Should we take the bible literal?

[Pontiuth Pilate]

According to the bible, yes you deserve death, we all deserve death (that's the whole point, isn't it? - and you don't even need to take it literally to get that out of it.).

So God creates people to kill 'em. He really IS a sadist!

God also promised he'd never do anything like the flood again.


That's right, according to the new contract I'm not allowed to completely exterminate the human race. I'll only kill up to a third of you at a time [and let me introduce you to my new pet creation, it's called the bubonic plague]. So no worries!

simply because he's on the other side of the debate, doesn't mean he's babbling. In fact, Pontiuth's posts on the subject are more well-informed and reasonable than those who oppose him.

Aww, how sweet you nearly neutralized my perpetual sarcasm there for a second. Whew...

of course i ask the question because he seem to debate one of general statements that Moses wrote Genesis . I was trying to keep on topic about can you take the bible literal and explain someone that in Genesis literal teaches Adam had many more children that not recorded in Genesis. my main point was not that Mose wrote Genesis . that was just leading up to my point . understand?

Well you seem to think that one person wrote Genesis? I suppose the Bible says that somewhere? In that case the Bible is wrong dead wrong - at least from the textual analysis available to us today. So there's a case of how you shouldn't take it all at face value

As for Adam, I seem to remember somewhere reading that he had 9 kids, half boys and half girls that shows something about the Bible as well

By the way I missed a point in that post:

Moses wasn't trying to put Isreal asleep by nameing all Adams sons and daughters which could be hundreds. since only 8 people survived the flood what the point nameing them all.

But Matthew bores us to death doing something quite similar. Who cares who Jesus's great^x grandfather was?

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
According to the bible, yes you deserve death, we all deserve death (that's the whole point, isn't it? - and you don't even need to take it literally to get that out of it.).

So God creates people to kill 'em. He really IS a sadist!

Wages of sin are death etc etc

God also promised he'd never do anything like the flood again.


That's right, according to the new contract I'm not allowed to completely exterminate the human race. I'll only kill up to a third of you at a time [and let me introduce you to my new pet creation, it's called the bubonic plague]. So no worries!

Dunno if you can pin the plague on God.

simply because he's on the other side of the debate, doesn't mean he's babbling. In fact, Pontiuth's posts on the subject are more well-informed and reasonable than those who oppose him.

Aww, how sweet you nearly neutralized my perpetual sarcasm there for a second. Whew...

hehe, you're still a nasty heathen. I must have been on something when i said that

(Smidlee): of course i ask the question because he seem to debate one of general statements that Moses wrote Genesis . I was trying to keep on topic about can you take the bible literal and explain someone that in Genesis literal teaches Adam had many more children that not recorded in Genesis. my main point was not that Mose wrote Genesis . that was just leading up to my point . understand?

Well you seem to think that one person wrote Genesis? I suppose the Bible says that somewhere? In that case the Bible is wrong dead wrong - at least from the textual analysis available to us today. So there's a case of how you shouldn't take it all at face value

This is probably in the same manner as the Gospels were unlikely to have been written by the actual apostles, but rather the communities that were spawned by these apostles. Just a thought - but would fishermen have been able to read and write? Anyway, the writing would just have been the setting down of oral tradition.

Moses wasn't trying to put Isreal asleep by nameing all Adams sons and daughters which could be hundreds. since only 8 people survived the flood what the point nameing them all.

But Matthew bores us to death doing something quite similar. Who cares who Jesus's great^x grandfather was?

not to mention the book of numbers

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


What are your trying to say about the dinosaurs?
Yes it does say that there where days be for the sun. What I think He meant was a 24 hour day. I think He was trying to say it was not mils of years, but I could be wrong. The "story about all animals on a boat" really could have happened all the animals and food could have fit on the ark and also it would explain the the rock layers.

[rant]What a ark-load full of BS!!!!!![/rant]

a) animals no eat - neither each other nor plants????? They do, today!
b) genetic variation no be necessary????????? Funny it is there today
c) rock layers no be of different ages????????? Hell, even Cuvier got that right - and had to propose a multitude of floods to make it all happen - but sadly, the thousands of feet of marine deposits in Europe alone consist mostly of rocks that were obviously deposited over millions of years.


Quit that 'Sündflut' theory stuff, it ain't working. I am a geologist / vertebrate paleontologist. I know. If you do not believe me, I will be very happy to explain in a seperate thread.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Stapel


Hmm, no.... There actually is a plausible theory that the Jews went through when the sealevel was low (happesn twice a day). The chasing egyptians (on their 2 attack points chariots ) got stuck in de muddy sea bottom and then drowned when the flood came.

If I would have whitnessed that at the time, and if I would have been a historical writer, I just might have written down there was divine influence!

another hypothesis: local tectonics are extremely strong. They can make a river come and go quickly - mixing things up a bit and a bit of braging about ones God can then quickly turn that river into the Red Sea.....

