0
   

The Fables of the Bible

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 05:55 pm
@RexRed,
Rex, the bible is God's word.
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 05:58 pm
@Arella Mae,
well my dad's dead so say what you want about him and i don't have any kids

as for my mom, well, again big difference between a living breathing person insulting another living breathing person face to face, if someone was mocking my mom on the internet, i probably wouldn't care
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 09:05 pm
@Arella Mae,
Well then God's word is full of fables... I personally prefer a God that speaks truth rather than deception. Is it necessary to lower God down to the level of book that has obvious questionable credibility?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2010 09:27 pm
@Arella Mae,
I only respect truth and love. If god has foreknowledge there would neither be such errors and ambiguity in the Bible nor would a god of "truth" allow truth to represented by cunningly devised fables.

2 Peter 1:16 KJV
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

WHAT?! The early part of the old testament is full of EXACTLY that!... "cunningly devised fables"...

This same book Arella says, "women should be silent in the church... It is a shame for them to speak..." Perhaps you have spoken out against God's will? (cynical with concern)

Chauvinist garbage. Arella, I am a guy that sexually prefers men, but I am not so blind that when I read that verse in the "bible" about women being "silent", I know in my heart that the verse is an abomination in itself. Is this the perfect word of God? Not hardly...

I leave god in the "god part" of my brain (with fairy tales) yet in the reasoning and rational part of my brain I leave god out of it. When god enters into this part of the brain then people become radicalized, super sensitive and, um, overly religious.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 05:59 pm
@RexRed,
You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, whatever they may be.
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2010 05:34 am
@Arella Mae,
I hope God exists... But I feel more uncertain than ever..
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2010 07:33 pm
@RexRed,
Why are you more uncertain now than ever?
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2010 08:03 pm
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:

Why are you more uncertain now than ever?

No one is a chosen people, to these first and to those after is not equality. I reject the book mostly.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2010 08:20 pm


It is a dogma of establishment science that the tale of the biblical flood is a fairytale or, at most, an aggrandized tale of some local or regional flood. That, however, does not jibe with the facts of the historical record. The flood turns out to have been part and parcel of some larger, solar-system-wide calamity.


In particular, the seven days just prior to the flood are mentioned twice within a short space:

Quote:


Gen. 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights;...

Gen. 7:10 "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth."



These were seven days of intense light, generated by some major cosmic event within our system. The Old Testament contains one other reference to these seven days, i.e. Isaiah 30:26:

Quote:


"...Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days..."



Most interpret this as meaning cramming seven days worth of light into one day. That is wrong; the reference is to the seven days prior to the flood. The reference apparently got translated out of a language which doesn't use articles. It should read "as the light of THE seven days".

It turns out, that the bible claims that Methuselah died in the year of the flood. It may not say so directly, but the ages given in Genesis 5 along with the note that the flood began in the 600'th year of Noah's life (Genesis 7:11) add up that way:

Quote:


Gen. 5:25 -]

"And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years and begat Lamech.

And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years. [i.e. he lived 969 - 187 = 782 years after Lamech's birth];

And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years and begat a son.
And he called his name Noah... [182 + 600 = 782 also...]



Thus we have Methusaleh dying in the year of the flood; seven days prior to the flood...

Louis Ginzburg's seven-volume "Legends of the Jews", the largest body of Midrashim ever translated into German and English to my knowledge, expands upon the laconic tales of the OT.

From Ginzburg's Legends of the Jews, Vol V, page 175:

Quote:


...however, Lekah, Gen. 7.4) BR 3.6 (in the week of mourning for Methuselah, God caused the primordial light to shine).... God did not wish Methuselah to die at the same time as the sinners...



The reference is, again, to Gen. 7.4, which reads:

Quote:


"For yet seven days, and I shall cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights..."



The note that "God did not wish Methusaleh to die at the same time as the sinners" indicates that Methusaleh died at pretty nearly precisely the beginning of the week prior to the flood. The week of "God causing the primordial lights to shine" was the week of intense light before the flood.

