Genesis 'happened' before written word existed. Not to mention people back then didn't write unbiased historical accounts. Do you think primitive man would write about WWII the same way we did? Or would it be more of a one sided argument.

I'm not saying that the bible is false, of course it has historical foundations. There are references from early mesepotamia to a 'great flood' and the people that lived before it. And of course the Exodus had to happen, but don't you think some fantastical elements might have been added on?

The Gospels don't always agree either, one says Judas hung himself, another says he bought a farm and something crushed him. Mathew says the dead got up out of the graves and walked around for all to see after the crucifixion, and no other gospel seems to mention such an extraordinary feat.

Not to mention that it was a long time between the time the events took place and when somebody had a brilliant idea to write them down. Ever play broken telephone?

The only way Genesis, if it is anything but a poem, can make sense is if you add pieces of information yourself. Cain went into the land of nod and knew his wife. If there was only Cain and Abel, and Adam and Eve, where the fuck did she come from? The only explanation is that there is an unmentioned geneology, so Adam and Eve kept fucking or Cain/Abel thought there mom looked a little hot one day...

Information is only as credible as its source, so why take the bible litteraly with such questionable sources?

Finally an intelligent post . That was good man and well thought out and crap not just another christianity is stupid and junk like that post. I believe in God and jesus all all that stuff but I dont think the bible should be taken literally. In additon the majority of christians do not take the bible literally. It is mainly evangelical christians who do so. The bible does have some literal things in it but it also has many allegories and stories with a message in it. What you need to get from the bible is not a history of the world but the message of love for one another and forgiveness.

Thank you. I have just seen a rise in the number of people telling me about the rapture, and how the bible is 100% accurate which is far from the truth. I have nothing against Christianity when it comes to ones faith, because people need faith. Its when politics get introduced to faith that everything crumbles.

I know the bible has far fewer contradictions than people proclaim. Most of the 'contradictions' are passages taken out of context or minor translation errors.

I have seen many people quote the bible saying "I am God, I do not tempt" or something to that effect. And then quote the bible saying "God tempted Abraham..." But if you check the concordance, the hebrew word for tempt is the same for test, so most likely "God TESTED Abraham"

The whole Lucifer fuck up in Isaiah 14 is a perfect example of translation gone wrong. Lucifer is a latin word meaning 'light bringer' (or light bearer, most translations come to one of these), but the original passage was written in hebrew. In place of 'Lucifer' they have "morning star", or 'Venus'. Which was most likely used as an analogy for something that gives off light. The Jews take it as a reference to a fallen babylonian king, not satan. In fact hell is never described in the bible, the description of fire and brimstone etc. comes from the fictional book "Inferno" by Dante.

I believe the bible is an amazing work, but I'm curious as to why so many want to take it word for word?

Bump

While I'm posting I might as well tell you that blueletterbible.org is an amazing site for comparing the translations of the bible. It even has the hebrew and greek versions where they are available.

The bible these days is more of hindrance than help in both rationality and argumentation.

Intelligent Design is the way forward for all theists, if they are to stand up to logic and reason.

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Intelligent Design is the way forward for all theists, if they are to stand up to logic and reason.

Some would consider the design of this universe anything BUT intellegent, at least not in the ordered sense. War, AIDS and spontaneous combustion are not good examples of God Intellegently Designing our dear little blue planet.

The Goddess Prevails, hail Eris. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Sempre Solipsist:

Some would consider the design of this universe anything BUT intellegent, at least not in the ordered sense. War, AIDS and spontaneous combustion are not good examples of God Intellegently Designing our dear little blue planet.

Whoever said the Creator had to be a personal Creator?

Your examples are the result of humanity, not mystical phenomena...

Excellent Point, however, you still have yet to show where the "intellegence" comes in.

God to me is not a personfied deity. The raw material that everything is made of, at some time, had to pop out of nothing. There is no other way. Sciences best guess (Big Bang Theory, interestingly enough was proposed by a Christian, Hubble just got credit for confirming it two years later) is no better or different from religions best guess. The Big Bang Theory is something from nothing, it supports religion entirely. So whatever set it off, keepts natural law, and keeps everything in motion is God to me.

But God cannot be like us, because then we are stuck in a circular argument "What made god, then what made that, then what made that..." So a 'divine being' is not that implausible, you just need a proper defenition.

And regarding the fuck ups of the world, that is mans fault. Regardless of weather there is a God or not, we are still responsible for our actions. What are you expecting, divine intervention? That would infringe on free will.

Although I do not believe that giving a gun to a child, letting him blow the head off another child, and then blaming it on the childs free will is right, we have developed far enough and experimented enough to get past the coming of age, we know what were doing, blaming the hand that feeds us is weak.

quote:Originally posted by Sempre Solipsist:

Excellent Point, however, you still have yet to show where the "intellegence" comes in.

The intelligence of the intrinsic order of planetary movements to the complicated enzymes making up the human body. To suppose that the precise amino acids sequence of an efficient enzyme is the result of chance is to risk looking illogical.

To begin life as we know it, cells would need to have a genetic program of DNA or RNA. They would need to protect their genome from degradation from outside with a lipid membrane and they would need the machinery to transform chemical energy into metabolic energy to replicate. This machinery requires pre-existing proteins to catalyse the reactions of metabolism and replication. And the synthesis of proteins requires other pre-existing proteins and a small factory called the ribosome. Take away any of these components and life doesn't exist. All this complexity is required at the same time and place for the most simple and single-celled life to exist.

quote:Originally posted by mixedbloods:

But God cannot be like us, because then we are stuck in a circular argument "What made god, then what made that, then what made that..." So a 'divine being' is not that implausible, you just need a proper defenition.

