Message 166 of 230 (507573) 05-06-2009 1:37 PM

Reply to: Message 165 by rcmemphis 05-06-2009 11:48 AM

However, it is also possible, on the flip side, that there could be another meaning to the text, whatever it may be, that would allow it to be true. Any one person can establish doubt about a statement or event, but without proving it true or false, you can only make interpretations.

I don't pretend to be an expert in science or religion. If theory or theology are not the words you prefer, then use your own. You should still be able to understand my point of view.

Unfortunately, opinions will be the closest things to truths on this subject. This is my opinion, you don't have to agree, but that doesn't make me or anyone else wrong...or right.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.

Message 167 of 230 (507581) 05-06-2009 2:27 PM

Reply to: Message 165 by rcmemphis 05-06-2009 11:48 AM

Now it came about that men began to multiply over the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them. These sons of God saw that girls were beautiful, and they took them as wives as they chose. So then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man indefinitely, because in his waywardness he is corrupt. He has a hundred and twenty more years remaining." Arrogant men were on the earth in those days - and also afterwards - when these sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the tyrants of old, men of reputation. The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

Message 170 of 230 (508366) 05-12-2009 6:59 PM

Reply to: Message 164 by Theodoric 05-05-2009 11:39 PM

I agree & will also be one of the "we."

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Message 172 of 230 (513011) 06-23-2009 8:50 PM

Reply to: Message 7 by doctrbill 12-05-2002 10:07 PM

"Then the LORD said, My Spirit shall not forever remain in man since he has gone astray; he is flesh, I will allow him another one hundred and twenty years." Modern Language Bible (formerly known as The Berkeley Version)

"Then Jehovah said, 'My Spirit must not forever be disgraced in man, wholly evil as he is. I will give him 120 years to mend his ways.'" Living Bible

I take acception to DB's reply concerning translations of "God's" limit placed upon man's lifespan.
The second quote above is a bit of a stretch from the first and others, and seriously implies interpolation.
In other words, DB's claim suggests that the statement 120 years is meaningless because, being determined by each person's age, "another 120 years" means various age limits to different people.
I can understand minor mistakes in translation, but some Bibles are so wide of the mark, it is patently clear they are simply proselytizing a preconceived agenda devoid of logic and reason.
The fact remains that many have survived the 120 barrier, both biblical characters and actual people.
Not that I believe anything in the Bible, other than a few correct geographical locations and a few reigns.
Given the errors, contradictions, falsities and downright wrong information contained in the Bible (supposedly inspired by a god), it is nothing less than hogwash, really, promulgated for the sole purpose of CONTROL!

Message 173 of 230 (513013) 06-23-2009 10:09 PM

Reply to: Message 172 by nick4693 06-23-2009 8:50 PM

It can be confusing, early in the game, when one reads so many posts from so many people and then tries to recall who said what; BUT - I don't know how you got all that from what I wrote.

I would agree, in essence, although I think there is always a reason, even if the reason is that they are unreasonable. It is more often likely, I think, that they work to support a sectarian tradition, foster a different agenda, or please their target audience/market.

I would, in general, agree with everything you have said. On the other hand, I find the Bible itself to be an OK book. That's more than I can say for many of its' translators and interpreters. :D

And again: Welcome to the Forum.

Message 174 of 230 (513017) 06-24-2009 1:20 AM

Reply to: Message 173 by doctrbill 06-23-2009 10:09 PM

Many thanks for the warm welcome!

As I said, and I'm sure that many are aware of this, there are many interpolations contained in the Bible entered by overzealous scribes with an agenda, that one is left wondering what the original documents actually stated.

But, I am an avowed unbeliever, especially since that horrific tsunami in SE Asia on December 26, 2004 -- my epiphany -- which opened my eyes, and I came out of the closet of doubt and made a firm stand.

Up until that time, I had been a fence-straddler. No more!

