Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not reading God's Word right is just wrong. No talking snakes!
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3428 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 61 of 157 (511273)
06-08-2009 6:48 PM


That is why I discussed the use of the Hebrew words for earth and world in Genesis, looked at all the other clues in Genesis that I mentioned and and analyzed the surrounding context. They also allow for the flood to be regional. Also, As a Christian, with all Scripture inspired by God, I believe that Peter is also a valid source of information.

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by bluescat48, posted 06-08-2009 7:07 PM greentwiga has not replied
 Message 64 by Rahvin, posted 06-08-2009 7:14 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 62 of 157 (511274)
06-08-2009 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by greentwiga
06-08-2009 5:36 PM


Let's redirect away from the flood for a second.
quote:
Exodus
3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
Did Moses or did Moses not have a conversation with a talking shrubbery that, while covered in flames, never actually burned?
I can keep throwing out absurdities from the Bible all day long; from factually disproved or at least completely unsupported historical claims to outright embarrassingly ridiculous nonsense as talking vegetation.
Is the Bible literally true when it claims that God made a bush talk and covered it with flames that didn't burn?
You've shown yourself to be a die-hard apologist willing to bend the most liberal interpretation possible of the Bible to support your worldview, which maintains that both science and the Bible are accurate. I've been in that difficult position before myself, and it requires a lot of mental gymnastics.
If you pick and choose when the Bible is being literal vs. metaphorical, how can you claim that the Bible is historically accurate? Do talking shrubberies really belong in history books? If the flood didn't happen in the same way presented in Genesis, can you really say the Genesis account was accurate? Should we teach the Exodus in history classes, despite the fact that outside of the Bible there is no evidence supporting the Exodus account? What if it were shown that the Exodus story was actually based on a real event, that some tens of Hebrew slaves were kept in an outlying Egyptian settlement, and they escaped? Would you then call Exodus "historically accurate" even though the numbers of the Hebrew population would be completely different by multiple orders of magnitude, with none of the Plagues, no killing of the firstborn, no parting of any sea (Red or Reed or otherwise), and not even a confrontation with any Pharaoh? This is analogous to what you're doing with the Genesis account - you claim that the flood myth is historically accurate because it was based originally on a real event, despite the fact that only certain details tie the Genesis story to the actual event, and the rest is a deluge of exaggeration.
So, is the Bible really historically accurate, or is it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 5:36 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 63 of 157 (511275)
06-08-2009 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by greentwiga
06-08-2009 6:48 PM


with all Scripture inspired by God
The point is, where is the evidence of this?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 6:48 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 64 of 157 (511276)
06-08-2009 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by greentwiga
06-08-2009 6:48 PM


That is why I discussed the use of the Hebrew words for earth and world in Genesis, looked at all the other clues in Genesis that I mentioned and and analyzed the surrounding context. They also allow for the flood to be regional. Also, As a Christian, with all Scripture inspired by God, I believe that Peter is also a valid source of information.
Irrelevant to a discussion as to whether the Bible is historically accurate.
Does Genesis state that there was a world-wide flood that killed every living thing created by God except for the passengers of the Ark, or does it not? Yes, or no?
Does Exodus claim that Moses had a conversation with a fire-proof, burning shrubbery, or does it not? Yes, or no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 6:48 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3428 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 65 of 157 (511278)
06-08-2009 8:09 PM


I only mentioned all scripture is inspired to justify my use, not to insist you believe it. Therefore, I see a regional flood. As for the burning bush, I do not limit myself to natural phenomenon. A. it could have been a miracle. b. It could have been a forceful ejection of gasses where the flames didn't start until a little above the bush. I don't know. There are only three references. There are things that I clearly have no answer for, such as the shadow going back a few steps, or Jesus walking on the water. The Biblical miracle in the case of Moses focuses on saving the people, not on the flood itself. (Heb 11:7) Notice that this passage on Noah also uses Cosmos. All the passage on the burning bush says is Moses calls it a strange sight. To say the burning bush was a miracle does not cause any conflict with evolution or any other key part of science in that any evidence would have been lost long ago. To say that the world wide flood was a miracle does cause major conflicts with the science of Geology.