You make fine points but a God can logically exist outside of the parameters of time & space.

What actually makes the eternity of Heaven etc plausible is how time is confined to the laws of the universe and therefore confined to within.

There is no physical presence in Heaven (as Heaven is spiritual and external to the physical laws governing space.) Thus the laws of physics do not apply to Heaven/God. Heaven is perhaps a Utopia because of its segregation from all laws, it is literally a place of unconditional liberty.

quote:Originally posted by Sempre Solipsist:

Some would consider the design of this universe anything BUT intellegent, at least not in the ordered sense. War, AIDS and spontaneous combustion are not good examples of God Intellegently Designing our dear little blue planet.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

To me the idea of the AIDS and cancer and spontanious combustion do show sigsn of intelligence. I dont know too much about spontanious combustion so I wont talk about it. But if it were not for things like AIDS and caner and the like our population would grow to unmanegable ammounts. I know it is an incredibly harsh view on life but if were to have no more diease and such we would not have enough food to maintain ourselves. If you look at europe after the black plague was over the whole country did begin to prosper.

I wish we did not have sicknesses but I do belive without them we would be worse off. These such things are nesecary and the fact that sicknesses keep evolving and such shows an intelligence behind how it works.

Why question a system that works? I feel for you if you have some terminal illness, etc. but somebody has to die, and I hope you find the fountain of life in death.

quote:Originally posted by mixedbloods:

And regarding the fuck ups of the world, that is mans fault. Regardless of weather there is a God or not, we are still responsible for our actions. What are you expecting, divine intervention? That would infringe on free will.

Who's idea was freewill? How important is freewill? Does it matter if Divine intervention infringes on freewill? Is freewill anything more than the ability to chose to accept God as the Sovereign Authority?

quote:Originally posted by mixedbloods:

The only way Genesis, if it is anything but a poem, can make sense is if you add pieces of information yourself. Cain went into the land of nod and knew his wife. If there was only Cain and Abel, and Adam and Eve, where the fuck did she come from? The only explanation is that there is an unmentioned geneology, so Adam and Eve kept fucking or Cain/Abel thought there mom looked a little hot one day...

This has been discussed already... reread Genisis and you will have your answer.

quote:Information is only as credible as its source, so why take the bible litteraly with such questionable sources?

The Bible is God's Word. How much more credible do you want? I believe it literally, because, for one, i have not seen one actual contridictory part in the Bible. (Which reminds me, i really need to take the time to answer another post).

The bible is not Gods word, the bible is mans attempt at understanding God. God did not write the pages of the bible, it did not fall from the heavens, it was created by man and is succestible to all of mans flaws. Do you think that primitive man wrote historical accounts? Do you think they had the knowledge we have today of science? Was there a great flood that reached every part of the world, or was it just noahs world that was flooded?

The bible is Gods word? Then who the fuck was Luke, Mathew, Corinthians, Isaiah? Who are these people claiming to have written pieces of the bible, when God did it itself?

If I made any of the claims the bible did people would think I was a fucking lunatic, they would ask me questions like "How do you know this?", so why don't we ask ourselves questions about the bible such as "How do they know this?"

Do not fall victim to ignorance and follow religion blindly because of traditional or social obligations. Beliefs are beliefs, but God did not write the bible, man did. Man is an imperfect being, the bible is an imperfect book.

So when Cain goes into the land of nod, he knew his wife. I have found no text in Genesis explaining where she came from, or who Cain was afraid of when he said "Whosoever shall see me will surely kill me" when there was noone else to kill him. Why does mathew say the dead rose when Jesus died, but no other gospel mentions this? Why does judas hang himself in one gospel, but buy a farm and die later in another? Why does Jesus first appear to his discples after the crucifixion in a room in jersulam in one gospel, but on mount gaililee in another?

There are quite a few of these if I go on, but you get the point. Most of these are unimportant inconsistencies, but inconsistencies nonetheless.

I stand by my argument that information is only as credible as its source.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

The Bible is God's Word. How much more credible do you want? I believe it literally, because, for one, i have not seen one actual contridictory part in the Bible. (Which reminds me, i really need to take the time to answer another post).



"No man hath seen God at any time."

John, 1:18

"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

Genesis, 32:30

"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live."

Exodus 33:20

"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."

Exodus, 33:11

There you go.

I may post more later.

there's heaps of contradictions if you take it literally.

like what Durell listed, or Jesus' last words etc etc.

also, Noah's Ark. so you take 2 of each animal right... it floods, they find land, they get off, then the lion goes and eats the deer, or whatever. either the lions eats something and that thing dies, or the lion eats nothing and dies etc.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

quote:Originally posted by Lucky:

To me the idea of the AIDS and cancer and spontanious combustion do show sigsn of intelligence. I dont know too much about spontanious combustion so I wont talk about it. But if it were not for things like AIDS and caner and the like our population would grow to unmanegable ammounts. I know it is an incredibly harsh view on life but if were to have no more diease and such we would not have enough food to maintain ourselves. If you look at europe after the black plague was over the whole country did begin to prosper.

