Let's Read the Bible Once

[timtofly]

But Ziggy, you won't see God until you want to see him. Since you're not convinced of his existence or his want to communicate with you, you will never get his message. As soon as you accept him you will have something to show for



But if that's the case you can't say he's good either. All you can say is: "Maybe he's good, maybe he's evil, we don't know"

You could look in the Bible and check whether God is evil there, but if God is truly evil.. of course he would tell us that he wasn't. So that wouldn't work.

I don't think that God reveals himself to every human. God said that his creation is his revelation to all. If God does not reveal himself and humans do not see God in creation, then they will never see God, until the final judgment and after that never again. Placing humans in a preferential position, does not follow from any of that. Now one can call God a ruthless dictator, and I doubt it will hurt God's feelings any. When people call God good in the Bible, it is more than likely because he was good to them. I would say my dad was pretty good to me, but there have been times when I wished he would give me preferential treatment over other people who were not even related to him. I doubt I would complain if he treated me a lot better than other people even if they came to harm. Not that I want to see other people miss out...

 

[Borachio]

Carbon-14 dating, K-Ar dating, tree-ring dating, varve dating, other ways of gathering samples (ie. drilling through the ice to find out what the climate was like in the past, and see what lifeforms may be trapped in glacial ice), using advanced imaging systems to see what's beneath the Earth's surface...

Yes. And those are all observations that we can make today. And tell us nothing directly about what happened 6000 years ago. Do you see my point?

And every time you look through a telescope, you're looking back in time. On an astronomical scale, 6000 years is trifling.

This is an incredibly powerful point. And one that I've tried to use myself repeatedly in the face of creationists. Trouble is it just slides off them like a slippery eel on a very slippery surface, and gets no purchase at all.

I've read some convoluted explanation about how to reconcile astronomy and a young earth. I can't honestly remember the details of it now.

But some of the latest scientific theories about space itself expanding faster than the speed of light didn't strike me as any more "sensible" either.

 

[TrafficJam]

Isn't "Inspired" the correct term? I am sure it wasn't dictated by God, and thus suspect of all human limitations. Which is why I feel a literal or historical interpretation would be further of the mark than interpreting the spirit of the Bible. Which of course also isn't exact science, so there will be disagreements.

Inspired, yes. God didn't dictate, but inspired the writers, which is why we see varying styles of writing - simple fisherman language in John, for example, and complicated $10 words from Luke (doctor) and Paul (lawyer).

So what choice do I have?

You can do what you're doing, I guess. Keep educating yourself, and not only on methods to disprove the Bible, but also on the Bible itself. The more you read and study the Bible, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yes. And those are all observations that we can make today. And tell us nothing directly about what happened 6000 years ago. Do you see my point?

Do you know how some of these methods work? You get DIRECT evidence (plus/minus a reasonable margin of error) of what the conditions were like in the past.

I can find a fossil today. To say that it would tell me nothing about what happened when or before it became a fossil is... bizarre.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You can do what you're doing, I guess. Keep educating yourself, and not only on methods to disprove the Bible, but also on the Bible itself. The more you read and study the Bible, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree. But for different reasons I suspect. The Bible tells us a lot about the people who lived during those times. What they believed, their day to day life, their politics. So as an historical document it is important in that regard.

Spiritually it is of little use to me.

 

[Borachio]

Do you know how some of these methods work? You get DIRECT evidence (plus/minus a reasonable margin of error) of what the conditions were like in the past.

I can find a fossil today. To say that it would tell me nothing about what happened when or before it became a fossil is... bizarre.

I fear you're not getting my point.

The only reason a fossil can tell us things about the past (and I agree it can), is because we assume that the same processes at work today were at work (for you and me millions of years ago, but for creationists: ) 6000 years ago.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And we assume that we're not living in a very advanced simulation from the future. I get what you mean, but I too don't get your point.

What does making that assumption mean? That it's not possible for us to know reality, but the second best thing we can do is only make conclusions based on evidence and not make those for which there is none?

In that case I agree with your point.

 

[Borachio]

I suppose a related point I'm trying to make is that in the face of creationist logic (and logic it is, though of a bizarre kind) there's little point arguing.

It's just easier to assume that the same processes applied in the past as they do today. If you don't assume that then you're not going to make any progress in your scientific quest.

And yet 13.5 billion years ago, the same processes didn't apply. Did they? If we're to believe what scientists tell us. But perhaps certainly I've misunderstood what I've read on the subject.

Where is the evidence that the same processes applied even 6000 years ago. I've yet to see anyone refer me to any. I don't think there can be any evidence of this kind.

edit: anyway that's enough rambling on the subject from me. I'll shut up now.

 

[El_Machinae]

The Bible claims it was authored completely by God himself and simply penned by many different men.

Where does it say that?

 

[RobAnybody]

If you understand the problem posed by multiple meanings lacking proper context, why is the Bible exempt?

