A Look at the Literalists

[Syterion]

I'm very surprised there are non-religious people who believe in the flood story. It think, with the Red Sea Parting, that is the hardest thing to swallow in the Bible. Of course, there are a lot of controversial stuff in the Bible, but I won't get into it.

Moses really did part the Red Sea so the Jews could escape their Egyptian captors:
This has already been proven to happen. A volanic explosion in Greece caused the water to part.

I would really love to see a source for this. It seems highly improbable. How do you suppose a volcanic explosion made millions upon millions of gallons of water part across a wide sea? I can understand a powerful explosion, but how would it create two walls of water that last for long enough for Moses to bring his groupies along with him?

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by archer_007

Moses really did part the Red Sea so the Jews could escape their Egyptian captors:
This has already been proven to happen. A volanic explosion in Greece caused the water to part.

Its been proven that Moses caused a volcanic eruption in order to part the Red Sea?

 

[bobgote]

If you believe in an all-powerful god, what difference do you think time makes to the equation? If he couldn't do it in a week of our time or similar to allow for cultural differences, he could hardly be called all powerful, so why is time so much of an issue to some people?

 

[Margim]

Originally posted by archer_007
My views:

story of the creation of the Earth in seven days as told in the book of Genesis is literally true:
I think the "days" dont refer to a 24-hour period.

story of Noah's ark, the global flood, and God's covenant to never destroy the Earth again:
I think this is true and within the bound of reason.

Moses really did part the Red Sea so the Jews could escape their Egyptian captors:
This has already been proven to happen. A volanic explosion in Greece caused the water to part.

My Dictionary says...
Literally.
1) in a literal manner; word for word: to translate literally. 2) In the literal sense. 3) actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy.

In other words, what you see is what you get. If you believe Genesis literally, you cannot 'reinterpret', scientifically justify, or guess at how something happened. You can't redifine days, and you can't add qualifications. You can't give a scientific explaination involving volcanoes for the seas parting - you have to believe Moses actually did it.

Thus, you do not believe necessarily in literalism, but rather in an interpretation. As long as you are adding to what is written in the text, directly in front of you, you are interpreting.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist


The world's population?

Americans make up something like 5% of the world's population, and aren't a representative selection for any social/ideological/religious purposes. Even a relatively small movement towards irreligiousness in the rest of the world would compensate the hugest swing towards religiousness in the US. That's to say, that poll, whether accurate or not, doesn't say much about developments on the global scale.

Although the poll is refering to only the U.S., the increasing level of religiousness is true of the world as a whole. Also, Christianity and Islam are the fastest growing religions in the world currently. So it seems the world is also becoming more homogenous in matters of religion.

 

[Achinz]

As long as their sample is random, a thousand people is probably around twice as many as necessary It depends on what your allowable error is - here it's probably around one or two points.

I'd still be interested in the details of their methodology to ensure that their sample is "random" - the everpresent gap between theory and practice (cost logistics and all that).

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Margim


My Dictionary says...
Literally.
1) in a literal manner; word for word: to translate literally. 2) In the literal sense. 3) actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy.

In other words, what you see is what you get. If you believe Genesis literally, you cannot 'reinterpret', scientifically justify, or guess at how something happened. You can't redifine days, and you can't add qualifications. You can't give a scientific explaination involving volcanoes for the seas parting - you have to believe Moses actually did it.

Thus, you do not believe necessarily in literalism, but rather in an interpretation. As long as you are adding to what is written in the text, directly in front of you, you are interpreting.

Well I think you could still say that God caused at that time a volcano to erupt, causing the seas to part, but not much more than that.

(and I too would like to know how a volcano could erupt and cause the seas to stay parted long enough for moses and the groupies to cross)

 

[Smidlee]

Originally posted by Margim


My Dictionary says...
Literally.
1) in a literal manner; word for word: to translate literally. 2) In the literal sense. 3) actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy.

In other words, what you see is what you get. If you believe Genesis literally, you cannot 'reinterpret', scientifically justify, or guess at how something happened. You can't redifine days, and you can't add qualifications. You can't give a scientific explaination involving volcanoes for the seas parting - you have to believe Moses actually did it.

Thus, you do not believe necessarily in literalism, but rather in an interpretation. As long as you are adding to what is written in the text, directly in front of you, you are interpreting.

Well , my dictionary says literally nothing ... I got to read it .
should I take you literally when you type "my dictionary says"?
Of course that sound very silly since anyone with common sense understand what you meant. you just playing around with words.
interpretation simply means explanation. interpretation is the explain the scripture when it was written and who it is written to, etc. then after interpretation you have application of scriptures, How does this apply to my life. In another words, All scripture is for me but not all scripture is to me. ( also remember the bible isn't written to talk over people head when it was written. I've been told KJV is written on a 6th grade reading level. don't know about the others.)

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Mrogreturns


Its been proven that Moses caused a volcanic eruption in order to part the Red Sea?

No, but it has been proven that a volcanic eruption happened at about the time of Moses and would explain some of the other things that are recorded as happening right before the flight from Egypt.

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by archer_007


No, but it has been proven that a volcanic eruption happened at about the time of Moses and would explain some of the other things that are recorded as happening right before the flight from Egypt.

Well that doesn't support your statement that:

"Moses really did part the Red Sea so the Jews could escape their Egyptian captors:.."

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by Syterion
I would really love to see a source for this. It seems highly improbable. How do you suppose a volcanic explosion made millions upon millions of gallons of water part across a wide sea? I can understand a powerful explosion, but how would it create two walls of water that last for long enough for Moses to bring his groupies along with him?

The most acceptable theory is that Moses didn't actually cross the Red Sea, rather a watery shallow somewhere near the landbridge between Africa and Asia.
And the volcano eruption did happend (the Santorini island volcano, one degree of magnitude stronger than the 19th century Krakatoa eruption), which can explain the darkening of the skies, smoke...
The Red Sea turning to blood can be attributed to a red algae bloom.


So in a way, the story of Moses is true, but it is what has been handed down to us since very long ago, allowing for some distorsions of the truth. But of course, splitting a sea looks much cooler in movies than crossing a mosketo infested swamp

 

[MrPresident]

The red sea comes from the mistranslation of the word 'reed'. The reed sea is a much smaller sea closer to the Egyptian coast and a far more probable crossing point. The volanic eruption in Greece created a tidal wave in the Med. As it approached Egypt the water in the reed sea flowed out into the med creating a muddy riverbed allowing Moses & co to cross. Then as the Egpytians attempting to cross the tidal wave would have struck drowning the lot of them. There is evidence to prove this such as a volcanic eruption in Greece at this time, rock from that volcanic found in the reed sea and the known dynamics of a tidal wave.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Free Enterprise


Although the poll is refering to only the U.S., the increasing level of religiousness is true of the world as a whole. Also, Christianity and Islam are the fastest growing religions in the world currently. So it seems the world is also becoming more homogenous in matters of religion.

I didn't say that there isn't a trend towards religiousness in the world - I don't know enough to tell for sure, but there certainly are indications that way - only that the poll described doesn't provide much in the way of evidence for it.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by MrPresident
The red sea comes from the mistranslation of the word 'reed'.

The jury is still out on this. BTW, how do "reed" and "red" sound in ancient Hebrew?

 

[Elden]

Originally posted by Margim
* I'm curious about what the Catholic-Anglican church is...

A journalistic mistake in thae article that will probably offend some people from both groups.

Originally posted by Margim
over here the Catholic and Anglican churches are different denominations.

They are completely seperate everywhere.