I wish we did not have sicknesses but I do belive without them we would be worse off. These such things are nesecary and the fact that sicknesses keep evolving and such shows an intelligence behind how it works.



biology is not simple. we are barely beginning to understand its proceses. maybe within 10,000 years scientists will understand how it works.

you make a good point though about population control. i remember a graph in my biology book about the population of rabbits and snakes, how one would go up and the other go down. humans do the same thing. population gets too high, something happens and it goes down. don't forget that we're still like animals living on a planet, dependent upon the ecosystem. we are not apart from teh ecosystem, thus we are subject to the same rules that apply to it.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Who's idea was freewill? How important is freewill? Does it matter if Divine intervention infringes on freewill? Is freewill anything more than the ability to chose to accept God as the Sovereign Authority?



That's a little scary that you would accept being ruled over your own free will.

quote:Originally posted by mixedbloods:

The bible is not Gods word, the bible is mans attempt at understanding God.



beautifully written, i couldn't say it better myself. your points are logical and i agree with them. the bible is just a book, but as with all books it has lessons to be learned. it is a style of literature, a narrative, written after being told and retold and retold for hundreds of years in an oral culture.

i think i'll end with this quote by Frank Herbert

"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffecual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual."

quote:Originally posted by Lucky:

Finally an intelligent post . That was good man and well thought out and crap not just another christianity is stupid and junk like that post. I believe in God and jesus all all that stuff but I dont think the bible should be taken literally. In additon the majority of christians do not take the bible literally. It is mainly evangelical christians who do so. The bible does have some literal things in it but it also has many allegories and stories with a message in it. What you need to get from the bible is not a history of the world but the message of love for one another and forgiveness.

If you do not believe that the Bible should be taken literally, by what directives and laws do you govern you behavior, and by extension, your life ?

quote:Originally posted by Sempre Solipsist:

Some would consider the design of this universe anything BUT intellegent, at least not in the ordered sense. War, AIDS and spontaneous combustion are not good examples of God Intellegently Designing our dear little blue planet.

The Goddess Prevails, hail Eris. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)



The infirmities and wars that plague this planet were not a part of God's original "perfect" design.

Sin harbored the entrance of sickness, war, and death. (a catalyst, if you will)

Read the Bible, and THEN you can honestly say whether or not God's creation is perfect.

quote:Originally posted by mixedbloods:

Genesis 'happened' before written word existed. Not to mention people back then didn't write unbiased historical accounts. Do you think primitive man would write about WWII the same way we did? Or would it be more of a one sided argument.

I'm not saying that the bible is false, of course it has historical foundations. There are references from early mesepotamia to a 'great flood' and the people that lived before it. And of course the Exodus had to happen, but don't you think some fantastical elements might have been added on?

The Gospels don't always agree either, one says Judas hung himself, another says he bought a farm and something crushed him. Mathew says the dead got up out of the graves and walked around for all to see after the crucifixion, and no other gospel seems to mention such an extraordinary feat.

Not to mention that it was a long time between the time the events took place and when somebody had a brilliant idea to write them down. Ever play broken telephone?

The only way Genesis, if it is anything but a poem, can make sense is if you add pieces of information yourself. Cain went into the land of nod and knew his wife. If there was only Cain and Abel, and Adam and Eve, where the fuck did she come from? The only explanation is that there is an unmentioned geneology, so Adam and Eve kept fucking or Cain/Abel thought there mom looked a little hot one day...

Information is only as credible as its source, so why take the bible litteraly with such questionable sources?



Majority of Genesis also happened before time existed. Since time is based off the rotation of the Sun, and he didn't create light right away, Gods days could have been indefinately long. I think parts of Genesis should be taken literally, but not all of it. I'm not sure about Mathew mentioning the Dead walking after the crucifixion. Thats the only place I've seen it too. You'd have to ask a Priest, or anyone else who has studied the bible exstensively.

Of course the Bible isn't false, biased maybe, but definately not false. Not only was a great Flood mentioned in Mesopotamia, but it was part of their religion also. There are many paralells with other religions.

About Cain and Abel. It is weird how he found a wife, but there are two reasonably simple explanations. First: In the Bible, it says Adam and Eve were the first Humans god created and placed on the Earth. It never says he didn't create more of them. When I say Human, I mean us. They weren't neanderthals. So, God might have created other human beings afterwards. If God didn't create any other humans, his wife was one of the Sub-Human varieties. At least thats what I think.

About the sources being questionable, you can't really be sure. All the authors are dead now, so theres no way to be sure is there? It does conflict itself sometimes, but things like this are bound to happen, especially with how many different Books of the Bible there are.

quote:Originally posted by Lucky:

To me the idea of the AIDS and cancer and spontanious combustion do show sigsn of intelligence. I dont know too much about spontanious combustion so I wont talk about it. But if it were not for things like AIDS and caner and the like our population would grow to unmanegable ammounts. I know it is an incredibly harsh view on life but if were to have no more diease and such we would not have enough food to maintain ourselves. If you look at europe after the black plague was over the whole country did begin to prosper.

I wish we did not have sicknesses but I do belive without them we would be worse off. These such things are nesecary and the fact that sicknesses keep evolving and such shows an intelligence behind how it works.

If there were no such thing as AIDS, there wouldn't be "consequence" for sin.

If there were no war, man could not understand and appreciate "peace".

