24
   

The Bible (a discussion)

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 07:09 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Setanta wrote:
You're not paying attention. I don't pay any attention to that lowlife scumbag Frank. This was the post of yours to which i was replying It would probably help at this point to remind you that i do not buy that ludicrous proposition that the bobble is a cohesive, self-referential whole. Therefore, there is no way you can convince me that any part of Genesis intentionally refers to a messiah to come.
Ohhh...Jabba off his feed! Wink
Well, I think you're OK, Frank. I won't let Set or Spendi break up our Jersey thing.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 07:21 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
Well, I think you're OK, Frank. I won't let Set or Spendi break up our Jersey thing.


You guys still wearing those silly jerseys?
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 07:45 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
. . . here's a few examples to start with:

* Adam and Eve versus the evolution of species (including humans)
Have you noticed that the order of appearance of life forms as recorded in Genesis is parallel to the order postulated by science?
As far as Adam and Eve, I assume, as do many, that the human race had an initial pair. So...

As Monterey Jack has pointed out, the examples you gave here are inadequate for making the bible match reality. I'm not sure whether this is because you haven't yet contorted the bible far enough to make it match or whether you just don't have an accurate enough understanding of science and nature to adjust it properly.

However, if I ignore the details and just assume that you will "interpret" the bible to whatever degree necessary to make it fit with the real world, then I have to wonder just what it is about the bible that you're trying to preserve, and just why you think it's worth preserving when it's encapsulated in such a primitive world view.

I also don't buy your argument that the bible was written for the dullest among us. Even I could have written a much more accurate analogy which I could still simplify for the less educated, so I assume a supreme being would be able to do at least as well (but didn't).

What makes you so convinced in the first place that the Bible is divinely inspired? Is it just because it says so in the bible, or do you have some external impetus for believing it?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 09:32 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
re Neologist:
Just a couple of the multifarous points your biblical points don't jibe with the physical evidence:

There were never just an original pair. There would have been a breeding population ofa few hundred pairs, but never just one. Evolutionary biology demonstrates that, by the treces left in the DNA.
Stupid me. I saw the word 'treces' and thought I had missed something. No problem. Some folks are more careful than others. I can live with that.
No original pair? Tell me more about the breeding population of a few hundred pairs. Which ones had descendants? An interesting article from Wikipedia gave this information: "In a letter to the editor of Nature, Rohde et al. stated that under their computer model and assumptions, the identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens would be between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor
MontereyJack wrote:
There is no physical evidence for a worldwide flood. There arenumerous places in the world (New England being one), that show no traces of universal flood deposition layers.

You vastly underestimate the number of different species, from large animals down through birds, insects, even down to the microscopic animals and soil bacteria that exist to keep the biosphere going. Most of them would have died if they were underwater for a month or a year, and the earth would be more barren than the Sahara. Noah had no way to gather them, let alone see a lot of them, and no way to even know they existed. feeding them all for an extended period would have required a couple more arks, let alone gathering a few billion different kinds of foodstuff.

Basically, the flood story doesn't get beyond the realm of a fairy story.
I think I gave a fair explanation of why I believe in the flood account here: http://able2know.org/topic/216546-14#post-5379064