Several reasons, which I thought I had illustrated, but maybe I used words with multiple meanings, making it hard to understand, so I'll be glad to clarify:

1) You pick & choose. You're like "this word had multiple meanings, so maybe there's a different way to interpret this troublesome passage". Which, fair enough, but you're assuming *every other word was translated correctly, just not these troublesome ones*. I mean, how do we know that "God" wasn't translated incorrectly. Or "fish" or "table" or "son"? Those could make a huge difference.
--You're making excuses for passages like "Lot's wife turned into salt", saying it might have meant "vapor", but if they messed up that word, why not dozens of others? You've opened the door for mistranslation. Who knows what else was lost in translation?

2) That whole premise assumes there was just one dude translating everything & no one corrected him, in the whole history of the Bible.

--If thousands of years from now, some historian translates The Walking Dead into a new language, & let's assume English is a dead language, you're A) presuming there's only one guy doing it, B) he misinterprets a few key words, & C) not only does he not ask someone their opinion, but no one reading his translation is like "no 'bite' can mean 'to admit defeat in guessing', but clearly they mean 'to cut, wound, or tear with the teeth'. They are not admitting the zombies beat them in a guessing game, you should fix that."
--Or when describing how they shot the zombie with a gun, they don't mean they hurled 'a person whose profession is killing; professional killer', they meant 'any portable firearm, as a rifle, shotgun, or revolver'.

--It's silly. It's assuming the one-&-only-translator picked an obscure meaning ("rib" vs. "life essence"), he never checked his work, & no one ever corrected him. And, because of 1, we should believe he got every other word right, just not this one in question.

3) It doesn't matter, it's still magic. Salt/Vapor? Who cares? You're still telling people a woman turned into vapor for looking backwards at an inopportune time. Like that makes it more believable? I had trouble with her turning into salt, but I'm totally fine with vapor. Oh, ok, God took part of Adam's "life essence" instead of his "rib" to make Eve? Now it makes sense. It simply doesn't matter if 1 & 2 are true.

"Those words have multiple meanings" actually hurts the Bible's case, not helps it.

 

[Rashiminos]

I'm not sure I understand the debate about how God could have created Eve out of Adam's rib. If God could create out of Adam out of dust, why does it present a problem that we would create Eve out of a rib?

Maybe "rib" and "dust" do not literally mean a rib and dust.

 

[timtofly]

Where does it say that?

The second half of 2 Peter 1:

Spoiler :

12 For this reason, I will always remind you about these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you already have. 13 And I consider it right to keep stirring you up with reminders, as long as I am in the tent of this body. 14 I know that I will soon lay aside this tent of mine, as our Lord Yeshua the Messiah has made clear to me. 15 And I will do my best to see that after my exodus, you will be able to remember these things at all times.

16 For when we made known to you the power and the coming of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, we did not rely on cunningly contrived myths. On the contrary, we saw his majesty with our own eyes. 17 For we were there when he received honor and glory from God the Father; and the voice came to him from the grandeur of the Sh’khinah, saying, “This is my son, whom I love; I am well pleased with him!” 18 We heard this voice come out of heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain.

19 Yes, we have the prophetic Word made very certain. You will do well to pay attention to it as to a light shining in a dark, murky place, until the Day dawns and the Morning Star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all, understand this: no prophecy of Scripture is to be interpreted by an individual on his own; 21 for never has a prophecy come as a result of human willing — on the contrary, people moved by the Ruach HaKodesh spoke a message from God.

The first part of Jeremiah 36:

Spoiler :

In the fourth year of Y’hoyakim the son of Yoshiyahu, king of Y’hudah, this word came to Yirmeyahu from Adonai: 2 “Take a scroll and write on it all the words I have spoken to you against Isra’el, Y’hudah and all the other nations, from the day I started speaking to you, back in the time of Yoshiyahu, until today. 3 Perhaps the house of Y’hudah will listen to all the disaster I intend to bring on them, and turn back, each person from his evil way; then I will forgive their wickedness and sin.”

4 So Yirmeyahu summoned Barukh the son of Neriyah; and Barukh wrote down on a scroll, at Yirmeyahu’s dictation, all the words that Adonai had said to him. 5 Then Yirmeyahu gave this order to Barukh: “I am not allowed to enter the house of Adonai. 6 Therefore, you take the scroll which you wrote at my dictation, go into the house of Adonai on a fast-day, and read from it the words of Adonai in the hearing of the people; also read them to all Y’hudah as they exit their cities. 7 Perhaps they will turn to Adonai in prayer and will return, each one, from his evil way. For the anger and fury which Adonai has decreed against this people is great.”

Maybe "rib" and "dust" do not literally mean a rib and dust.

Genesis 3:19 You will eat bread by the sweat of your forehead till you return to the ground — for you were taken out of it: you are dust, and you will return to dust.”

 

[Rashiminos]

Genesis 3:19 You will eat bread by the sweat of your forehead till you return to the ground — for you were taken out of it: you are dust, and you will return to dust.”

I think the usage of dust in this verse is different from the usage of dust in reference to Adam, although I can provide an interpretation for Gen 3:19 if you want.

otherwise you get people claiming God created Heaven and Earth twice

Is that necessarily impossible?

Maybe God created it once and then created it again and there exists a parallel universe as a result.

