Ok, i went to sunday school every day growing up, went to a catholic school. What not. I think that bible is a good idea, but It should not be taken literaly.

1. The people who wrote it were not witnesses to the events. For most of the bible. its that he says she says shit.

2. The bible that people read in church is edited, books are missing, pages are missing. Its put together as people see fit. Some places in the bible are extremely loosely translated.

3. If jesus was god, EVERYONE WOULD KNOW. Also, it has been proven that life started at the southern tip of africa. Throught the bible it refers to the middle east and the northern area of africa. Eden would have started ar the south of africa.

4. Jesus never said he was the son of god. and If you were gods son you would want people to know.

Im jsut really pissy, i had a long discussion today about the bible and i was really mad cause this guy took it lteraly.

Ill admit its a good moral book, but it takes away the free choice. God wouldnt make laws that we govern ourselves by. Why would he let his people fight over him? HUH? He wouldnt. suposidly hes and all loving god. yet, he lets people represent him and fight for him. What the hell kinda god is that?

Literally

I take it in a non-literall sense. All those stories in the bible are just that, stories. They're stories with pure and great messages, but I don't think they are real.

What do I make of it ?

I make of it a tall glass of cool water after a hot summer's day.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bushy:

I think that bible is a good idea, but It should not be taken literaly.

Ok, if you dont take it literally, then how do you know what it says? Where do you draw the line? Who's metaphore do you follow?

1. The people who wrote it were not witnesses to the events. For most of the bible. its that he says she says shit.

Some were, some weren't. That alone doesnt mean it is true or false.

2. The bible that people read in church is edited,



Who were these editors?

books are missing,

are you refering to the apocrypha?

pages are missing.

Based on what? Correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems to me that in order to know if pages are missing, someone must have the complete bible... or maybe you could make that assumption if the topic changes. (example: picture a cookbook that starts out with the recipe for chocolate chip cookies and on the next page it gives you the ingedients for spaghetti.)

Its put together as people see fit.

Speculation?

Some places in the bible are extremely loosely translated.

Can you be alittle more specific?

3. If jesus was god, EVERYONE WOULD KNOW.

They will. How about the prophecy of the Second Coming? The Jews had a preconcieved idea of what/who the Messiah would be, and when He didnt conform to what they thought, they denied Him. You also have an idea, and since it different from God's Word, you choose to deny.

Also, it has been proven that life started at the southern tip of africa. Throught the bible it refers to the middle east and the northern area of africa. Eden would have started ar the south of africa.

Gee, and i thought evolutionists think life started in water. But i think you mean man. But it hasnt been proven. They(evolutionists) just think it started in africa because that is where they have found what they say are the oldest human fossils (basically)... it may have.

Nobody knows where Eden was. In the Genesis account, it speaks of one river that seperated into four rivers (Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, Euphrates). It gives us clues to where they were, pre-Flood. Two of those rivers have names that we know, but all that means is that somebody named them. It doesnt mean that they are (or arent) the originals.

Another thing we dont know is what the continents were like pre-Flood. Maybe there was one super-continent.

4. Jesus never said he was the son of god.

This has been covered many times by several people in this forum and elsewhere.

and If you were gods son you would want people to know.

Out of pride? Or truth? From Truth, He does.

Im jsut really pissy, i had a long discussion today about the bible and i was really mad cause this guy took it lteraly.

I'm not trying to make you more "pissy", but incase you havent guessed, i take it literally also.

Ill admit its a good moral book, but it takes away the free choice.

Well, that seems to be a hot debate item on this forum.

God wouldnt make laws that we govern ourselves by.

Why wouldnt He?

Why would he let his people fight over him?

I dont know? But how are you so certain that He wouldnt? >> HUH? He wouldnt.

suposidly hes and all loving god. yet, he lets people represent him and fight for him. What the hell kinda god is that? /QUOTE

For someone that said, "Ok, i went to sunday school every day growing up, went to a catholic school." , you must have missed the day they talked about first sin and God's curse. (I'm leaving the "sunday school every day" alone--- I'm only mentioning it to show you that it did not escape notice).

I take mine with milk, no sugar.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



suposidly hes and all loving god. yet, he lets people represent him and fight for him. What the hell kinda god is that? /QUOTE

For someone that said, "Ok, i went to sunday school every day growing up, went to a catholic school." , you must have missed the day they talked about first sin and God's curse. (I'm leaving the "sunday school every day" alone--- I'm only mentioning it to show you that it did not escape notice).

theres a diffrence between eating a fucking apple and ruining free choice. and killing over the same fucking god.

I think the bible isnt real, simply because Ive seen no evidence that can back up the stories contained therein. It does contain some sometimes insightful guidelines on how to live ones life, but they are often flawed.

As for the christian faith for which the bible is, well, a bible? I reject that because it involves the unquestioning acceptance of an authority (gods). I have a few other reasons but thats the main one.

I really don't see how anyone here could take it literally, even though they've said they do. Does that mean you literally do not wear clothes with different types of fibers? Do you stone adulterous women?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I really don't see how anyone here could take it literally, even though they've said they do. Does that mean you literally do not wear clothes with different types of fibers? Do you stone adulterous women?