I seriously studied and researched religion -- mainly christianity, because I was born into a christian family -- reading the Bible from cover-to-cover, though I cannot quote chapter and verse on every subject it contains. My conclusion was that ALL religions, bar none, are simply cults. Actually, there is one exception -- Islam, which is an ideology, and more closely resembles a terrorist organization, which is not surprising, given its start as one back around 610 CE.
Now, I, too, have an agenda, and proselytize against religion -- not just christianity -- every chance I get.

Of one thing I am sure -- there are a lot of gullible people out there, who will accept and believe anything if it makes them feel good.

There are so many anomalies in the Bible that quoting from it, as christians are wont to do, simply places them in a very weakened position.

The 120-year subject, of course, is really neither here nor there, given the other more important blatant errors contained within its pages, that can be used to discredit this spurious compendium.
Thanks again!

Nick

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.

Message 175 of 230 (513019) 06-24-2009 1:31 AM

Reply to: Message 173 by doctrbill 06-23-2009 10:09 PM

Don't know how I came to write the word "acception" instead of "exception" in my posting. Apologies!
Must have been one of those overzealous scribes putting in his two cents' worth.

Nick

Message 176 of 230 (513037) 06-24-2009 10:39 AM

Reply to: Message 174 by nick4693 06-24-2009 1:20 AM

There are, as you say, blatant errors contained in the Bible but that is to be expected of a collection going back to antiquity. What is more disturbing, I think, are the many goofy interpretations which fail to consider an alternative understanding, like the case of Genesis 6:3.

The Geneva Bible, published in 1568, contains a footnote which purports to explain the "120 years" as

quote:

---

"Which time span God gave man to repent before he would destroy the earth,"

---

A better translation, I think, would be "120 days," i.e. four (4) months. About the same amount of time which George "God speaks through me" Bush gave the Iraqis (in the same valley, BTW) to fish-or-cut-bait.

The key here involves translation of the Hebrew word snh {H8132}: to change, (including: to change one's clothing) or, repeat; as in repeat an action.

This word is also translated "sleep," thus, might well be understood to mean: "cycle" (as in sleep cycle) and thus might be understood as a change of day; - i.e "120 cycles" rather than "120 years." Even if it means a change of month, which I believe it does in Genesis 5, it would still amount to only "10 years" not "120 years." But I think 10 years is too much. A lot can happen in 10 years!

I prefer "120 days" because I think four months is a reasonable amount of time to give your enemy to change his ways before you take action to destroy him (as Bush did to Saddam).

I think that if the story were to read: "I'm giving you 120 days to change your ways," then it would be a perfectly normal and ultimately understandable story element which is not only quasi-scientific (by linguistic analysis) but also conforms to common sense, and answers to real life experience.

The Bible is just a book. The problem is people who "believe in" the Bible as if it were God incarnate, their only connection to the divine. And yes, it is true that modern translations of the Bible often bear little resemblance to the ancient script.

Bible Champion. :D

Message 177 of 230 (513050) 06-24-2009 1:42 PM

Reply to: Message 7 by doctrbill 12-05-2002 10:07 PM

A good silly example is Cain's wife.

Untill there's a bible study, including Hebrew or Greek interpretations, I rarely treat these claims as having credence. Especially when we hear such things as "if God is all-loving".

:rolleyes:.

Does God love sin. :rolleyes:

I hate silly hypotheticals aswell. a rock too....yawn.......heavy......snore......

Message 178 of 230 (513070) 06-24-2009 3:13 PM

Reply to: Message 177 by mike the wiz 06-24-2009 1:42 PM

What about Cain's wife?

I'd be interested to know your take on that.

Sincerely,

Message 180 of 230 (513168) 06-25-2009 6:43 PM

Reply to: Message 178 by doctrbill 06-24-2009 3:13 PM

The only possible way to get around the obvious problem, while still adhering to the "inerrancy" of it, is to come to the inescapable conclusion that Cain was doing the hanky panky with his sister.

I'd love to hear any and all readers coming up with an alternative conclusion. That ought to be fun watching the squirming and wriggling.