Is the Bible acceptable?

People of "faith" need to stop trying to support their "faith" with "fact." Just have one's "faith" and keep it to yourselves. Furthermore, the English Bible is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew Tanakh. If it were an accurate translation those who read the Bible would not be constantly trying to take it "literally," but would instead learn to comprehend what is being conveyed in a figurative, metaphorical, proverbial sense. For example:
In the Gen. 1 creation account the author describes the plants and trees sprouting on the third day of creation, but it is not until the fourth day of creation that the sun and moon come into play. If you take what is conveyed by the author "literally" the author is rendered a fool, and the Deity appears rather foolish as well. Though the author of this ancient text was perhaps more primitive than we now perceive ourselves, I doubt seriously that he/she was a fool.
Give it some thought;
Ger

Science deals with actual, real and true facts. Science may not fully comprehend these facts, but the facts truely exist regardless of how much science is capable of explaining them. Thus, the word "theory" is employed regarding the capability of sciene to explain the facts. Gravity is a natural force of nature that we all experience. Science attempts to explain the force of gravity with a "theory of gravity." Evolution is a naturally occuring phenomena, and science attempts to explain the phenomena of evolution with a "theory of evolution."Religion deals with "faith" that does not require an explanation based on facts. Jesus was born of a virgin and walked on water and rose the dead. There is no empirical evidence to support such claims and so Religion must take the claims that these events occured on "faith."At this point in time the above is the best I can do to explain the difference between "science & facts" and "religion & faith."
Regards;
Ger

Dear Creationists; let's resolve these issues:When a human being suspends disbelief and abandons the mental faculty of reason, for that person anything is possible. It is very difficult to have a rational discussion with such an individual.The English Holy Bible and the two very different creation accounts found at the beginning of that Scripture comprise the only source of the Creationist’s concept of life originating on planet earth.Based on the second creation account of the English Bible the Creationist believes that human beings originated from one immortal, androgynous, human-like being {orthodox: Adam). An individual “woman” {orthodox: Eve} was supposedly built from “Adam.” A talking serpent then supposedly tricked “Eve” into partaking of the knowledge of good and evil, which she gives also to “Adam,” thus breaking God’s command. This causes God to expel “Adam & Eve” from the Garden of Eden, an act {orthodox: The Fall} that causes mortality, i.e. death, to enter the world. Pauline Christianity is founded upon this second myth-like creation account (see, Romans 5:12”14).The Hebrew version of this second creation account, however, does not support the Greek & English translations of the Heb. Tanakh {Old Testament).Furthermore, this myth-like version of the second creation account does not correspond with the first creation account. Whereas the second creation account expressed in the English Holy Bible asserts that “Adam”, i.e. a man, created mortal existence on planet earth by disobeying God’s command, the first creation account states that God created mortal existence on planet earth, blessed it, and said to it, “Go forth and multiply” {see, Gen. 1:22 & 28). In the first creation account the plants and trees are brought into being on the third day of creation, and humanity is brought into being on the sixth day of creation. According to the second creation account, however, the plants, herbs, and tree come into being at the same time the human archetype.For those Creationists who have indeed suspended their disbelief and abandoned their mental power of reason, we really need to resolve these issues in your Holy Bible before we begin discussing the scientific merits of the Bible or attempt to teach Creationism to our children.Ger

I have a couple questions:Were these biblical "kinds" mortal or immortal creatures when God told the waters, heavens, and earth to bring them forth (Gen. 1:20 & 24)?How does this first creation account correspond to the second creation account?Ger

iano: You concluded by saying: There is no "application of reason" in anything you have shared.Gen. 1:11 & 12 in the English Bible clearly states that the earth brought forth grasses, herbs, and trees upon the earth. That means precisely what it says. To pretend that the text is stating 'every kind except those kinds that will be cultivated by humans' is not a rational or honest reading of the text. And, if we look only at the term "trees" referred to in Gen. 1:11 & 12, trees are not mention in the second creation account until Gen. 2:9; after the garden of Eden has been established.I am a critic of Creationism; I am not a critic of the Heb. Tanakh {Old Testament).Ger