Thats the think, it has been adapted to fit peoples lifestyles. Personaly they need to do that with the constitution. but thats a diffrent story.

No one takes it literaly adultery, the whole foods things, the clothes. They are just signs of the times. If people were suposed to take it literaly then they would all go to hell. Seriously. and then people use the above accuse to make it seem ok. Well its not. Science and religon dont mix. I mean they do to an extent. but if it werent for science people wouldnt be making these excuses.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I really don't see how anyone here could take it literally, even though they've said they do. Does that mean you literally do not wear clothes with different types of fibers? Do you stone adulterous women?

Ugh... surely after all this time of taking the piss of xianity you would understand the theology that underlies it.

Mostly people who claim they read the bible "literally" (aside from hardcore Messianic Jews), also apply at least some degree of a meta-theology to it. i.e. that Jesus as the Messiah negated the need for obeying the laws layed out in the OT.

Thats not to say that there are things in the bible that should apply to them "literally" that they do choose to rationalise, or at least apply some degree of more subjective interpretation. To quote someone else

"When I was a conservative, I took Jesus' teaching on hell to be literal. But I took His teaching on selling everything I own in order to follow Him to be figurative."

i take it preferably without christians (who on the whole shouldn't be let near the book!)

I beleive like all religous texts, the origin and the validity of The Bible just simply cannot be proved.

God wrote it. Ok. But we cannot know for sure just like we cannot know for sure if God DIDNT write it.

It all comes down to this. The Bible is here, some people beleive it, some people don't. We can't prove if its God's word, or some guy who decided to claim that.

It's here, take it as you will. I personally think the Bible has many good stories and lessons, but as for its validity, I rank it with none.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I really don't see how anyone here could take it literally, even though they've said they do. Does that mean you literally do not wear clothes with different types of fibers? Do you stone adulterous women?

Actually, those laws were part of the old covenant with Moses and Israel, which Jesus fulfilled (completed) through His death on the cross for humanities sins. The Law was instituted by God for the express purpose of demonstrating how no person could ever work up to a level of perfection, that all humankind are sinners. Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins on the cross, and removed the necessity of the Law in our lives.

God's purpose for our lives can be summed up in the combination of personal acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), and the Golden Rule (Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-31) for guiding our behavior towards each other.

quote:Originally posted by bushy:

theres a diffrence between eating a fucking apple and ruining free choice. and killing over the same fucking god.

When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they disobeyed God's Command. That was how sin entered into the world. With sin came death and destruction.

This act did not ruin free choice, it was free choice.

Killing in the name of God is a Sin, with the exception of when He has Commanded (in other words, if God commands you to go against what He has already said was wrong, make sure it is God that is commanding). And to my knowledge, He hasnt commanded that to anyone except His people. (And the theme of that was usually to preserve His people-- either by keeping the Messianic line pure, or as a show of Obiedience to Him).

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I really don't see how anyone here could take it literally, even though they've said they do. Does that mean you literally do not wear clothes with different types of fibers? Do you stone adulterous women?

Rust, the Mosaic Laws have been repealed from the Gentiles (anyone not Jewish) by the New Covenant. [i]Basically[/], if God's people couldnt follow them, how could the Gentiles. (i think this was in the book(s) of Peter or Acts, cant remember right now).

quote:Originally posted by bushy:

Ok, i went to sunday school every day growing up, went to a catholic school. What not. I think that bible is a good idea, but It should not be taken literaly.

1. The people who wrote it were not witnesses to the events. For most of the bible. its that he says she says shit.

2. The bible that people read in church is edited, books are missing, pages are missing. Its put together as people see fit. Some places in the bible are extremely loosely translated.

3. If jesus was god, EVERYONE WOULD KNOW. Also, it has been proven that life started at the southern tip of africa. Throught the bible it refers to the middle east and the northern area of africa. Eden would have started ar the south of africa.

4. Jesus never said he was the son of god. and If you were gods son you would want people to know.

Im jsut really pissy, i had a long discussion today about the bible and i was really mad cause this guy took it lteraly.

Ill admit its a good moral book, but it takes away the free choice. God wouldnt make laws that we govern ourselves by. Why would he let his people fight over him? HUH? He wouldnt. suposidly hes and all loving god. yet, he lets people represent him and fight for him. What the hell kinda god is that?



The Bible is nothing more than a bunch of stories that were collected or made up a 1000 yrs after they were suppost to have happened. It is filled with contridictions and hypocracies. There are currently 26 different versions of it as I understand.

People use it to justify almost anything they want to. From slavery to murder.

I don't believe in the Bible or organized religions because of this.

Bible == busted

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Some were, some weren't. That alone doesnt mean it is true or false.

Who were these editors?

The Ethiopian Bible has 81 books, that is as close to a complete Bible as you are going to find without raiding the "secret Vatican libraries" if they really do exist. Every other demonination has edited out at least a few. I would like to know why a church would decide it's members did not need to know this stuff.