You are WAY off the mark on the over-population argument. (it shows you believe everything your television tells you)

I am not trying to be insulting, but the fact is, our planet is NOT overpopulated, and it has nothing to do with disease control (meaning that disease is NOT the contributing factor to the lack of overpopulation).

You are saying that nature has exhibited a form of cognitive "euthanasia"; the incurable sickness being overpopulation.

That's just ludicrous, and the numbers prove otherwise.

Let's take a look at our planets "overpopulation" issues:

"Over the years many researchers have authentically proved that the problem is not too many people at all. Contrary to the claims of family planning and population control specialists, world population growth is rapidly declining. United Nations figures show that the 79 countries that comprise 40 percent of the world's population now have fertility rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965-70 to 1.5 in 1990-95. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the rate fell from 2.75 in 1960-65 to 1.70 in 1990-95. In Europe, the rate fell to 0.16 - that is, effectively zero - in 1990-95. And the annual rate of change in world population fell from 2 percent in 1965-70 to less than 1.5 percent in 1990-95. Official forecasts of eventual world population size have been steadily falling. In 1992-93, the World Bank predicted world population would exceed 10 billion by the year 2050. In 1996, the U.N. predicted 9 billion for 2050. If the trend continues, the next estimate will be lower still.

Overpopulation is a relative term. Over with respect to what? Food? Resources? Living space? The data show that no case can be made for overpopulation with respect to all three variables. Dr. Osterfeld, Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's College in Rensselaer, Indiana, concludes that although there are now more people in the world than ever before, "by any meaningful measure the world is actually becoming relatively less populated."" - http://johnw.host.sk/islamicarticles/overpopulation.htm

"If we divided 6 billion people into average families of four and gave them each a whole acre of land on which to raise food and their families, you can see that the United States could easily hold all of the people in the world with room to spare." (Ralph Epperson in his Book The Unseen Hand)

Buckminster Fuller ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller ) and Barry Commoner ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Commoner ) were both proponents of the idea that human technology could keep up with population growth indefinitely. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

"...we must not become bamboozled by statistics. A hundred million people is an increase of roughly half a percentage point. The Earth has the capacity to absorb such numbers. Today, vast capacities of the earth's resources lie unused. Still more arable land is being destroyed by unsustainable farming or settlement practices. And even more of the earth"s "carrying capacity" is being used to make weapons, or toys -- all manner of things that, despite the wretched poverty of most of the world's people, no one needs for survival.

The United States, for example, farms fewer acres every year, but it always exports food and continually debates policies for handling its surplus. And this is not simply due to the dubious efficiencies of monoculture, petrochemical fertilizers and genetic engineering. Such practices make it easier to run large-scale, remotely-managed corporate farms, but they are not needed to create high yields of nutritious foods. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that using modern farming methods and efficient, sensible distribution, the earth has the capacity to grow food for some 33 billion people. Current UN estimates project a plateau population of about 12 billion people about midway through the next century." - http://www.henrygeorge.org/popsup.htm

Population Density - http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/population_density_3.html (based on land available, these number show that we are not utilizing the resources we have intelligently.)

"The whole world's population could fit in the state of Texas...Amazing as it may seem, the entire population of the world can be housed in the U.S. state of Texas — and very comfortably indeed, with each person enjoying a living far in excess of that now available to all but the most wealthy.

Consider these facts: The land area of Texas is some 262,000 square miles* and current UN estimates of the world's population (for 12 October 1999) are about 6 billion.** By converting square miles to square feet — remember to multiply by 5,280 feet per mile twice — and dividing by the world's population, one readily finds that there are more than 1,217 square feet per capita.

A family of 5 would thus occupy more than 6,085 square feet of living space. Even in Texas, that's a mansion." - http://www.improb.com/teach/lessons2002/people-in-texas.html

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by The Happy Chemical:



About Cain and Abel. It is weird how he found a wife, but there are two reasonably simple explanations. First: In the Bible, it says Adam and Eve were the first Humans god created and placed on the Earth. It never says he didn't create more of them. When I say Human, I mean us. They weren't neanderthals. So, God might have created other human beings afterwards. If God didn't create any other humans, his wife was one of the Sub-Human varieties. At least thats what I think.

B]

quote:Originally posted by mixedbloods:[B]

The only explanation is that there is an unmentioned geneology, so Adam and Eve kept fucking or Cain/Abel thought there mom looked a little hot one day...

I think I understand what you mean, but my point was to emphasize that Genesis is also incomplete.

We also can't forget we don't have the original copies of the bible. When it was translated, moved from papyrus to scrolls (or was it scrolls to papyrus?), etc. the originals were lost. We have pieces, like the dead sea scrolls, but there is no way to be sure that what we have resembles what was written so many years ago.

I know most of the concepts that have big gaping holes in them arent in the bible, and spawn from the church etc.(like the holy trinity), and that the only way to read the bible is with your own eyes and intellect, not reading someone elses views and opinions, and I'm trying, but if a modern critic were to write about this book, i can only imagine what they would have to say. "Wordy and poorly thought out. Plot goes abso-fucking-lutely nowhere."

We do not have the original copies of the bible, we have translations, and after looking at translation errors such as the lucifer one, etc., why is it that we accept translation errors are capable of happening now, with all our technology, but not back then?