grape2vine: You wrote In the Heb. Tanakh all mortal animals are referred to as nepesh chayah=breathing mortal creatures. At the conclusion of Gen. 2:7 "Adam" is a nepesh chayah=breathing mortal creature. All of the beasts of the field and fowl of the air mentioned in Gen. 2:19 are referred to as nepesh chayah=breathing mortal creatures. You do not get it both ways; humans cannot be instructed to "be fruitful and multiply" and be immortal as well. As you say, "things would run amuck."According to science, this planet and all things associated with it are subject to eventual demise. That appears to be how the entire universe works.Regards;
Ger

grape2vine: You state I will check the thread you referred me to. It is quite long and it will take me a little time to go through it. For now, however, I would like to address what you are trying to tell me.As a Heb. clause nepesh chayah is only used to describe "mortal creatures." It is never used to describe a mythical immortal being.You say that "Adam was not instructed to be fruitful and multiply until after he became mortal." So, according to you, when did "Adam" become mortal?If "Adam" became mortal after "The Fall", then when did God "bless them,and say 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it'."? God does not say "fill the garden and subdue it." Only in Gen. 3:23 does the Eden Text state that "Adam" is sent from the garden to till the ground from which he was taken. Remember, "Adam" was brought into being {at least partially}prior to there even being a Garden in Eden.I'll go check out that other thread now.
Regards;
Ger

iano: I apologize. Let me take a moment and readdress what you wrote. I will respond in a few minutes.Again; I apologize.
Ger

iano: You wrote To say that the human species brought mortality into the world is to suggest that man, not God, created the mortal world in which we live. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support such an idea.To say that man's disobedience caused death to come into the world is to suggest that at some time in the past mankind was once immortal. Therefore, biblically speaking, God blessed mankind and said "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it" after mankind was disobedient. That does not make any sense. God does not say, "Fill the garden and subdue it."You wrote: According to the Biblical Heb. written script, the only instances when a nachash=snake of the field {Gen. 3:1} may be depicted as speaking {any language} is when it is depicted mythically or allegorically{i.e. in proverb). In reality, the reality which God is said to have created, "hanachash=the serpent" of "hasadeh=the field" has never had the physical ability to form oral discourse. Therefore, it is irrational to suggest that a serpent of the field was talking to humans at some time in the distant past.The term "reasoning" means "to form conclusions from facts."Regard;
Ger

iano asks: Somewhere in Gen. 2:4 -- 3:24 Eden creation account the sixth day of creation from Gen. 1:24 -- 1:31 must come to a conclusion. At some point God must rest from his creative efforts on the seventh day. Cursing serpents and expelling unruly humans does not amount to "rest." This suggests that if we are going to attempt to say that the Gen. 1 sixth day of creation concluded at the end of Gen. chapter 2, then the seventh day of rest never occured. Gen. 3:1 does not even slightly alluded to any time passing between Gen. 2:25 and 3:1. Furthermore, the seventh day of rest, as important to the Israelites as it is, would have at least been mentioned if indeed God had rested after Gen. 2:25.It is also important to mention that "the human archetype" is brought into being {Gen. 2:7} prior to the Garden in Eden being established {Gen.2:8). This means {because the Text states it} that "the human archetype" was initially made manifest "from the dust of the ground of the field" outside the Garden in Eden. Gen. 3:23 states that God sends the human archetype from the Garden of Eden "to till the ground from which he was taken." Gen. 2:5 clearly states that humans, when fully created, were "to till the ground."The question is, At what point in the Eden Narrative does Gen. 1:28 come into play; "God blessed them"! "and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it'." God does not say, 'fill the garden and subdue it.'You tell me 'where the contradiction exists.'Regards;
Ger

iano asks: I would use the biblical Hebrew the author of the Eden Narrative employed. By doing so a savvy reader or student would realize that the "talking serpent" occurred while the human archetype was under the influence of the tardemah=deep sleep which began in Gen. 2:21 and ends in Gen. 3:21. The author is employing the language of proverbs, allegories, metaphors. The author of the Eden Narrative is not describing "an actual serpent of the field speaking to humans."For example: an actual bear has never said, "Only you can prevent forest fires." Only an allegorical/proverbial bear can speak English.Do you see what I am driving at?Regards;
Ger