I can't explain it all. I don't believe I need to. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for a flood affecting the entire world of mankind:
>The proliferation of flood myths amongst 100s of ethnic groups.
>Mythologies of Greek, Roman, and other civilizations, lend credence to the stories of Noah's day regarding godlike ones mating with earthlings and bearing hybrid offspring. the Hebrews referred to them as nephelim.
>Remains of animals, some found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly.
As far as sensitive plant and animal species not known by Noah, why would it not be possible for the creator of such an event to sustain them? God's power could have simply zapped the offending humans; instead he required Noah to go through the exercise of ark building. There are object lessons here, not the least of which is that folks for miles around had to know of that crazy Noah and his preaching.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 09:36 pm
@rosborne979,
Thanks for reminding me about Jack. I had not been taking him seriously. I answered him above.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 09:55 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
I also don't buy your argument that the bible was written for the dullest among us. Even I could have written a much more accurate analogy which I could still simplify for the less educated, so I assume a supreme being would be able to do at least as well (but didn't).
I know you're smart. But that is considerably more of an undertaking than you may realize. But The Gospel of Roz does have a certain ring to it. Why not give it a try?
rosborne979 wrote:
What makes you so convinced in the first place that the Bible is divinely inspired? Is it just because it says so in the bible, or do you have some external impetus for believing it?
I would have expected the Bible to claim divine inspiration. The task is to prove for oneself. Part of it involves sifting through the BS nominal christianity has spewed about the scriptures. But each time you discover where the sheep have been fleeced, it strengthens your resolve to go further.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 03:50 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
neologist wrote:
Well, I think you're OK, Frank. I won't let Set or Spendi break up our Jersey thing.
You guys still wearing those silly jerseys?
I keep mine in the closet most of the time.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 04:10 am
@neologist,
I would have thought that by now you knew that i don't consider the bobble to be a coherent collection of self-referential stories and dicta. You have some serious problems with that, too, as for example that the Jews weren't looking to see a messiah come along in the sense that you mean. In its simplest terms, messiah means an anointed one, and was applied, for one example, to Cyrus the Great of Persia. The messianic tradition in Judaism was that a king, of the line of King David, would establish himself in Palestine and bring back the days of Jewish glory. That is not at all the same as some dirty, ragged, wandering teacher, calling himself or being called a rabbi--which is what your boy Jeebus was. The disconnect is apparent in your recent reference to a prophecy of Daniel and your attempt to connect it the scriptural verses in Luke: . . . The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Leaving aside that all biblical prophets were bullshit artists who prophesied concrete future events, far enough in the future that they themselves could not be called on the accuracy of their prophecies--Daniel was speaking of a concrete kingdom which would be powerful enough to destroy all other kingdoms. (A silly and narrow view, but that's another discussion.) In the passage in Luke, your boy Jeebus clearly says that the Kingdom of God is not a real, substantial kingdom in the concrete world, but a state of mind--or a state of grace, if you prefer.

This is where your claims about a coherent text which is self-referential breaks down. The passage in Daniel refers to a concrete reality, the passage in Luke refers to a state of mind--they are not the same thing at all. Similarly, all your references to a messiah in the OT will be references to a king who will re-establish the kingdom of Israel, not a grubby, peripatetic, self-appointed religious teacher. So the connections you allege simply are not there.

By the way, to avoid confusion in the future, if someone responds to what you have written in a reply, the @ neologist immediately above the response is a link which till take you to the post to which that member is responding.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 04:40 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
I also don't buy your argument that the bible was written for the dullest among us. Even I could have written a much more accurate analogy which I could still simplify for the less educated, so I assume a supreme being would be able to do at least as well (but didn't).
I know you're smart. But that is considerably more of an undertaking than you may realize. But The Gospel of Roz does have a certain ring to it. Why not give it a try?

Because it's a waste of time. Elementary school science texts are already written for the least educated and experienced among us, our kids. Those science books may lack the flowery prose of the bible, but they are far far more accurate.

neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
What makes you so convinced in the first place that the Bible is divinely inspired? Is it just because it says so in the bible, or do you have some external impetus for believing it?
I would have expected the Bible to claim divine inspiration. The task is to prove for oneself. Part of it involves sifting through the BS nominal christianity has spewed about the scriptures. But each time you discover where the sheep have been fleeced, it strengthens your resolve to go further.

That didn't really answer the question. Why do you "expect" it? Why do you feel it's your (or anyone's) task to prove it for yourself? I'm trying to understand where your belief that the bible is inspired text comes from. Do you even know?
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 04:51 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
As far as sensitive plant and animal species not known by Noah, why would it not be possible for the creator of such an event to sustain them?

This is another problem with your arguments. Whenever you get stuck explaining something you fall back on magic as the solution, claiming that God could do anything. And while I understand the self-serving and tautological logic of that if you're already a believer, it's a completely useless argument if you're trying to talk to anyone who's not already a believer. So why go through the pretense of trying to rationalize anything in the bible when you could simply whisk away all irrationalities with "God is all powerful and God is mysterious"?