3. If jesus was god, EVERYONE WOULD KNOW.

They will.

But why don't they know now? Why would God leave people who he can't even trust with a fruit tree in control of the salvation of other people? If Chritianity is the one faith how come an suposidly omnipotent being decided to only share it with part of the world knowing that millions of people would die before anyone in thier countries would here about it for hundreds of years.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they disobeyed God's Command. That was how sin entered into the world. With sin came death and destruction.

This act did not ruin free choice, it was free choice.

Killing in the name of God is a Sin, with the exception of when He has Commanded (in other words, if God commands you to go against what He has already said was wrong, make sure it is God that is commanding). And to my knowledge, He hasnt commanded that to anyone except His people. (And the theme of that was usually to preserve His people-- either by keeping the Messianic line pure, or as a show of Obiedience to Him).

Then who are his people? the jews? so the jews are only going to be saved?

I bet you think the world was created in seven days. and that adam and eve ate a fucking fruit. and thats the end of everyones purity.

Bull fucking shit. They are just stories to make people thinkless and enjoy life.

I HATE YOU ALL>

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

I think the bible isnt real, simply because Ive seen no evidence that can back up the stories contained therein. It does contain some sometimes insightful guidelines on how to live ones life, but they are often flawed.

As for the christian faith for which the bible is, well, a bible? I reject that because it involves the unquestioning acceptance of an authority (gods). I have a few other reasons but thats the main one.

I appreciate your honesty about why you don't "buy it".

Please take a look at these, though. Hopefully they will add to the data compiled in your brain that led you to your belief.



- http://www.bible-history.com/empires/ (the music is a little "interesting", but the facts are FANTASTIC)

- Archeology and the Old Tesatament http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arch-ot.html

- Archeology and the New Testament http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arch-nt.html

- http://www.godandscience.org/authenticity/hezekiah.html

- http://www.bibarch.com/Chronology/BiblicalChronology.htm

- http://www.escmedia.org/wires/archaeology.html

- http://www.uhcg.org/news/is-bible-true.html

If you (everyone) are going to comment on anything posted above (this applies to everyone), I ask that you PLEASE READ EACH PAGE IN IT'S ENTIRETY.

I think it will be (yet again) a big waste of everyone's time for some of you to cop out and say, "That's not real archeology.", or, "These are Christian websites; OF COURSE they will be biased !" without really understanding the text.

If you have some legitimate refutation of any of the information contained in the above listed websites, PLEASE post it ! I am not an archeologist, and admittedly have very little interest in it.

I have tried to reference the events described on each site with others, to corroborate. I didn't just "Google" the subject matter, and start copying and pasting.

(looking forward to hearing everyone's viewpoint on the supporting archeological data for the Bible being a valid historical work.)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 01-30-2005).]

Metaphor, Analogy, History, Wisdom!

In the beginning when elohim/god created adam and eve he told them that in the day they ate of the fruit they would surely die.

Genesis 2:"15Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Did they die that day? How then can this part of the bible be taken literally?

How is Jesus supposed to have communicated deep spiritual meaning?

Parable is from the greek root 'parabole' meaning: analogy. Jesus is asserted to be the 'word', or the author of the bible. If the author in his human life spoke in parables is it not logic that large parts of the bible are analogy also?

Did Noah really collect one of each animal? Did he in fact journey across the ocean to collect koalas from australia? How would he have fed them? How many species of creatures are there on the planet? Would there have been enough room on the ark for all of them and their food for forty days?

quote:The Bible is nothing more than a bunch of stories that were collected or made up a 1000 yrs after they were suppost to have happened. It is filled with contridictions and hypocracies. There are currently 26 different versions of it as I understand.

People use it to justify almost anything they want to. From slavery to murder.

I don't believe in the Bible or organized religions because of this.

So, let me get this straight...you don't believe in God or the Bible because the transgressions of MAN have proven what the Bible has determined us all to be: sinners ?

I personally would not let men skew my beliefs on the SUPERnatural possibilities of God.

I have done it before, and I will offer to do it again: post some of the "hypocracies" and "contradictions" of the Bible...simply because you have not found the answers to these supposed proofs that God doesn't exist doesn't mean your opinion is justified. I may not be able to provide all the answers, but there are several others on this website that can assist me in filling in the "holes".

I recommend that we all do not ever stop seeking out information and achieving the necessary wisdom to solving life's seemingly unanswerable questions.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redzed:

Did they die that day? How then can this part of the bible be taken literally?

For right now i am going to only address this post, then its off to bed..

The way this can be taken literally is that the moment you are born (or concieved if you want to get technical), you start to die.

If God made Adam and Eve with imortality (or allowed them imortality, via the tree of life), then the moment they ate of the fruit, they began to die... the reason i mention the tree of life, is that if you read just a little farther in Genesis, God says that He is going to evict them from the garden so that they can not eat from the tree of life and have immortality.

OK, thats it. Time for this one to go to bed.

Good Night All, and May the Triune God Bless You..... xtreem

quote:Did they die that day? How then can this part of the bible be taken literally?