iano writes: iano, you are not understanding correctly. "a talking serpent of the field" indicates that the author is writing allegorically/in proverb. The ancient author of the Eden Narrative lived in "the field" with "the serpent." The ancient author of the Eden Text knew more about "serpents" than we can imagine. Why? Because his life depended upon it. The wilderness, the steppe, is not a place where fools survive very long. In reality there is no such thing as a "talking snake." I don't know how to make that any clearer. If the author of a creation account is conveying the Deity creating the real world, then why would the author inject into that creation account unreal, fanciful, mythical characters or subjects. The ancient Hebrew authors of wisdom often employ maletzah=metaphor and chiydah=riddle, but never the naturally absurd. The focus of the Eden Narrative is "plants, herbs, the ground, fields, trees, rivers, etc." The human archetype begins as a part of reality, and ends as a part of reality. Read the Text very carefully and you will notice what I am trying to share with you.Belief has nothing to do with the Heb. Eden Text. The author is trying to help us understand something that is very important to us.Do you see what I am conveying?
Ger

iano:Let's go to the very beginning of the Eden Narrative. Gen. 2:4 states:
"These are the human generations of the heavens and the earth in the day that the yhwh God made the earth and the heavens."The Heb. feminine plural noun "toledot" is only used to describe "human genealogies" throughout the Heb. Tanakh. It is derived from the masculine noun "yeled=child, son, boy, youth."Heb. ">eretz" is the feminine noun for "planet earth" when used in conjunction with the masculine plural noun "shamiym" meaning "heavens."According to the author the Deity is not creating or making a mythical environment. Since a "talking serpent" does not trigger your disbelief, perhaps the five rivers which designate where the Garden of Eden is located will.The first unnamed river would be "the river of life" which flows from God's lofty abode. This first river is the headwaters of the four rivers that flow beyond the Garden of Eden. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers flow to the Persian Gulf to this day, and they do not now and have never been literally fed by one even mighter river. Furthermore, real and true rivers do not originate in the manner that the author describes. Rivers are fed by tributaries that follow gravity until, as a mighty river, they flow into the sea. That happens to be an emperical fact. Therefore, the four rivers of Eden are being described as flowing contrary to natural rivers. Thus the author again makes it clear that he is writing in allegorical-proverbial form.Talking serpents of the field & rivers that originate and flow contrary to the force of gravity should trigger in your mind that the author is trying to reach your mind through metaphor and riddle.By the way; did you read where I pointed out the contradiction between Gen. 1:28 and the Eden Narrative?Regards;
Ger

Grape2vine wrote I do not believe you are correct regarding the Nile; what are the names of the rivers that the Nile delta supposedly creates? And if there are "many instances" where a mighty river becomes four slightly less might rivers I am very interested in those locations. I know of none.Furthermore, the author of the Eden Narrative lived at a time when the Tigris and Euphrates rivers existed in much the same manner that they continue to exist today. Neither the Tigris or Euphrates rivers originate from one even mightier river. These two rivers originate from very different locations high in the mountains of the land we now call Turkey.The author of the Eden Narrative appears to be describing "Eden" as The Holy Mountain of God {see Ezekiel 28:13 & 14). It is on this Holy Mountain of God that the "Garden in Eden" was established, and the human archetype was placed (Gen. 2:8). The narrative is clearly proverbial, allegorical, metaphorical, and prophetic.Regards;
Ger

grape2vine: Yes. Eden is the high ground, the mountain of God. Yes, it is allegorical. Therefore, is it not quite likely that the entire Eden Narrative (Gen. 2:4--3:24) is also allegorical?Just to clarify; I did not mean to say that the rivers were flowing uphill. I was trying to say that they are originating in reverse of natual river heads. The one unnamed river {the river of life, I suspect} flows from Eden {mt. of God} into the garden and from the garden four rivers (the Tigris & Euphrates being two of them} flow out into the world.We seem to be in agreement. But, please reply to this question: Therefore, is it not quite likely that the entire Eden Narrative (Gen. 2:4--3:24) is also allegorical?Regards;
Ger