You are being inconsistent in your thought process. You need to either embrace magic and the supernatural and stop trying to make sense of anything, or you need to eschew magic and accept the limits of science and nature. To do both is worse than delusional, it's like confused delusional or something.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 06:57 am
@Setanta,
Why does Setanta have a problem with using the correct terms for people and things?

It's as if he has so little confidence in his argument that he has to support them with distortions of the proper names which carry such a strong tone of ridicule that one senses one might be wasting one's time discussing the matter with him unless one is the new office boy in the company he owns.

The ridicule is a sign of a substantial brick wall ahead.

Notice how he is ignoring the glaring fact that the Bible is the Holy Book of much the most successful culture, up to now, that has ever existed despite only being in existence 0.1% of the time humans are said to have existed. o.05% according to some experts. What's 2 million years between experts eh?

The very words Setanta uses and the machine he transmits them with would not exist without the mysterious effect of this wonderful book on the human beings in one small section of the world.

His refusal to face these simple facts, which he calls "spurious", is the reason he spends so much of his time floundering and flouncing around and selecting tiny fragments from the manuscripts, which he doesn't even know were translated correctly, to suit his subjectively acquired tunnel vision probably deriving from a rejection of Christian teaching on how to organise the sexes to maximum advantage.

Such rejections are always notable for their lack of alternatives which people with tunnel vision never feel called upon to offer as a better way because the rejection actually derives from the trouser zipper and there's no arguing with that because looking for a better way is never even thought of at such points.

MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 07:16 am
@neologist,
For the record, neologist, I don't take you seriously either.
"common ancestor" does not mean ALL ancestors were in common, it just means ONE ancestor's genes spread widely. There were millions of other ancestors at that point also contributing to the rest of the gene pool. So unless your hypothetical Eve had a few million husbands, that argument just doesn't work.

Siumilarly with your other points. Myths are myths. They're teaching stories. Tieing them to actual physical events or realities is hopelessly unproductive. Dlo you think the sun is actually carried around the sky by some guy in a chariot? Picking and choosing bits of myths and saying this one has a little bit of truth in it is really cherry-picking the evidence. Please point out some nephel that exists today, or that you can demonstrate existed in the last four thousand years, and that agument may hold some water.

Flood myths tend to exist where there are floods (notice the plural), in cultures near large rivers that flood regularly (Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, for example), or near an ocean or sea. Cultures far away from such locations or out of contact with them, don't have those myths.
There is, further, no universal flood deposition layer that occurs in all, or even most, of the world's physical stratigraphy. There simply isn't. I can tell you from personal experience that there isn't.

If you're going to claim that different faunal and floral assemblages on different continents, down to the submicroscopic level, which would have perished entirely if submerged for any length of time, were somehow miraculously kept alive by god's intervention in the millions of cases that would need to have happened, Noah would not have been needed at all, and there were no Noahs amongst the Maya, or in the Great Rift Valley. Your attempted explanation is simply pulling a rabbit out of a hat. As ros says, if you're going to argue magic, you're not dealing with the reality.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 08:42 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Flood myths tend to exist where there are floods (notice the plural), in cultures near large rivers that flood regularly (Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, for example), or near an ocean or sea. Cultures far away from such locations or out of contact with them, don't have those myths.

And indeed, the flood myth originates from Mesopotamia, the area "between the rivers" Tigris and Euphrates. One can easily imagine a long period of rains over the mountains of modern Anatolia and Iran, leading to a massive flood of the Mesopotamian plain, with catastrophic consequences for the Sumerians or their ancestors.

Another example of how geography may determine mythology, is that Genesis imported the Babylonian idea that the first humans were made of clay by the gods. Clay was the only building material in Mesopotamia. They built everything from clay there: houses, temples, statues, books, toys... So it was logical for them to assume that the gods would have made man from clay.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 08:50 am
And while we're aat it, the time line in Genesis that you say squares with science, and I believe you're including evolution in that. No, it doesn't.
Science and the physical evidence says:
big bang>stars>our sun (a comparatively-late-formed star)>the earth>the moon (when it was captured by the earth)>marine animals>animals that creepeth and crawleth>birds.

Genesis says:
the earth>the sun>the heavens i.e. the atmosphere above us>the water above the heavens (i.e. the clouds and rain)>the moon and stars (in the atmosphere below the clouds) on the fourth day>>fish>birds>land animals.