You have misinterpretted the meaning of "death" in the referenced scripture.

When man was created, God had intended that He live forever, physically.

Knowing what man would do (disobey His command NOT to eat of the "Tree of Knowledge"), He purposely gave the command. This has symbolic meaning, that I will not get into right now because of actual relevance to your post.

I will say, however, that this "death", of which He warned against, was referring to physical death.

The expiration of physical life.

Once the knowledge of "sin" entered into man's heart, he knew physical death. Physical death then became the plague of man; something he would need salvation (an alternative to eternal death) from. It was not a part of the initial plan.

This physical death was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the coming savior, Jesus Christ. Obviously, if there were no need for salvation from physical death, then there would have been no need for a savior.

This would have put quite a glitch in the relationship God wants with His creation, as detailed later on in the Biblical text.

To appreciate and dedicate a life to God, one must understand the necessity and magnitude of a subservient, fulfilling personal relationship with God.

You must try and understand the literal meaning of the words.

Looking back, I did not do an adequate job of conveying my point, so I will try and elaborate tomorrow, when I am not so exhausted. Forgive me.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I really don't see how anyone here could take it literally, even though they've said they do. Does that mean you literally do not wear clothes with different types of fibers? Do you stone adulterous women?

You are failing to separate the Law of Moses, and the Law of Christ.

We are no longer under the law of Moses, which I believe I explained previously, and you were witness to.

The Law of Moses was necessary, however, to contrast between a God of righteous judgement (interpretted by men as "wrath"), and a God of righteous love. We could not comprehend one without the other.

If you do not understand the basic purpose of the different faces of God, how can you understand His teachings wholly ?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bushy:

Then who are his people? the jews?

Yes

so the jews are only going to be saved?

No, not only the Jews. Basically, only those that believe in the work of the Messiah will be saved. The Jews do not believe the Messiah was here yet (and was Prophecied that He would be rejected). Some Jews do not believe in a literal Messiah. But for those that do, they thought/think that the Messiah would be a "warrior" King, which is why they rejected Jesus as Messiah. During the end times-- Battle at Megiddo--Armageddon, Jesus will fulfil this "warrior" King understanding, that would be the Second Coming and also part of the purpose of the Second Coming.

If the Jews had accepted Jesus as the Christ, then non-Jews would have been left behind.

I bet you think the world was created in seven days.

Six, actually.

and that adam and eve ate a fucking fruit. and thats the end of everyones purity.

Yup, something like that..

Bull fucking shit. They are just stories to make people thinkless and enjoy life.

I HATE YOU ALL> /QUOTE

No, doin' shrooms is a way to be "thinkless and enjoy life".

That's fine if you hate me, but the feeling is not reciprocal.

P.S. TOTSE needs to make this reply window a little bigger-- taller and wider.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Some were, some weren't. That alone doesnt mean it is true or false.

Who were these editors?

The Ethiopian Bible has 81 books, that is as close to a complete Bible as you are going to find without raiding the "secret Vatican libraries" if they really do exist. Every other demonination has edited out at least a few. I would like to know why a church would decide it's members did not need to know this stuff.

MasterPython, as far as your answer about the editors, i think right now, all i can give as a reply is alittle conjecture.

First, there is another forum thread that asks "if you were satan, what would you do". Using this idea, could it be possible that satan, to help unbelief along, would "make many differing bibles" to make it hard to tell the real from the fake?

Second, and this is more towards your question about the church deciding what the members should know:

It would be along the lines of what jackketch wrote in this thread. "i take it preferably without christians (who on the whole shouldn't be let near the book!)",

which is basically saying, "you people are too stupid to understand the intrinsic message".

In an earlier post, i said to jackketch, that i was leaning toward the thought that he maybe the anti-christ.. which was said "tongue in cheek", but in reguard to my first part of this conjecture post, the vatican does have quite abit of power.

Conjecture: Conspiracy Theory = KnightsTemplar/DaVinciCode/HolyGrail=Satan confusing the real deal from the fake

quote:It would be along the lines of what jackketch wrote in this thread. "i take it preferably without christians (who on the whole shouldn't be let near the book!)",

which is basically saying, "you people are too stupid to understand the intrinsic message".

no!

perhaps i was a bit unclear. so for the record :there are christians here (and elsewhere of course) whose intelligence is far greater than mine. both you,digi, thoraton and many others would be on that list btw.

BUT

i find (generalisation) that christians make no real attempt to read the words on the page . they tend to be driven by a desire for smooth things.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MasterPython:

But why don't they know now?

This goes back to the reason for free-will. To allow us to choose God or not.

Why would God leave people who he can't even trust with a fruit tree in control of the salvation of other people?

This goes back to God's omniscience. God knew we would 'screw up'. (I'm not begging for another arguement w/ Rust on this, but it all boils down to God's Will).

If Chritianity is the one faith how come an suposidly omnipotent being decided to only share it with part of the world knowing that millions of people would die before anyone in thier countries would here about it for hundreds of years. /QUOTE

Being a Just God, i'm sure He has this worked out. But He does say in His Word that those that know much, more would be required. This would go both ways, wouldnt it?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redzed:

How is Jesus supposed to have communicated deep spiritual meaning?