Primitive man could have fucked up translating a number of times, and noone would be the wiser. Not to mention that unbiased views werent all the rage back then, you ever think that maybe, just maybe, whoever edited the bibles might have included ones that supported his beliefs, but not others? Remember that there is an estimated 27ish (dont hold me to that number) gospels written about Yeshua, and only 5 were included in the bible.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If you do not believe that the Bible should be taken literally, by what directives and laws do you govern you behavior, and by extension, your life ?

If you feel this way, you must condone murder (Joshua, Revelations, Deuteronomy, pretty much the entire book), rape (Deuteronomy, 21-22, etc.), child prostitution and slavery (Exodus 21:7-11), genocide (Revelations, Joshua, Jeremiah 50:21-22, Judges 20:48, etc.), infantcide (Isaiah 13:15-18), but certainly not the ingestion of shellfish, conversment with lawyers, or the stylization of one's hair so elequently described in Leviticus, also known as "The 500 Commandments."

It's suprisingly undemanding to possess the cabability to "tell the difference between right and wrong" without having to rely on a book to let oneself know what's right and what's wrong, included in the fact that the story in question is about the systematic destruction of the human race.

[This message has been edited by Charles Thunder (edited 10-26-2004).]

Oh http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif), I was hoping for more commentary from DS, or anybody who knows what they are talking about.

Yes its a bump. Get over it.

intPostCount++

HAHAHAHAHA !

Sorry I have failed you, friend.

I must feed this temple of mine, and then I will get back to you.

So sorry... http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If you do not believe that the Bible should be taken literally, by what directives and laws do you govern you behavior, and by extension, your life ?

A conscious, moral standards, principles. A book is a book is a book, not a substitute for a conscious. It enforces good behaviour, but is far from the only means available to create a solid moral foundation.

Oh yeah, by the way if anybody wants to argue/discuss theology, feel free to add me to msn/email me at mixedbloods@hotmail.com

QUOTE Originally posted by mixedbloods:

The bible is not Gods word, the bible is mans attempt at understanding God. God did not write the pages of the bible, it did not fall from the heavens, it was created by man and is succestible to all of mans flaws.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

Do you think that primitive man wrote historical accounts?

first of all, define what you mean by "primitive man". Second of all, yes.

Do you think they had the knowledge we have today of science?

it doesnt matter if THEY had that knowledge, because they were only God's "secrectaries".

Was there a great flood that reached every part of the world, or was it just noahs world that was flooded?

If there was a world wide flood, what would we expect to find?....billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. What do we find?...billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.

The bible is Gods word? Then who the fuck was Luke, Mathew, Corinthians, Isaiah? Who are these people claiming to have written pieces of the bible, when God did it itself? Again, 2 Timothy 3:16.

In effect, they were God's secretaries.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spole as they were moved by the Holy Spirit

Do not fall victim to ignorance

This could be said of you, as well.

and follow religion blindly because of traditional or social obligations.

I dont. I study it.

Beliefs are beliefs, but God did not write the bible, man did.

And this is simply you simple belief.

So when Cain goes into the land of nod, he knew his wife. I have found no text in Genesis explaining where she came from, or who Cain was afraid of when he said "Whosoever shall see me will surely kill me" when there was noone else to kill him.

I've answered this before, in another thread..but here goes again....

Ge 4:1 The man knew Eve his wife. She conceived, and gave birth to Cain, and said, "I have gotten a man with Yahweh`s help."

Ge 4:2 Again she gave birth, to Cain`s brother Abel. Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Ge 4:3 As time passed, it happened that Cain brought an offering to Yahweh from the fruit of the ground.

Ge 4:4 Abel also brought some of the firstborn of his flock and of the fat of it. Yahweh respected Abel and his offering,

I am only refering to this as a way to point out to you that in four verses we have no idea how much time has past. From Cain and Abel being born, to the point in their lives that they were able to work. Also, we dont know what else has happened up to this point (did Adam and Eve already have more kids? We dont know.

Ge 4:12 From now on, when you till the ground, it won`t yield its strength to you. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth."

Ge 4:13 Cain said to Yahweh, "My punishment is greater than I can bear.

Ge 4:14 Behold, you have driven me out this day from the surface of the ground. I will be hidden from your face, and I will be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth. It will happen that whoever finds me will kill me."

Ge 4:15 Yahweh said to him, "Therefore whoever slays Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold." Yahweh appointed a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should strike him.

If you notice in verse 12, God tells Cain that he would be a fugitive, which does not necessarily imply that there is currently many people (but could mean this). In verse 16 - 17 it says that he lived in the land of Nod, lay with his wife and she became pregnant with Enoch, and built a city (named after his son....again, no mention of how much time passed.

In Gen 4:25, it says that Adam and Eve had another son (Seth). Just because this is written after Cain builds a city, it does not show whether it happened before or after. It is possible that they comsumated before Abel was killed (although i doubt this, just saying that the sex could have happened less than 9 months before Abel's death). So far, we still dont know if Eve bore any daughters (or even other sons).

Ge 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him in God`s likeness.

Ge 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Ge 5:3 Adam lived one hundred thirty years, and became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

Ge 5:4 The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he became the father of sons and daughters.

Ge 5:5 All the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years, then he died.

Ge 5:6 Seth lived one hundred five years, and became the father of Enosh.

Gen 5:6 shows that Seth is the part of Adam's line that is relevant to the rest of the Bible. Verse 4 says that Adam had other sons and daughters, but does not say who or how many, because it is irrelevant to the rest of the Bible's history.