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by archer_007


Was that meant to be sarcasm? I really do wonder. If so, very funny

Though it is meant as sarcasm too, it is a scientific theory. There actually is quite some indirect evidence for it!

Let me put it this way:
1. From my view (i.e. there is 0% likelyhood of any divine being around), it is more plausible than Paul truly being God's servant. If there is no God, there are no servants!
2. Of course, apart from the question whether God exists or not, there is the possibility that Paul himself believed he was His servant.
3. Now, what is more likely from a scientific, historical view: Paul being a Roman spy? Or Paul being a converted heathen preaching about God and Jesus.

This question was investigated by Thijs Voskuilen at the University of Groningen. Accompanied by acknowledged professors and theologists, he wrote an interesting book, Alias Paulus, and got an promotion for it.

Do I believe this theory is the truth? No, but it makes more sense then the biblical explination.

The basis of the theory is that is pretty weird that someone preaches to obey the cruel oppressor and pay him taxes.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Stapel
The basis of the theory is that is pretty weird that someone preaches to obey the cruel oppressor and pay him taxes.

actually, Saulus was a revolutionary communist, waiting for the proletarians fo the entire Roman empire to unite


Seriously, he might have tried the people from being killed or he might have benn wellpaid by Rome or he might have been a 'double'-agent....

All more feasible than assuming he was a total nut.

 

[Smidlee]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

Well you seem to think that one person wrote Genesis? I suppose the Bible says that somewhere? In that case the Bible is wrong dead wrong - at least from the textual analysis available to us today. So there's a case of how you shouldn't take it all at face value

[/B]

you still want to debate who wrote Genesis . first the Bible itself doesn't tell who wrote Genesis so you can relax now. According to every historians I ever heard claimed Moses wrote the first five book in the Bible ( they are called the Pentateuehs). As matter of fact a few months ago in the World News ( on ABC) they found a record of Noah's flood ( i believe they said in the city Babylon but not sure) that was written 400 years before MOSES' account in Genesis . they said they thought that Moses was the first to write about the flood but now it proves that wrong. so the historians still thinks Moses who wrote Genesis and now know he wasn't the first to write about the great flood.( it also had other flood written after Noah's flood also) you are the first person I ever heard who doubted Moses wrote Genesis . Historians believe that most of the history in the first five books is true but of course most doesn't believe in the supernatural events that Moses wrote in the Pentateuehs . So I just taking the historians word that Moses wrote the Pentateuehs.
personally I COULD CARE LESS WHO WROTE GENESIS .

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Smidlee

you still want to debate who wrote Genesis . first the Bible itself doesn't tell who wrote Genesis so you can relax now. According to every historians I ever heard claimed Moses wrote the first five book in the Bible ( they are called the Pentateuehs). As matter of fact a few months ago in the World News ( on ABC) they found a record of Noah's flood ( i believe they said in the city Babylon but not sure) that was written 400 years before MOSES' account in Genesis . they said they thought that Moses was the first to write about the flood but now it proves that wrong. so the historians still thinks Moses who wrote Genesis and now know he wasn't the first to write about the great flood.( it also had other flood written after Noah's flood also) you are the first person I ever heard who doubted Moses wrote Genesis . Historians believe that most of the history in the first five books is true but of course most doesn't believe in the supernatural events that Moses wrote in the Pentateuehs . So I just taking the historians word that Moses wrote the Pentateuehs.

hello? what planet do you live on?

Show me ONE reputable scientist who thinks Moses WROTE these books! Just ONE!

Being the EDITOR of the books - that would be a far more reasonable claim! He decidedly did NOT write them (i.e. was the creating / dictated to be God author). Just read them and you will see that quite obviously, several versions of the creation were written at different times with different levels of knowledge - too far apart in time and knowledge to be the original texts from one and the same person!

This is a serious challange: FIND ME HTE SCIENTISTS!!!!!! Not some guy claiming to be one on the known to be at best biased for sensationalism, at worst completely BS broadcasts on the History Channel and so on! I have seen the BBC series and quite some American TV stuff on MY field of expertize and sorry to say but it is BS. So find ame a scientist, I will find his publications then.


Just one!

 

[polymath]

Yeah, there's is no way one man wrote the Pentateuch. That's plain daft!

 

[Hawkster]

The flood story is one that exists in many traditions - predating the bible (as refered to by Smidlee) - indeed recent archealogical investigations have found evidence of a very large flood around much of the near east (india and other areas) much earlier than the bible, which devestated the area and wiped out a large amount of the population (I can't remember exactly but the timing was I think equivalent to the bronze age period in western europe)

From this evidence it appears that the flood story was then carried forward in oral tradition in many cultures around the surrounding lands until being written down and being absorbed into many cultures (e.g. babylonian etc) and probably carried foward into the cultures of the biblical countries. This could be , stresss the could be, the source of the flood story in the bible.