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Could you be more specific?

If the author in his human life spoke in parables is it not logic that large parts of the bible are analogy also?

Actually, yes and no. Example: {literal}Jonah is in a great fish for three days. {literal}Jesus was in the grave 3 days. {literal with analogy} Jesus said that He would not do any more miracles, except for the 'sign of Jonah'.

Did Noah really collect one of each animal?

First, your word 'collect' may be part of your problem in understanding.

Ge 6:20 Of the birds after their kind, of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come to you, to keep them alive.

So, you see, God brought them to noah.

Next, it was two of every kind, male and female and seven of other kinds

Ge 7:2 You shall take seven pairs of every clean animal with you, the male and his female. Of the animals that are not clean, take two, the male and his female.

Did he in fact journey across the ocean to collect koalas from australia?

Briefly, one continent pre-flood. (this is from a theory called "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics")

How would he have fed them?

Ge 6:21 Take with you of all food that is eaten, and gather it to you; and it will be for food for you, and for them

How many species of creatures are there on the planet?

Are species the same as what the Bible says, are "kinds"?

Would there have been enough room on the ark for all of them and their food for forty days? /QUOTE

It was more than forty days-- they were aboard the ark for about a year.

But let me rephrase your question: How big was the Ark? How many animals would have to have been taken? What would be the average size of those animals? How much food would be needed?

I'm just going to supply a link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

perhaps i was a bit unclear. so for the record :there are christians here (and elsewhere of course) whose intelligence is far greater than mine. both you,digi, thoraton and many others would be on that list btw.



Sorry jack, what i was trying to do here was say that this maybe the reason that church leaders prefered that people didnt read the bible for themselve because they felt that the people were too ignorant.

It was not meant as a cut against you. It is just that you had a post that fit with what i was trying to say.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redzed:

Did they die that day? How then can this part of the bible be taken literally?

..

The way this can be taken literally is that the moment you are born (or concieved if you want to get technical), you start to die.

If God made Adam and Eve with imortality (or allowed them imortality, via the tree of life), then the moment they ate of the fruit, they began to die... the reason i mention the tree of life, is that if you read just a little farther in Genesis, God says that He is going to evict them from the garden so that they can not eat from the tree of life and have immortality.



Concise Collins Dictionary:

Literal 1. in exact accordance with or limited to the primary or explicit meaning of a word or text.

What you are describing above is not a literal interpretation of the primary or explicit meaning of the text.

Thanks for trying tho http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Briefly, one continent pre-flood. (this is from a theory called "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics")

.....

How many species of creatures are there on the planet?

Are species the same as what the Bible says, are "kinds"?



Yes species and kind both refer to a group sharing common attributes, and there are some thirty million known to science. Your link speaks of a mere 16,000 species/kinds. What happened? Was there another creation post-flood?

What of all the fresh water fish(to name only one freshwater species that would be killed by a world wide flood which logically included the ocean)?

Australia contains flora and fauna not known elsewhere on the planet, if there where originally only one continent, how did the Koalas come to be only in Australia?

How can these two statements both be taken literally?

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.

John 1:17-19

Exodus 24:9-11 (New King James Version)

New King James Version (NKJV)

9Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. 11But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank.

quote:And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity.

an extremely important and oft overlooked verse.

although i do remember a book that recently did deal with it (in conjunction with god's dislike of iron). however the title escapes me http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Concise Collins Dictionary:

Literal 1. in exact accordance with or limited to the primary or explicit meaning of a word or text.

What you are describing above is not a literal interpretation of the primary or explicit meaning of the text.

Thanks for trying tho http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Alright, so that means that the next time a wacko non-smoker says that second hand smoke, kills; i get to laugh in their face and ask why they are still alive?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redzed:

Yes species and kind both refer to a group sharing common attributes, and there are some thirty million known to science. Your link speaks of a mere 16,000 species/kinds. What happened? Was there another creation post-flood?

Just alittle disclaimer before i start... im very lazy tonight, so i appologize to you for my lack of effort (but i like this copy/paste thing)... these are important questions, though, and i hope that even in my laziness, they will help you some.

maybe you missed this (from the link):

"The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera)."

What of all the fresh water fish(to name only one freshwater species that would be killed by a world wide flood which logically included the ocean)?

maybe im misunderstanding this part of your reply, but also, maybe you missed this:

"The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark"

and also this:

"The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.2 Noah did not need to take sea creatures3 because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood."

And in case i did misunderstand you:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp

Australia contains flora and fauna not known elsewhere on the planet, if there where originally only one continent, how did the Koalas come to be only in Australia?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp

The rest of your post is more challanging, so it'll have to wait for now.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Alright, so that means that the next time a wacko non-smoker says that second hand smoke, kills; i get to laugh in their face and ask why they are still alive?



If I understand you correctly? you are saying that your hypothesis is in the same league as regarding the bible as literal? Mate I'm not having a lend of you, the truth is I can't see how one can take the bible literally. It does not make sense to me, and the only way for me to make sense of it, is to regard it as largely metaphor and analogy. Otherwise it becomes so much nonsense and contradiction.