What the old books are actually telling us is that there was a stellar blowout of some sort either close to or within our own system at the time of the flood. The blowout was followed by seven days of intense light and radiation, and then the flood itself. Moreover, the signs of the impending disaster were obvious enough for at least one guy, Noah, to take extraordinary precautions.

The ancient (but historical) world knew a number of seven-day light festivals, Hanukkah, the Roman Saturnalia etc. All were ultimately derived from the memory of the seven days prior to the flood.


If this entire deal is a made-up story, then here is a case of the storyteller (isaiah) making extra work for himself with no possible benefit, the detail of the seven days of light being supposedly known amongst the population, and never included in the OT story directly.

Greek and Roman authors, particularly Hesiod and ovid, Chinese authors and others, note that small groups of men and animals survived the flood on high places and on anything which could float for a year. There is no essential contradiction between this and the biblical account. Noah's descendants were probably unaware of anybody else surviving and wrote the story that way.





0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2010 08:22 pm
@RexRed,
The bible mentions two thiefs who got into heaven; it doesn't say anything about any evolutionites getting into heaven...
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2010 08:26 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

The bible mentions two thiefs who got into heaven; it doesn't say anything about any evolutionites getting into heaven...
What two thiefs? Not sure I've read that in the bible.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2010 09:24 pm
@Arella Mae,
My mistake, it was one of the two thieves who were crucified next to Jesus.

That's still one more than the total of evolutionites which the Bible mentions gaining entrance to paradise...
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2010 06:46 am
@gungasnake,
Thank you gungasnake. I appreciate it!
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2010 07:54 am
@gungasnake,
I knew exactly who you meant when you mentioned thieves going into heaven.

Not to disagree with your premise Gun, but, The word is paradise not necessarily heaven, Meaning some go to heaven and some go to paradise. Paradise is usually a place on earth. Also in one place they are called robbers (a different Greek word in the Greek texts of the bible) and in another place they are called malefactors (a different Greek word in the Greek texts of the bible). Duo lesti, duo kakorgai (not sure if i spelled my Greek right from memory).

THEN, on the cross in one place in the bible it says both thieves cast the same in their teeth. Which means, they both condemned Jesus, Where in another place it says one condemned Jesus and another plead forgiveness. So are they robbers or malefactors (Duo lesti or duo kakorgai). A robber stealth fully plans to rob but a malefactor is an evil doer and does not necessarily plan their mischief. If one asked forgiveness why does it say they both cast the same in their teeth?

It says Jesus was in the midst. One is usually in the midst of more than two for Jesus would be in between if there were only two.

Then it says they cut the feet of one THEN cut the feet of another then came to Jesus and he was already dead. Did they cut the feet of one the robber, cover their eyes, run around Jesus, cut the feet of the other then notice Jesus was dead?

So either the bible is completely messed up on this account (ambiguous) or were there four crucified with Jesus?
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2010 08:18 am
@RexRed,
Interpret the story of Jesus and the two thieves any way you want, there's still no mention in the Bible of an evoloser going to heaven.

Adolf Hitler said that most people are more willing to believe a big lie than a little one since they themselves would lie in small things but be ashamed to tell gigantic lies. There is a variant of that idea which salesmen sometimes use to keep their consciences clear i.e. they deliberately tell some sort of a lie so big that nobody could feel sorry for anybody who bought off on it.

That's more or less how I see the situation with evolution and evoloserism. Evolution is so gigantically stupid that nobody could feel sorry for evolosers/evolutionites. I mean, it's basically not compatible with modern mathematics and probability theory or with modern cell biology or population genetics, or anything much at all. That's probably why the Bible doesn't say anything about evolosers going to heaven.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2010 11:19 am
@gungasnake,
Evolution is not a theory to me it is scientifically supported in so many ways. Carbon dating, archaeology, age of the earth, age of the sun, age of the universe, plate tectonics, DNA, Africa, dinosaurs. And what proof does creationism have? The Bible? Yea right... Give me a break. The Bible can't even get the fact that the earth is round straight. Only a fool thinks the heavens and the earth are 6000 years old. Talk about BIG lies... During the so called great flood the pyramids were being built. I don't see no watermark on them...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.36 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 04:20:50