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 06-09-2009 8:08 AM greentwiga has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 66 of 157 (511312)
06-09-2009 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by greentwiga
06-08-2009 8:09 PM


When you've convinced the evangelical movement behind creationism that Noah's flood was regional you come back and let us know, all right? For starters, why don't you go over to the Was there a worldwide flood? thread and convince Peg that the flood was regional.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by greentwiga, posted 06-08-2009 8:09 PM greentwiga has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by kbertsche, posted 06-09-2009 9:07 PM Percy has replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3428 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 67 of 157 (511318)
06-09-2009 10:22 AM


That was applying Occam's Razor to the Flood interpretation. This is a principal used in science. I am convinced, but I would rather talk to people willing to dialogue on the issue, like Y'all

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 06-09-2009 11:08 AM greentwiga has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 68 of 157 (511325)
06-09-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by greentwiga
06-09-2009 10:22 AM


Please use the reply button just below the message you're replying to.
You're trying to claim that two different things are one and the same when they're plainly not. What the Genesis myth says is one thing. What may actually have happened could be any of a variety of things, including (if we want to be nice to the YEC's) what Genesis actually says.
But there can be no doubt that Genesis recounts a global flood.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 10:22 AM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 12:31 PM Percy has not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3428 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 69 of 157 (511332)
06-09-2009 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Percy
06-09-2009 11:08 AM


I don't find Genesis to be a myth. I find that it accurately preserves events. Though it is a reasonable interpretation to see a Global flood, it is also reasonable to see a regional flood. I have quoted evidence to show that it may even be the better interpretation. I also mentioned Occam's razor to show that the simpler interpretation (causing less conflict elsewhere) is the preferred interpretation in science. One of the problems with the flood story is that it is impossible to build a 450 foot woooden boat. The Bible preserves the fact that Noah's ark was a 450 foot reed boat, the kind built in Sumer. Again, a careful study shows that the Bible is extremely accurate, though the traditional interpretation is not. The thread says no talking snakes. I take that to mean that interpretations that cause major conflicts with science should be examined. My interpretation still leaves Noah's salvation to be a miracle and like Lot, an example of how God can save those who refuse to compromise with other religions but by faith, trust God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 06-09-2009 11:08 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Rahvin, posted 06-09-2009 1:25 PM greentwiga has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 70 of 157 (511355)
06-09-2009 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by greentwiga
06-09-2009 12:31 PM