Even Jesus closest disciples had to ask him the meaning of his parables. Imagine if a person only heard the parable and took that as it's literal meaning?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redzed:

If I understand you correctly? you are saying that your hypothesis is in the same league as regarding the bible as literal?

Yes, basically.

Mate I'm not having a lend of you, the truth is I can't see how one can take the bible literally.

And i cant see how one can take it as metaphore. When can one know what it means?

Sure, there are figures of speach used in the Bible, but they are generally noticable from context.

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

How can these two statements both be taken literally?

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.

John 1:17-19

Exodus 24:9-11 (New King James Version)

New King James Version (NKJV)

9Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. 11But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank.

I dont know what to say. I'm stumped. Each can be taken literally, on its own, but i am at a loss to link them clearly (and literally).

The closest i can come to an answer is that earlier in Exodus 24, it says that everyone 'cept Moses was to stay at a distance. Also, even Moses was not allowed to see God's face when God put him in the cleft of the rock and shielded him until He passed by.

Although i am sure that the answer is probably along this line... it leaves it alittle weak with me (so that means it most likely is a very weak answer for you).

I am wondering if the answer has something to do with the weakness of the English language. I did look at the words with Strong's Concordance, but didnt find much help there. I looked at the Greek and Hebrew, but that was more of an art tour, since i dont know those languages LOL

I'll see if i can find anything in commentaries that might shed some light.

Sorry i was useless on this one.

God Bless You

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

["The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera)."

[/B]

So Macro-evolution took place after the flood?

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

So Macro-evolution took place after the flood?



What do YOU mean by macro and micro evolution?

I dont believe we came from fish, if that is what you are saying. But the different cows came from the cow-kind etc. after the flood.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

[QUOTE]

And i cant see how one can take it as metaphore. When can one know what it means?

Sure, there are figures of speach used in the Bible, but they are generally noticable from context.

I'm not saying all of the bible is metaphor, in fact I'm not claiming anything. Some of it is apparently history, some is good advice, some poetry, some songs, laws etc.

It is challenging to "know what it means", however in the new testament there's a verse that says that 'one who seeks should communicate with one who teachs in all things'. "Know the truth and the truth will set you free", "Seek and you shall find", "Knock and the door will be opened to you".

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I dont know what to say. I'm stumped. Each can be taken literally, on its own, but i am at a loss to link them clearly (and literally).



Me too! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) When I first encountered this conundrum it stood out to me as a glaring contradiction, and evidence that not all that is printed in the bible can be taken literally.

It's like the number of the beast's name, it takes wisdom to understand it, therefore I chose to seek wisdom. Is it wise to believe all one reads? Or to trust all those who say Lord Lord!

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

quote:Despite the existence of some inaccuracies in minor details, sufficient evidence exists to show that those inaccuracies do not distort the basic concept conveyed by the text in which they appear, and they do not break the underlying unity of the Word of God.

The above quote is from the following website:

http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/13_3_timm_e.htm

Check it out, it is a good article dealing with the Scriptures and supposed inconsistencies...

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



What do YOU mean by macro and micro evolution?

The defenition I use is for macro-evolution is changes in a population to the point of speciation. Alot of creationist types say that it is not posible to do that even in the lab but for some reason use that argument for how Noah fit everything on the ark.

I take the bible the way it was meant to be taken:literally.

That's why I'm a non-believer.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

The defenition I use is for macro-evolution is changes in a population to the point of speciation. Alot of creationist types say that it is not posible to do that even in the lab but for some reason use that argument for how Noah fit everything on the ark.



species -- major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, reguarded as the basic catagoryof biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves,but are not able to breed with members of another species.

speciation-- the formation of a new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

So does that mean that tigers and lions are the same or different species?

However, in Genesis chapter one, God created plants to produce seed ‘after their kind’ (vv. 11, 12). God also created the animals to reproduce ‘after their kind’ (vv. 20, 24, 25). ‘After their/its kind’ is repeated ten times in Genesis 1.

But what if the Bible were refering to a "cat-kind"?

Magical trees, talking snakes, and a 2,000 year old dead jew zombie nailed into two pieces of wood. Wah, wah, wah, Jesus died for our sin, he died for us, blah blah blah. Fuck, many americans died to kill communist bastards, they died for the freedom of the people, even if Jesus died on the cross, people we're tortured way worse than that shit for some intel on the usa, and what, we still stood strong, Jesus isn't special (other than turning rocks into bread, which is craptacular). Once again,

Magical trees.

Talking Snakes.

2,000 year old dead jew zombie nailed into two pieces of wood.

Grow up.

The thought of an all powerful, all controlling god is is a good one. Thats it. The only reason people believe in god is because they dont know whats gonna happen after death.

"We do not know life, how can we know death?"

Confucious said that. You guys shoulda listened to that fucker a thousand years ago.