It conflates things that happened millions and billions of years apart, inescapably is talking about a very small, geocentric "univers", and gets the order things happened in completely twisted.

It is simply not av ersion of science written for people who don't know much. It's rather like the surveys that show that people who listen to Fox News know less about what's going on in the world after they listen to Fox than they did before they listened. Fox is providing disinformation. Genesis is also.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 10:40 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Why does Setanta have a problem with using the correct terms for people and things?

It's as if he has so little confidence in his argument that he has to support them with distortions of the proper names which carry such a strong tone of ridicule that one senses one might be wasting one's time discussing the matter with him unless one is the new office boy in the company he owns.

The ridicule is a sign of a substantial brick wall ahead. . .
I like Set. He likes dogs, coffee, and imitation Pepsi. I'm sure he is a good neighbor. Besides, this discussion is not about me or any of us. It is about an attempt to focus on the truth.

His ridicule is a form of ad hominem I choose to ignore because he generally sprinkles in genuine objections. For instance, he embraced an error regarding the kingdom that has been propagated by nominal christians for centuries, namely that somehow the kingdom is a state of mind rather than an actual government. It's a reasonable misconception. I can't fault him for not recognizing the statement by Jesus in the so called Lord's Prayer " ... Thy kingdom come . . ." to be obviously a real government. Of course, then Jesus' statement about the kingdom being in the midst of his listeners can be correctly understood to mean that he, as the representative of the kingdom, is in their midst. That makes more sense, since many of those present had no inclination to embrace Jesus' teachings.

The real losers in this forum are those who spout the ridicule without supporting argument.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 10:56 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
. .. By the way, to avoid confusion in the future, if someone responds to what you have written in a reply, the @ neologist immediately above the response is a link which till take you to the post to which that member is responding.
Sheesh! sorry about that. I missed it while trying to use my cell phone.

And, of course, I realize you don't view the Bible as I do. You don't even recognize its common name. So, I referenced the messiah without specifying the messiah. Sorry! That does not change Jesus' role in the outworking of God's purpose.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 11:03 am
@neologist,
If does, however, invalidate all of your claims about OT references to Jeebus.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 11:21 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
I would have expected the Bible to claim divine inspiration. The task is to prove for oneself. Part of it involves sifting through the BS nominal christianity has spewed about the scriptures. But each time you discover where the sheep have been fleeced, it strengthens your resolve to go further.
That didn't really answer the question. Why do you "expect" it? Why do you feel it's your (or anyone's) task to prove it for yourself? I'm trying to understand where your belief that the bible is inspired text comes from. Do you even know?
Why do I expect it? People have been willing to die for it. Should they be admired or pitied? Golly gee! Maybe I should check the depth of this river before I leap in with both feet.

I conduct regular soundings.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 11:38 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
As far as sensitive plant and animal species not known by Noah, why would it not be possible for the creator of such an event to sustain them?

This is another problem with your arguments. Whenever you get stuck explaining something you fall back on magic as the solution, claiming that God could do anything. And while I understand the self-serving and tautological logic of that if you're already a believer, it's a completely useless argument if you're trying to talk to anyone who's not already a believer. So why go through the pretense of trying to rationalize anything in the bible when you could simply whisk away all irrationalities with "God is all powerful and God is mysterious"?

You are being inconsistent in your thought process. You need to either embrace magic and the supernatural and stop trying to make sense of anything, or you need to eschew magic and accept the limits of science and nature. To do both is worse than delusional, it's like confused delusional or something.
Yeah. I can hear Jehovah now directing Moses to write how Noah took pains to protect the varroa mite, so its descendants may affect future bees. And what about those microorganisms? Should we explain those as well? That would be real meaningful to ancient farmers. Oh! How about including instructions for making light bulbs? That would be useful. . .

There is only one reason for the Bible: to explain how God intends to fulfill his purpose for mankind. It's already over 1000 pages. How long do you want it to be?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 11:39 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
If does, however, invalidate all of your claims about OT references to Jeebus.
Here's another one for you. Jesus is the one quoted as speaking in Proverbs chapter 8.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 12:31:48