 

[Stapel]

There have been many floods, and there will be many. Nothing divine to it.

 

[polymath]

Bear in mind that after the last Ice Age which ended in what? 9,000 BC? there will have been colossal and terrifying floods from glacial meltwater. No wonder backwards tribesmen must have thought it was God's punishment. It's just a shame that people still believe the stories they made up to explain it. Actually, it's not a shame, it's mindboggling that people still believe nonsense like Noah's Ark.

 

[zippy]

Even more mindboggling to claim that the Ark has been found on mount Ararat, and has survived for 6,000 years

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
"story about all animals on a boat" really could have happened all the animals and food could have fit on the ark

An Ark the size of New York City couldn't hold all the animal, plant, bacterial and fungal species and the food they'd require for forty days and forty nights. There is no way one man and his family built a container of any specifications large enough to hold every species of life. In a month, no less!

The Bible says that there where 2 of each kind. 2 of each kind and food could have fit on a boat that size.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
What do you think God should have done, just sit and do nothing when they where running around haf naked worshipping other gods and in slaving His people? They where not in any way "innocents".

You seem to forget:

1. God supposedly created Man naked.
2. The Jews worshipped other gods and weren't wiped off the face of the Earth.
3. The Jews also enslaved other peoples. No surprise in that area of the world, or at that time.

I guess you don't understand what I meant by "running around haf naked". First the Egyptions where not "wiped off the face of the Earth. The Jews where put into slavery many times because of worshipping other gods, and many other bad things happened to them because of worshipping other gods. They did?

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
The Bible says that sulfur fell from the sky on the city. I remember hearing that the place where the Bible said it happened has the most sulfur then any other place in the world.

Because the sulfur appeared first, THEN they wrote the story. simple logic like this escapes you?

Could be, but I don't think so.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Hmm, no.... There actually is a plausible theory that the Jews went through when the sealevel was low (happesn twice a day). The chasing egyptians (on their 2 attack points chariots ) got stuck in de muddy sea bottom and then drowned when the flood came.

If I would have whitnessed that at the time, and if I would have been a historical writer, I just might have written down there was divine influence!

Why not, I seem to remember that certain English writers ascribed the victory at Agincourt to divine intervention

The sea level gets low two times a day but not low enough for them to walk too the other side. The Bible says that the sea bottom was dry.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


The Bible says that there where 2 of each kind. 2 of each kind and food could have fit on a boat that size.

No. simply: no! too many, far too many.......
Besides, did they all go hungry such a long time?

The sea level gets low two times a day but not low enough for them to walk too the other side. The Bible says that the sea bottom was dry.

you do not need much tactonic sea level chance to have the red sea go so low that crossing it at niptide is marginally possible with rafts... Now try to transport and army with rafts.... or better drive throught the ankle deep water? Yeah, driving is certainly better.... OOPS!

whatever the true story was, it certainly was a natural thing that got blown up into something entirely else by telling and retelling.

 

[De Lorimier]

whatever the true story was, it certainly was a natural thing that got blown up into something entirely else by telling and retelling.

That's organized religion for you baby!

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by De Lorimier

That's organized religion for you baby!

I'd rather say that's human nature!

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
No, I think that if we admitted a God into the equation then we'd have no choice but to think that he is sick, evil, sadistic, whatver [by our standards, of course].

However if the Universe didn't have a Creator, as I believe, then it can't possibly fit any moral standard, right? Nobody shaped it. It just is. It is exactly as you say: "uncaring, without the capacity for human value judgments and/or moralizations."

The reason the world is "sick" is because of the in put of death, when God made the earth there was no death only the choice for death. After they chose death came upon the earth, but the world was a much better place to live in, the flood was a the head start for world to the finish, death. It was people not God who made the earth "sick".

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


The reason the world is "sick" is because of the in put of death, when God made the earth there was no death only the choice for death. After they chose death came upon the earth, but the world was a much better place to live in, the flood was a the head start for world to the finish, death. It was people not God who made the earth "sick".

You take PPs use of 'sick' totally out of context. he said that 'God ... is sick' - meaning, if I got it right, that God is getting pleasure from negative treatment of humans.

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by carlosMM
No. simply: no! too many, far too many.......
Besides, did they all go hungry such a long time?
you do not need much tactonic sea level chance to have the red sea go so low that crossing it at niptide is marginally possible with rafts... Now try to transport and army with rafts.... or better drive throught the ankle deep water? Yeah, driving is certainly better.... OOPS!

whatever the true story was, it certainly was a natural thing that got blown up into something entirely else by telling and retelling. [/B]

Looky http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta42.html