Plus, christianity started... That itself disproves god. Where is the time gap of christianity from day 1 of days, and when christianity started? God talked to them then, he cant talk to us now? Did he die? What the hell happened? I mean if people heard god, they woulda believed in him this whole time. Get over death, there's really only one way to find out and everyone knows that. You're trying to crack a code thats IMPOSSIBLE to crack. I hope there is a god, but i highly doubt it.

edit-

Im not using objects as proof or some accusation. I'm using pure logic. And don't say god created logic so logic cannot deifne god, what the hell do you know what can and cannot define god? And if i wrote a book, say and autobiography, it cannot describe me because i made it? Really...God gives people with nothing something to believe in, even helps people accept death. But it's a coat of sugar. You define death with god just as people defined fire with the god(s). We do not know death. We wont know death. ever. Gos didnt create order in the world (yes we have fucking order) the people did, stop giving him all the fucking credit/blame. You do not carry a cross, god does not save you, when you get an A on your report card, it isnt god. its fucking you. when you fuck up, its not the devil nor god. its you. For fucks sake, prove to me some carazy friends didnt smoke some pot and write a funny story up. I cannot prove that god doesnt exist, but that doesn't matter. You cannot prove that he exists, ever, and thats all that matters. Plus, (metaphotically) if i went to heaven and saw jesus/god, i'd try my VERY BEST to kill him. Fuck, he could be saving lives, but wait, that'll take away our free will! So will heaven. Do you think we'll be able to do whatever we want in heaven, kill bugs, rob people, lust? NO, if there is a heaven and we get there, we'll just be cold, blank faced, lifeless morons. And you fuckbag christians... You say god sends whoever doesnt believe him to hell. Wow, a tad self-centered, and then he punishes nice little muslims who devot their lives to good (YES, GOOD) then ploop hell, when i could kill a zillion people, say sorry, die, and get in heaven? God has no right, even if he created us. A mother isn't alowwed to slaughter her child is she? Hell no. I once saw a picture of an african lady in a devastating drought, holding her dead fucking baby ooking up to the lord, praying...Where was the lord when all this woman needed was some fucking rain. God is a dick, period. He is as selfish as you and i. It does state in the bible that gos is selfish. Then god kills the first son of every bad guy who listens to that bad king (forgot who/what they were called). These people only obeyed this evil king (or whoever was that bad guy) because if they didn't, they'll get fucking hanged (on a cross) so either way they were fucked, but god doesnt care does he. Wait, he does care, wait, that doesnt make sense. BINGO Then he sends boy (forgot his name) to slaughter every bad guy (forgot) and everything of the bad guys living things, because they were "unpure" this includes children, cattle, frogs, flies. Then boy saves a sheep (or some other animal) and god punishes him for not killing this unpure creature. ITS A FUCKING GOAT (i remembered) A FUCKING GOAT this kid couldnt kill a fucking goat then god gets all pissy. What a dick. All of a sudden, not KILLING animals and being fat and jolly (bhuddism) makes WAY more sense than this all powerful fuckbag. but wait, logic cannot define god, wah wah wah. in conclusion, you guys cannot prove shit, miracles are coincidences, god simply isnt there, or he's not omnipotent, either way, the bible is crap, even if it is metaphorical. The bible says this (in other words) It doesnt matter what your orders are, just as long as you do it. crappy aint it?

[This message has been edited by xbombae (edited 02-04-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xbombae:

Magical trees, talking snakes, and a 2,000 year old dead jew zombie nailed into two pieces of wood. Wah, wah, wah, Jesus died for our sin, he died for us, blah blah blah. Fuck, many americans died to kill communist bastards, they died for the freedom of the people, even if Jesus died on the cross, people we're tortured way worse than that shit for some intel on the usa, and what, we still stood strong, Jesus isn't special (other than turning rocks into bread, which is craptacular). Once again,

Magical trees.

Talking Snakes.

2,000 year old dead jew zombie nailed into two pieces of wood.

Grow up.

The thought of an all powerful, all controlling god is is a good one. Thats it. The only reason people believe in god is because they dont know whats gonna happen after death.

"We do not know life, how can we know death?"

Confucious said that. You guys shoulda listened to that fucker a thousand years ago.

Plus, christianity started... That itself disproves god. Where is the time gap of christianity from day 1 of days, and when christianity started? God talked to them then, he cant talk to us now? Did he die? What the hell happened? I mean if people heard god, they woulda believed in him this whole time. Get over death, there's really only one way to find out and everyone knows that. You're trying to crack a code thats IMPOSSIBLE to crack. I hope there is a god, but i highly doubt it.

