, and spoken before they were written. It's like Chinese whispers - one person tells somebody something, and that gets changed, and before you know it you have a mish-mash of sometimes contradictory, misleading and interconnected stories. As much as some people, Christians included, believe the whole of Christianity is recorded in that book, the Bible isn't all of the religion, just a part. Unless you believe that the Bible is literally the word and deed of God - in which case you are arguing from the same reference point as any literalist Christian, and aren't using your own logic.
This I think is the crux of the matter: you say the Bible is contradictory, ridiculous and illogical, but yet at the same time you seek concrete evidence in it and act as if it were a reliable source in itself. You say "The Bible is false - but it doesn't say inside who wrote it". What does it matter who wrote it, if you believe it's false? Would you believe it even if it told you?
Sorry to reply only now, I only saw your post now.
Firstly I didn't say the entire bible was illogical, ridiculous or false, just that the genesis is full of nonsense.
Secondly I wasn't questioning the entire bible, my question was made out of curiosity. I didn't ask for "who wrote the bible" either, only who wrote the genesis.
Thirdly questioning whatever is in the bible is a necessity imo, either you are a believer or not. I don't think you can really say you believe or you don't in something without first questioning those beliefs. Since the christian beliefs and values are based on what's in the bible it makes sense to question what's in there. Not necessarily question the entire bible as a whole like I think you thought I was doing. Also to question something you have to assume/pretend it's true initially, even if you don't believe so. Kind of a confusing statement I know but I think you know what I mean.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Who was Joseph's father?
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli
Luke 3:23
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Matthew 1:16
Both Jacob and Heli were Joseph's father by Hebrew tradition.
However Jacob was Joseph's biological father, and Heli (abbreviation of Hebrew name Heliachim) was Joseph's father-in-law, aka Mary's father.
This follows the Hebrew tradition of replacing a women with her husband in recorded genealogical tables.
If you're curious to know more about this just do some research on the Genealogy of Jesus.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Firstly I didn't say the entire bible was illogical, ridiculous or false, just that the genesis is full of nonsense.
I'm sure you meant to say "in your opinion" since millions disagree with you.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Secondly I wasn't questioning the entire bible, my question was made out of curiosity. I didn't ask for "who wrote the bible" either, only who wrote the genesis.
The first five books of the Bible (the Torah) were written by Moses. This is a core belief that the Jewish people hold, True Christians, and as well as most Muslims.
And if you believe in the God of the Bible you also believe this to be true since Moses was someone who had direct communication with God, and was the leader of the Israelite during the history that was recorded in the Torah.
The first five books of the Bible (the Torah) were written by Moses. This is a core belief that the Jewish people hold, True Christians, and as well as most Muslims.
And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.
Deuteronomy 34:7
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
I didn't ask for "who wrote the bible" either, only who wrote the genesis.
Regardless of what "rule-set" you use (whether literalist or otherwise) there still isn't any inconsistencies, contradictions ect. and you have yet to show one.
Correction, yet to show one that you approve. However, I believe you wouldn't approve of any since your world's foundation rests on the bible being literal truth.
And besides I think it's silly to even form distinctions between "rule-sets" and "approaches" to reading the Bible.
If you believe the Bible is the truth and you believe in the God of the Bible then you have to read it literally, because if God didn't literally create us, love us, and die for us then the Bible wouldn't be useful at all.
You do realize that you are talking complete nonsense right? If 99.99999999% of the bible's mentioning of God was proven horsecrap but 0.00000001% proven true, that would surely be the most astonishing revelation in human history since it would prove God's existence. Everything in the bible doesn't have to be true for it to be helpful.
And by the by, if you are intent on discussing something on a higher level than forum-crap you need to have guidelines so it all doesn't boil down to differing opinions on semantics.
Firstly there was nothing to fix in the first place.
Yes there was, Phredreeke had a problem with the unnamed couple and you failed to give him a satisfying answer.
Secondly I don't see how that quote proves anything, how exactly does it show that he created both man and woman on the same day?
Sounds to me like you're grasping again.
Ok, a last try to do this your way. Note how you a few lines up said:
"If you believe the Bible is the truth and you believe in the God of the Bible then you have to read it literally"
So let's read it literally;
KJV Genesis 1:23-31 (I included 1:23 just to give us a firm starting point in time)
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
How does that equate to grasping? Have you even read the bible? Or are you going to tell me that God did not create the world in seven(six) days? Or is one not supposed to read Genesis 1 literally? Or will you show me a tree-diagram of cross references spanning hundreds of hundreds of years apart that actually shows that Darth Vader created the death star on day six? Or are you going to point out how the greek letter of the hebrew alphabet combined with potates equates tomatoes and that Moses grew tomatoes that Noah cast out the Ark by command of God and that this clearly proves that God did not create man and woman at the same time?
I'm sure you meant to say "in your opinion" since millions disagree with you.
Billions disagree with those millions.
The first five books of the Bible (the Torah) were written by Moses. This is a core belief that the Jewish people hold, True Christians, and as well as most Muslims.
And if you believe in the God of the Bible you also believe this to be true since Moses was someone who had direct communication with God, and was the leader of the Israelite during the history that was recorded in the Torah.
On what do you base the underlined part? Is that how you have been taught to believe in the literal truth of the bible?
You see, the God of Abraham is supposed to be The God, like The ChrisStreet. If you hold a belief in a/the one true God like Abraham did you don't automatically have to believe in the bible. The bible is merely a book, written by human hands, which claims to hold the truth about for instance a/the one true God, but that doesn't lend it any factual qualitees. So you don't have to tell people what they believe in, they usually know that for themselves.
Originally Posted by Predreeke
And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.
Deuteronomy 34:7
Supposedly Moses wrote that seeing as he wrote the 'Five books of Moses', but you will also find that the same people who tell you that will point out that any israelite could have added it after Moses death, but Moses is the sole author of it so he wrote it, but he isn't the sole author, though he is the sole author. (Note that I intended it to be confusing. This is what I mean by inconsistency, claiming two opposing truths at the same time)
The first five books of the Bible (the Torah) were written by Moses. This is a core belief that the Jewish people hold, True Christians, and as well as most Muslims.
And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.
Deuteronomy 34:7
I knew someone would bring this up.
But as I mentioned earlier also according to Hewbrew tradition, these records were given by God directly to Moses, so this isn't a problem since God would know when Moses was going to die, or if you prefer added later by the high priest when he died.
Genisis is part of the first five books of the Bible, and therefore answers the question.
I didn't read the wiki article. Is there something in particular you would like me to know?
EDIT: EE's post just showed up. I'll get to it next.
Ok... To sum up Documentary Hypothesis. The idea is that the Pentateuch is written by multiple authors. These different authors can by distinguished by writing styles, the name used for God (Yahweh or Elohim) and the focus of the text. This also explain inconcistencies and redundancies.
And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
Genesis 17:15-17, priestly source
And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
Genesis 18:10-12, Jahwist source
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Advertisement
Post Reply
And on the second Genesis note, according to the bible it was written by Moses, according to most people it was a mash-up of several sources. I won't however stay on that topic seeing as literalists become so very upset by the outlook of it.
Edited by Phredreeke