All we know is that Adam had sons and daughters. He had atleast 3 kids by the time he was 130 years old, but he lived to be 930 years old. So, from this, can you figure out who Cain could have been afraid of and where he got a wife from...(hint.. his wife would have been his sister or possibly his niece because Seth had sons and daughters(Gen 5:7) and we have no way of knowing when this took place compared to the rest of what we read sofar.)





I stand by my argument that information is only as credible as its source./QUOTE

and i stand by the arguement that you need to read The Word more carefully.

How do you know Gods secrataries were competent enough to write down Gods word? And what about the men who translated the bible?

I could write anything and claim it was Gods word.

Do you think that nothing was changed/lost through all the years?

Regarding the Cain and his wife thing, I was not saying it was a contradiction, I said it meant that there was a geneology not mentioned in the bible.

By primitive man, i meant early man. By historical account, I meant an unbiased record. You believe that they wrote without bias. I know every man has a bias and it is inevitable that it will reflect on his works, but today we write with less personal influences, back then they didn't.

Information is only as credible as its source, and when the source is questionable so is the information.

quote:Originally posted by mixedbloods:



I could write anything and claim it was Gods word.



Book of Mormon

lol

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mixedbloods:

How do you know Gods secrataries were competent enough to write down Gods word? And what about the men who translated the bible?

if God told you to write something down, would i need to know how competent you are? The key factor would be God, not you. As to the men that translated it, you can learn the original languages, look at the manuscripts and translate them yourself, then compare that to modern translations... i guess i'm being lazy and just trusting that people have done just that. But i do have a copy of Young's Literal Translation Bible and Strong's definitions and have compared (parts) of that, to (parts) of NIV, KJV, Darby, Douay Rhiems, Webster's 1611, World English Bible... not to mention various commentaries...sorry, havent learned hebrew and greek yet, although i do have a book Teach Yourself Biblical Hebrew" but havent gotten much past opening it. However, all those versions (as far as the parts that i have compared) say pretty much the same thing, so i am fairly confident that they have been translated competently.

By primitive man, i meant early man. By historical account, I meant an unbiased record. You believe that they wrote without bias. I know every man has a bias and it is inevitable that it will reflect on his works, but today we write with less personal influences, back then they didn't.

Yes, i agree, bias is human nature, but if it was God dictating, i would think that bias would be less than negligible. But it is a funny thing about human bias, seldom do people point out the wrong things that they do, but the Bible has many accounts of the writers pointing out their (large) screw ups..i.e. Peter, Moses, David, Solomon, Paul/Saul etc.

Regarding the Cain and his wife thing, I was not saying it was a contradiction, I said it meant that there was a geneology not mentioned in the bible.

You said, "... Cain went into the land of nod and knew his wife. If there was only Cain and Abel, and Adam and Eve, where the fuck did she come from? The only explanation is that there is an unmentioned geneology, so Adam and Eve kept fucking or Cain/Abel thought there mom looked a little hot one day..."

As you should have seen, there were more than just Cain, Abel, Adam and Eve. There are many unmentioned geneologies...but in the case you were making, no. And the main geneology that the Bible dwells on is that of Jesus, which is why most are left out. The bible does say that Adam (and Eve) had more children. You asked where Cains wife came from, i told you, either sister or niece.

Information is only as credible as its source, and when the source is questionable so is the information.

The Bible Stands Alone

Compiled by Jordan and Justin Drake

In 1889 a schoolteacher told a ten-year-old boy, "You will never amount to very much." That boy was Albert Einstein. In 1954 a music manager told a young singer, "You ought to go back to driving a truck." That singer was Elvis Presley. In 1962 a record company told a group of singers, "We don’t like your sound. Groups with guitars are definitely on their way out." They said that to the Beatles. Man is prone to make mistakes. Those who reject the Bible should take the time to look at the evidence before they come to a verdict.

1. It is unique in its continuity.

If just 10 people today were picked who were from the same place, born around the same time, spoke the same language, and made about the same amount of money, and were asked to write on just one controversial subject, they would have trouble agreeing with each other. But the Bible stands alone. It was written over a period of 1,600 years by more than 40 writers from all walks of life. Some were fishermen; some were politicians. Others were generals or kings, shepherds or historians. They were from three different continents, and wrote in three different languages. They wrote on hundreds of controversial subjects yet they wrote with agreement and harmony. They wrote in dungeons, in temples, on beaches, and on hillsides, during peacetime and during war. Yet their words sound like they came from the same source. So even though 10 people today couldn’t write on one controversial subject and agree, God picked 40 different people to write the Bible—and it stands the test of time.

2. It is unique in its circulation.

The invention of the printing press in 1450 made it possible to print books in large quantities. The first book printed was the Bible. Since then, the Bible has been read by more people and printed more times than any other book in history. By 1930, over one billion Bibles had been distributed by Bible societies around the world. By 1977, Bible societies alone were printing over 200 million Bibles each year, and this doesn’t include the rest of the Bible publishing companies. No one who is interested in knowing the truth can ignore such an important book.

3. It is unique in its translation.

The Bible has been translated into over 1,400 languages. No other book even comes close.

4. It is unique in its survival.

In ancient times, books were copied by hand onto manuscripts which were made from parchment and would decay over time. Ancient books are available today only because someone made copies of the originals to preserve them. For example, the original writings of Julius Caesar are no longer around. We know what he wrote only by the copies we have. Only 10 copies still exist, and they were made 1,000 years after he died. Only 600 copies of Homer’s The Iliad exist, made 1,300 years after the originals were written. No other book has as many copies of the ancient manuscripts as the Bible. In fact, there are over 24,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts, some written within 35 years of the writer’s death.