I don't find Genesis to be a myth. I find that it accurately preserves events.
Really?
quote:
Genesis:
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
God creates light, sufficient to differenciate between "day" and "night," before he creates the sun - the source of the light. Further, the Earth is created before the sun - which we know is incorrect. Stars form before planets.
Is this an accurate preservation of events?
quote:
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
The moon doesn't produce light, it just reflects the light from the sun. We also know that the moon was likely "created" by a collision with another massive body...long, long after the sun would have formed. Certainly not on the same day.
Is this an accurate preservation of events?
quote:
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
God puts the sun, moon and stars "in the firmament," which is described as beign a barrier that separates the "waters above" from the "waters below." But we know that the sun, moon and stars are all in space. "Above" and "below" have no meaning in space, and there is no barrier separating any "waters." The sun, moon and stars are not stuck in some dome-like firmament, but are varying distances away in empty space. Note that some of the stars are actually galaxies, galactic clusters, nebulae, supernovae, and even planets, not stars.
Is this an accurate preservation of events?
quote:
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
God creates whales and other livign things in the ocean, and then the next day creates all land animals and cattle. But we know that whales evolved from land animals - they're mammals, not fish, and they still have vestigial bone structures indicative of their land-mammal ancestry. Whale evolution is extremely well-uderstood and documented...and they didn't come before land animals.
Is this an accurate preservation of events?
quote:
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
God creates Adam from dust, and made him live through some sort of nasal CPR. But we know that human beings evolved from pre-existing animals, sharing a common ancestor with other apes that exist today. Human evolution is very well-understood and considered factual by virtually every biologist, anthropologist, paleontologist, and basically every other scientist who's studied the matter in the world. We didn't come from dust, and there is no magical "breath of life" that makes us live. Our life processes are not dictated by some mystical gas, but are actually a complex set of ongoing interdependant chemical reactions.
Is this an accurate preservation of events?
quote:
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Supposedly god has Adam name every animal in the world. Yet we're still discovering new species all the time, and Adam would have needed to live within walking distance of Australia, Antarctica, the Americas, Europe, and other distant locations, while still remaining in the Garden of Eden, which is established to be near Ethiopia.
Is this an accurate preservation of events?
quote:
2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
God creates a woman from one of Adam's ribs in some magical cloning experiment that also makes the woman biologically distinct from Adam, having two X chromosomes insteaf oa an X and a Y. This is flatly impossible - species do not form spontaneously, and sexuality is not something that spontaneously forms. Sex-based reproduction evolved eons before humanity ever walked the planet. Woman did not come from man.
Is this an accurate preservation of events?
I'm only through Genesis 2, and I've skipped some. There are 50 chapters of Genesis.
Do you really want me to go through the whole thing and point out all of the inaccuracies and outright silly mythological falsehoods?
The Bible, particularly Genesis, makes a poor history book. It contradicts virtually everything we have learned about the world around us. Why should we believe an oral tradition that's a few thousand years old and has absolutely no evidence to back its claims, when we can right now make direct observations that allow us to develop testable models of actual reality?
Or should we take your approach, and "reinterpret" both science and the Bible until they come to an agreement? After all, I suppose God could have made light magically before he made the sun, and the firmament nonsense could mean "space," even though that's not what the word means...right? Evolution could be how god created everything, and the whole "six days" thing and the incorrect order of evolution could all just me metaphor, right?
All you have to do is compeltely ignore what Genesis actually says, and "interpret" it to mean what you wish it said.
quote:
Though it is a reasonable interpretation to see a Global flood, it is also reasonable to see a regional flood.
Are you incapable of reading comprehension, or are you beign dishonest?
There is no room for interpretation in the Genesis flood account unless you completely ignore most of the story. It cannot be "interpreted" as beign an account of a local flood unless you totally ignore the many, many times it repeats the "destroy everything that breathes" mantra. It's not a translation error, because it says the same thing in different ways repetitively throughout the story. You're choosing to ignore the inconvenient bits to make the Bible fit the facts. That's intellectually dishonest. The Genesis account specifically talkes about a world-wide flood. It's not up for debate, it's right there in writing. You use apologetics to assuage the discomfort you feel fromt the cognitive dissonance caused by simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs - that the bible is factually correct, and that science is also accurate. This is one of the most clear cases in the entire Bible where the Bible makes specific claims that are directly contradicted by physical evidence.
I have quoted evidence to show that it may even be the better interpretation.
Bullshit. You've ignored half of the text of the flood story in order to force your square peg into a round hole. I'm not buying what you're selling.
I also mentioned Occam's razor to show that the simpler interpretation (causing less conflict elsewhere) is the preferred interpretation in science.
Occam's Razor still requires that you not ignore evidence. In this case you're ignoring all of the text in the flood story that specifically describes it as a global flood. That's a rather large portion fo the text. Parsimony requires that extraneous terms be eliminated, and states that the explanation that uses the fewest necessary terms is typically the correct one. You are leaving out a rather important necessary term - that the story specifically syas that the flood was world-wide in scope, and that all life on Earth was destroyed save the inhabitants of the Ark. Again, you're trying to force a square peg into a round hole - the Bible is inconsistent with reality. It is not accurate.
One of the problems with the flood story is that it is impossible to build a 450 foot woooden boat. The Bible preserves the fact that Noah's ark was a 450 foot reed boat, the kind built in Sumer. Again, a careful study shows that the Bible is extremely accurate, though the traditional interpretation is not.
Again, you're full of shit. The story talks about a world-wide flood that never ever happened. Period. Whether the boat was made of wood or reeds is irrelevant - how would Noah feed his family and all of the animals for a year floating on his little reed/wood boat? The list of items you need to compeltely ignore to force your square peg into the round hole is staggaring.
The thread says no talking snakes. I take that to mean that interpretations that cause major conflicts with science should be examined. My interpretation still leaves Noah's salvation to be a miracle and like Lot, an example of how God can save those who refuse to compromise with other religions but by faith, trust God.
Your "interpretation" also requires that the Bible say things that it does not say, and not say things that it does. It requires that you discard the actual words of Genesis in favor of your own version of the text.
How "inspired" is a document that seems challenged to get even a single fact right, that describes a global flood when it actually means a local Sumerian flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 12:31 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 3:34 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3428 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 71 of 157 (511391)
06-09-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Rahvin
06-09-2009 1:25 PM