 

[timtofly]

Is not Adam addressed in both verses?

 

[Rashiminos]

Is not Adam addressed in both verses?

Yes, Adam is addressed.

I'd love to see the links to reputable sources for this - peer-reviewed by paleontologists, geologists, physical anthropologists, etc.

Size/mass is less of an encumbrance in a lesser gravity field. There would also be less fall-related deaths(2).

The only problem I see is why would you create a woman out of a rib when you can create out of dust?

Maybe after creating a man, creating a woman would be more efficiently done with the use of a man rather than the dust.

 

[Kaitzilla]

So if killing a person will just send them to heaven or hell sooner than otherwise, you must have a pretty lax view of murder. Or is it different if God murders a person than when a human murders another person?

Indeed.

The main goal in life isn't to get everyone into heaven.

If it was, we'd murder everyone while they were a baby.



If the goal was to feel good all the time, then everyone would do drugs.

 

[Kaitzilla]

When you get to acts it's all explained. According to the gospel's and acts, after Jesus rose from the dead and before he ascended into heaven he promised the 12 apostles that God would send a helper to them called the spirit. Then later in acts during the feast of Pentecost this spirit descended and caused them all to proclaim Jesus in a whole bunch of languages, which is where speaking in tongues comes from. The holy spirit didn't exist before then, just like Christ didn't exist in the old testament except as a prophesy. The holy spirit then is basically a spiritual extension of God and Christ that comes to earth to give spiritual guidance to the followers.

Wow Thanks!

I've always wondered about this

 

[Kaitzilla]

...

If a deity exists, i am quite sure it would be something far more important and intelligent and complicated and inspiring and a source of knowledge and creativity and a siren which never stops its song towards the travelers who happen to pass through any of the straits where its likeness or moving statue still stands.

Very nice!

 

[Kaitzilla]

Yes. And those are all observations that we can make today. And tell us nothing directly about what happened 6000 years ago. Do you see my point?

This is an incredibly powerful point. And one that I've tried to use myself repeatedly in the face of creationists. Trouble is it just slides off them like a slippery eel on a very slippery surface, and gets no purchase at all.

I've read some convoluted explanation about how to reconcile astronomy and a young earth. I can't honestly remember the details of it now.

But some of the latest scientific theories about space itself expanding faster than the speed of light didn't strike me as any more "sensible" either.

Yes, I've crashed on this one myself.

You need a firm grasp of what time dilation is to make sense of expanding space and the speed of light.


I've tried explaining to people how God created the stars and their million year old sunshine just now reaching us indicates that of course the Earth is quite old, but some people insist on 6000 years for some silly reason.

 

[Berzerker]

Maybe God created it once and then created it again and there exists a parallel universe as a result.

The only problem I see is why would you create a woman out of a rib when you can create out of dust?

Why do you even need dust when you can create a universe out of nothing?

I'll tell you why. It makes for a better story.

Genesis doesn't describe the creation of the universe, just the dry land and firmament (and a few other things, but the water was already here when God begins "creating"). Its a story mainly about the land we live on and the sky above. Even the stars in the firmament refer to those we can see and use for signs and seasons. And God didn't actually create them, God made them or appointed them to serve this purpose. Building my house overlooking a nearby river doesn't mean I created the river. Thats my take on it anyway.

He certainly could have used dust to make woman, but I would suspect that at least some of the reason he used a rib was (as is the case with much of the Old Testament) symbolic. It cemented in Adam's mind the fact that Eve was created for him - she wasn't just some other creation like the animals.

I believe in Joshua 24:2-6(?) he tells the people their fathers served other gods in the land between the two rivers and Abram was a merchant from the Sumerian city of Ur. Thats where most of these stories came from and thats where the Jews had access to them during the exile in Babylon.

Now the Sumerian word for "rib" is ti (pronounced "tee"). The goddess created for the healing of Enki's rib, therefore was called in Sumerian Nin-ti, "the lady of the rib." But the very same Sumerian word ti also means "to make live." The name Nin-ti may thus mean "the lady who makes live," as well as "the lady of the rib." In Sumerian literature, therefore, "the lady of the rib" came to be identified with "the lady who makes live" through what might be termed a play on words. (Kramer, Mythologies 103)

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/SumerianMyth.htm

Eve was the lady of life (mother of the living) and lady of the rib

If you read verse one as creating formless material, everything matter wise was created.

But the 1st verse doesn't talk about matter, it says God created Heaven(s) and Earth. I prefer the singular Heaven because thats the name God gave to the firmament used to divide the waters while heavens (7?) generally refers to the sky.

And Earth is the name God gave to the dry land when the water receded into Seas. Earth is not the planet, just the dry land. Nowhere in the Bible does it say God created or made the waters.

Thats why the Earth exists in Gen 1:2 but is submerged by the deep (waterworld) and the next time we hear about the Earth its being exposed by water forming Seas. God didn't even "create" the Earth (dry land), Genesis says it was revealed from under the water. The word "create" is often used when a closer look shows God was using stuff that preceded "creation", the water receded into Seas revealing the Earth.