5. It is unique in withstanding attack.

No other book has been so attacked throughout history as the Bible. In A.D. 300 the Roman emperor Diocletian ordered every Bible burned because he thought that by destroying the Scriptures he could destroy Christianity. Anyone caught with a Bible would be executed. But just 25 years later, the Roman emperor Constantine ordered that 50 perfect copies of the Bible be made at government expense. The French philosopher Voltaire, a skeptic who destroyed the faith of many people, boasted that within 100 years of his death, the Bible would disappear from the face of the earth. Voltaire died in 1728, but the Bible lives on. The irony of history is that 50 years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society moved into his former house and used his printing presses to print thousands of Bibles.

The Bible has also survived criticism. No book has been more attacked for its accuracy. And yet archeologists are proving every year that the Bible’s detailed descriptions of historic events are correct.

quote:Originally posted by mixedbloods:

The Gospels don't always agree either, one says Judas hung himself, another says he bought a farm and something crushed him. Mathew says the dead got up out of the graves and walked around for all to see after the crucifixion, and no other gospel seems to mention such an extraordinary feat.

Would you mind posting the book/chapter/verse where Judas bought a farm and got crushed? I dont recall that, and i did a search with no results.

He's right, Xtreem.

The Bible appears to give two different versions of Judas' death.

mixedbloods' mistake is that the stories are one and the same, but told from different perspectives (because they are told by different authors). One was a gentile (Luke), and the other a Jew (Matthew).

The reason their heritage is important is that Deuteronomy 21:23 pronounces "anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse."

For Jewish Matthew, the suicide plus hanging

combination is a graphic description of how desolate Judas's end was.

Gentile Luke and his readers however would not necessarily have found anything terribly offensive or disgusting or sinful about either suicide (which could be quite honourable) or hanging. But the Graeco-Roman world would have found the disfigured dead body a rather inauspicious end. - http://associate.com/ministry_files/new/JUDAS_GRUESOME_END.shtml

Matthew 27:3-5 "When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4 "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."

"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility." 5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18 "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."

"The discrepancy over the manner of death is explained by an assumption that Judas hung himself from a branch overlooking the land bought by the priests. After hanging there long enough for the corpse to become sufficiently rotten for it to burst on impact, the branch broke and Judas fell. " - http://www.users.bigpond.com/wyndkelm/Discrepancies.html

Here's another explanation:

"But anyone who believes that they are two entirely separate and

contradictory stories will have a very difficult time explaining how

it is that they arose. It is hardly likely that two people sitting

down to make up a revenge story about Judas would both decide

independently to include the purchase of a field known as the Field

of Blood. The most probable way to explain the inclusion of this

detail in both stories is that the field was, in fact, connected with

the death of Judas in some way.

But in what way? Acts states simply that with his reward, Judas

bought a field. Matthew's Judas buys nothing with the money, instead

throwing the money into the Temple and leaving. But wait. In Matthew,

the priests pick up the money and refuse to keep it. The reason that

they buy the field with it is that they will not accept it back

(Matt. 27:6-7). Thus, both stories are agreed that Judas's reward

money was used to buy the field in question. Matthew has the chief

priests actually doing the purchasing, but with money that, since

they refused to have it back, could still be considered to be

Judas's. In either story, the field would technically have belonged

to Judas after the purchase. Acts has simply streamlined the story in

a way which omits the priests altogether. It is a good editorial

choice, since relating the priests' reasoning in the matter would

take some explaining. The more Jewish Matthew, perhaps, feels more

comfortable on this score." - http://associate.com/ministry_files/new/JUDAS_GRUESOME_END.shtml

The author continues on to say:

"Judas refused to keep his money and the chief priests refused to accept it back, regarding it as still his, they bought the field in his name and on his behalf. In that field, reminded thus of the inescapable betrayal, he hung himself. But suppose his body was no longer hanging by the time that it was discovered, but had fallen from its suspended position to the ground where the partially rotted corpse had split open."

As a side note, it is interesting to see that Judas did not betray Jesus of his own accord/will. Satan entered into him, and he became a puppet.

Luke 22:3 "Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve."

John 13:27 "As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him."

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the clarification, DS.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



As a side note, it is interesting to see that Judas did not betray Jesus of his own accord/will. Satan entered into him, and he became a puppet.

Luke 22:3 "Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve."

John 13:27 "As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him."

Hope this helps.

Do you think that it was a metaphore for being tempted? Just wondering what you think.

If you aren't reading it in the original language your translation is faulty because it doesn't encompass the original intent of the writer nor does it include the cultural emphasis that certain words had. You also lose all of the literary devices used in the writing, assonance, alliteration, etc., because translators can't realistically keep them when translating.

You're reading in a language that didn't exist then. Why would it make any sense whatsoever to take the words literally? Does the bible say to take it literally? If so, name book chapter and verse.

Oh, and which version is the correct one? They all can't be right. I await your answers.

quote:Originally posted by Fanglekai:

If you aren't reading it in the original language your translation is faulty because it doesn't encompass the original intent of the writer nor does it include the cultural emphasis that certain words had. You also lose all of the literary devices used in the writing, assonance, alliteration, etc., because translators can't realistically keep them when translating.