Have you ever tried to communicate with people of another language, culture, and religion? The miscommunications can be hilarious or deeply wounding. I have lived overseas and experienced it all too often. It doesn't matter how the passage most makes sense to us, it matters how the ancient writers would have tried to communicate. We easily, looking back, using our modern American filters can misunderstand. I have tried to go back and look at the possibilities, according to other passages in the Bible, especially in Genesis. Yes they stated words forcefully, such as all that had breath died, but they also said, to clarify that all that had breath in the world/region died. This is typical dramatic wording used elsewhere in the Bible. I believe that it says all that had breath in the region (Sumer) died. I also believe that all the animals of the region, except their representatives on the Ark died. I believe that the word of God is accurate, just interpretations are not, and we are arguing about interpretations. As for your quotes on Genesis 1, I have left that alone since there are too many ways to make it fit or not fit. Foe example, we and the Bible say the sun rises. We know that the earth spins, but we word it from our frame of reference. That doesn't make the Bible insist that the sun circles the earth though you can insist that we have to interpret the Bible that way. Thus, I am very careful about interpreting Gen 1. Just one example, Scientists say that just after the big bang, all was dark. Then they say that sometime later, light suddenly appeared though there was no suns yet. I am not saying that this is the meaning, but just pointing out a possibility of light without the sun. As for making Adam and the beasts out of dust, elsewhere in the Bible, it says that David and beasts that grew in the womb were made out of dust and that we will return to dust. Just a possibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Rahvin, posted 06-09-2009 1:25 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2009 3:38 PM greentwiga has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 157 (511393)
06-09-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by greentwiga
06-09-2009 3:34 PM


So, you're not reading the Bible literally then.
Its cool and all, just don't act like you are.

I prefer the interpretation that god flooded the world with beer, 'cause that would have kicked ass!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 3:34 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 7:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3428 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 73 of 157 (511445)
06-09-2009 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2009 3:38 PM


While driving, I had to go, so I stopped at a hotel in Kenya and asked to use the bathroom. This caused great consternation and they finally decided to charge me $2, a great sum at that time. I was indignant and said, $2 to use the toilet? They looked relieved that I didn't want a bath and said, that is free, it is down the hall. What I said and what they heard were two different things. What the original writer meant and what you assume can be two different things. That is why I want to try to understand what the original writer meant, that is the most literal interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2009 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Rahvin, posted 06-09-2009 7:23 PM greentwiga has replied
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2009 4:31 PM greentwiga has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 74 of 157 (511450)
06-09-2009 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by greentwiga
06-09-2009 7:04 PM


What you're doing, greentwiga, is post hoc reasoning. Rather than reading the Bible and accepting that it says what it says, you're attempting to interpret what it says through the lens of modern science, and then choosing the interpretation of the text that you feel best fits your understanding of the facts.
What you should be doing is analyzing what the Bible says on its own terms (and if that for you means going back to the oldest versions of the text we have, that's fine - but tracing Biblical manuscripts is extremely complicated due to all of the errors in translation or transcription and intentional alterations made over the years), and then comparing what the Bible says with reality.
You're a textbook case of apologetics, bending and twisting your holy book until the actual words contained are meaningless, and it says what you want it to say.
You cannot objectively establish an accurate worldview if you accept a given worldview as inerrant without even critically examining it. You've established a massive bias - rather than molding your understanding of reality to the evidence presented to you, you've latched on to the Bible, and are trying desperately to make your square peg fit into a round hole.
If the Bible is truly a collection of inspired works, and its words are indirectly from an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent deity, shouldn't the Bible then completely and unambiguously match reality? Instead, to make the Bible sort-of, kind-of fit reality, you're forced to completely ignore large portions of the text that disagree with observable physical evidence.
TO me, that's proof positive that the bible is no more accurate as a history text than the Koran, or the Iliad, or any other ancient text. Like Harry Potter, they may refer to real places, events, people, and times, but they are at their heart works of fiction. The reality of the bible doesn't resemble the reality you and I actually live in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 7:04 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by greentwiga, posted 06-09-2009 7:54 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3428 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 75 of 157 (511452)
06-09-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Rahvin
06-09-2009 7:23 PM


I understand where you are coming from. As for my study of the Garden of Eden, at one point, I really liked the Lake Van area. Slowly, I was forced to give it up since it didn't meet the four rivers coming from one source. At that point, I decided that Mt Karacadag was the location, but was sad because Lake Van had a volcano. It was only after I decided on Karacadag that I learned it was a Volcano, and even a better volcano since it is the main type to produce lava fountains which could be seen as a flaming sword (I don't insist on this interpretation but recognize that the flaming sword could be something far different) Then, long after I had decided that Karacadag was the mountain, and that the first farmer, Adam, lived there, I discovered that scientists say the first farmer lived there. I came to my conclusions just by studying the Bible and then discovered the relevant science. I believe everything in the story of the Garden, even the talking serpent, fits reality, without leaving anything out. Some fits scientific reality, and some is a wonderful rejection of other ancient religions in the area, as you would expect the Bible to do, but it all fits. I numbered something close to a hundred clues in the story of the Garden and made sure I addressed them all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Rahvin, posted 06-09-2009 7:23 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024