You're reading in a language that didn't exist then. Why would it make any sense whatsoever to take the words literally? Does the bible say to take it literally? If so, name book chapter and verse.

Oh, and which version is the correct one? They all can't be right. I await your answers.

Ever notice that some passages, just don't make sense. I don't mean contradictions, but just seem like giberish, it just doesnt seem to mean anything? Its probably because, since they originated from oral teachings, many of the passages were meant to rhyme so they would be remembered easier. 'How much wood could a wood chuck chuck...' translated into french sounds pretty fucked up, but in English it makes sense.

Just some input.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

He's right, Xtreem.

.

Thanks Digital. When i searched, i looked only in the 4 gospels. The words i used were: Judas, crushed, farm.

Again, thanks http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

The reason some people take the bible so literaly(sp) is because the bible tells them to. The bible says that it's the word of god written through mans hands.

I wish people would believe everything I wrote was the word of god just because I said so.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

The reason some people take the bible so literaly(sp) is because the bible tells them to. The bible says that it's the word of god written through mans hands.

I wish people would believe everything I wrote was the word of god just because I said so.

Cheers,

Lost

Never underestimate the gullibility of the common idiot or the power of fear and denial. 'Tis a wonderful thing, or atrocious depending on how you're looking at it.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If you do not believe that the Bible should be taken literally, by what directives and laws do you govern you behavior, and by extension, your life ?

From within. Why do you need rules laid out for you? Rules to a a temperal existence in which personal truth can never really be known to be true.

Who gave you your "within" to listen to ?

I did. In that I keep things in an experiential frame work, reflect on this, make judgements, but still be open to be surprised. I absorb the moments I find myself in, do a serious job of reading in between the lines, and filter the process to an "understanding" of how things work.

I do this for mere pracitcality and keep in mind that it could all indeed be bullshit. It could turn out that science in all it's scientific glory is laughable. Just as all my spirituality. Reality is a fickle mistress and I keep this in mind.

How do we know who wrote the bible? How do we know that these people who are 'the secrataries of God' were in fact, the secrataries of God? Not as an insult, just a question.

what dose a girl put behind her easr to make here more hot........



her legs

P.S. the bible is a fair tail only 4 yrs old belive it or fat men with hairy backs

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

The reason some people take the bible so literaly(sp) is because the bible tells them to. The bible says that it's the word of god written through mans hands.





Umm actually, it doesnt say that at all.

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

I did. In that I keep things in an experiential frame work, reflect on this, make judgements, but still be open to be surprised. I absorb the moments I find myself in, do a serious job of reading in between the lines, and filter the process to an "understanding" of how things work.

I do this for mere pracitcality and keep in mind that it could all indeed be bullshit. It could turn out that science in all it's scientific glory is laughable. Just as all my spirituality. Reality is a fickle mistress and I keep this in mind.

Science and religion are not at odds, they compliment each other quite well but both have difficulty creating a picture of the genesis of civilization. In fact, the big bang theory supports creationism, its pretty much something from nothing. Science cannot explain it either, approaching zero time the math falls apart and nobody knows what the fuck is going on.

Creationism/evolution seem to have an ongoing battle, but even if evolution is false, creationists might have a hard time explaining how the primitive man evolved so much. It appears as if homosapians were the first creatures created in the bible, but how do the other homoxxxxxxx fit in? If we evolved from those tiny human like things the media is talking about, are those the same beings adam and eve were? I doubt they had the linguistic skills to communicate as they did in Genesis, etc.

I'm not trying to say creationism is false, I'm trying to support my idea that Genesis is a poem and not to be taken litterally.

quote:Originally posted by mixedbloods:

I'm not trying to say creationism is false, I'm trying to support my idea that Genesis is a poem and not to be taken litterally.

Then why in the hell didn't you contribute to my "same story different accent" thread. Damn you! Just for that I'm off to take another shot for your soul.

Vodka UP!

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

Then why in the hell didn't you contribute to my "same story different accent" thread. Damn you! Just for that I'm off to take another shot for your soul.

Vodka UP!

Sorry I'm on and off totse, I probably missed it. And bidding for my soul starts at $0.39 on ebay.

quote:Originally posted by mland-chic:

there's heaps of contradictions if you take it literally.

like what Durell listed, or Jesus' last words etc etc.

also, Noah's Ark. so you take 2 of each animal right... it floods, they find land, they get off, then the lion goes and eats the deer, or whatever. either the lions eats something and that thing dies, or the lion eats nothing and dies etc.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

T-rex and the giant crocs would've ate/killed for fun, everything on board.

Damn straight... but a T-rex would pwn a giant crocodile...

quote:Originally posted by mixedbloods:

Sorry I'm on and off totse, I probably missed it. And bidding for my soul starts at $0.39 on ebay.

Check it out, it's probably a page or two back. But based on your imput to this thread and many others I think you'll find it most interesting.

I think the some of the bible is true, other parts are bullshit.

quote:Originally posted by Spindle:

I think the some of the bible is true, other parts are bullshit.

Yup. Pretty much.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Who's idea was freewill? How important is freewill? Does it matter if Divine intervention infringes on freewill? Is freewill anything more than the ability to chose to accept God as the Sovereign Authority?



Free will is just that free, no strings attached, consequences yes, cost no. What if God would only do for you what you were willing to do for yourself?