edit-

Im not using objects as proof or some accusation. I'm using pure logic. And don't say god created logic so logic cannot deifne god, what the hell do you know what can and cannot define god? And if i wrote a book, say and autobiography, it cannot describe me because i made it? Really...God gives people with nothing something to believe in, even helps people accept death. But it's a coat of sugar. You define death with god just as people defined fire with the god(s). We do not know death. We wont know death. ever. Gos didnt create order in the world (yes we have fucking order) the people did, stop giving him all the fucking credit/blame. You do not carry a cross, god does not save you, when you get an A on your report card, it isnt god. its fucking you. when you fuck up, its not the devil nor god. its you. For fucks sake, prove to me some carazy friends didnt smoke some pot and write a funny story up. I cannot prove that god doesnt exist, but that doesn't matter. You cannot prove that he exists, ever, and thats all that matters. Plus, (metaphotically) if i went to heaven and saw jesus/god, i'd try my VERY BEST to kill him. Fuck, he could be saving lives, but wait, that'll take away our free will! So will heaven. Do you think we'll be able to do whatever we want in heaven, kill bugs, rob people, lust? NO, if there is a heaven and we get there, we'll just be cold, blank faced, lifeless morons. And you fuckbag christians... You say god sends whoever doesnt believe him to hell. Wow, a tad self-centered, and then he punishes nice little muslims who devot their lives to good (YES, GOOD) then ploop hell, when i could kill a zillion people, say sorry, die, and get in heaven? God has no right, even if he created us. A mother isn't alowwed to slaughter her child is she? Hell no. I once saw a picture of an african lady in a devastating drought, holding her dead fucking baby ooking up to the lord, praying...Where was the lord when all this woman needed was some fucking rain. God is a dick, period. He is as selfish as you and i. It does state in the bible that gos is selfish. Then god kills the first son of every bad guy who listens to that bad king (forgot who/what they were called). These people only obeyed this evil king (or whoever was that bad guy) because if they didn't, they'll get fucking hanged (on a cross) so either way they were fucked, but god doesnt care does he. Wait, he does care, wait, that doesnt make sense. BINGO Then he sends boy (forgot his name) to slaughter every bad guy (forgot) and everything of the bad guys living things, because they were "unpure" this includes children, cattle, frogs, flies. Then boy saves a sheep (or some other animal) and god punishes him for not killing this unpure creature. ITS A FUCKING GOAT (i remembered) A FUCKING GOAT this kid couldnt kill a fucking goat then god gets all pissy. What a dick. All of a sudden, not KILLING animals and being fat and jolly (bhuddism) makes WAY more sense than this all powerful fuckbag. but wait, logic cannot define god, wah wah wah. in conclusion, you guys cannot prove shit, miracles are coincidences, god simply isnt there, or he's not omnipotent, either way, the bible is crap, even if it is metaphorical. The bible says this (in other words) It doesnt matter what your orders are, just as long as you do it. crappy aint it?





your funny.. and also ignorant

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Me too! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) When I first encountered this conundrum it stood out to me as a glaring contradiction, and evidence that not all that is printed in the bible can be taken literally.

It's like the number of the beast's name, it takes wisdom to understand it, therefore I chose to seek wisdom. Is it wise to believe all one reads? Or to trust all those who say Lord Lord!

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

Just wondering if this fits the bill? I have not read all of it (yet).. i just found it and it is 1:30 am, time for bed on a work night. I'm mostly posting this as a way for me to bookmark the page and as a reminder for me to check it out, but it seemed pertinent to our discussion.

xtreem

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Just wondering if this fits the bill? I have not read all of it (yet).. i just found it and it is 1:30 am, time for bed on a work night. I'm mostly posting this as a way for me to bookmark the page and as a reminder for me to check it out, but it seemed pertinent to our discussion.

xtreem

Whoops, forgot to paste the link. I still didnt read it all the way, but we have compnay right now.

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/visiblegod.html

Thanks for the link ... was wondering! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

As I understand it the main points of the author makes are:

"Although these are the first places where it is said that God appears before someone, there is very little that can actually be drawn from it. God "appears" -- but in what form? It is perhaps important to note that in both cases, it is Yahweh who appears before Abe and Isaac -- not Elohim, God's "majestic power" name."

and

" note that Jacob here says he sees not Yahweh, but Elohim."

also

"not a contradiction but a paradox"

&

"Ex. 24:9-11 -- Things are starting to develop here for our paradox. Once again, it seems that it was expected that something bad would happen (v. 11); and yet, there seems to be a sort of surprise that no harm came to the elders. But two factors now come to the fore. First, the Hebrew word here for see is chazah -- and has the connotation of gazing at, with mental perception, or having a vision. "

In the case of the latter, it seems that establishs a case for the 'non-literal' in that it is not possible to read that in the literal text which says "also they saw ELOHIYM". That literal reading seems also relevant to the the claims by the author regarding Yahweh and Elohim.

"No man hath seen ELOHIYM at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."John 1:18

10 And they saw the ELOHIYM of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.



11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw ELOHIYM, and did eat and drink. Exodus 24:10&11



Sacred Name King James Version

That does not ssatisfy my mind in any way that the bible or indeed any other 'sacred' scripture should be taken literally. Read in the New Testament where it says that some things are to be understood spiritually. What is the difference between understanding something spiritually or literally?

Literal to me seems like a cold, focused quasilogical sort of reasoning whereas spiritual, whilst not denying the facts, seems like a process in which emotions, gut feeling and things like love and joy, sadness and courage enter the train of thought.

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

That does not ssatisfy my mind in any way that the bible or indeed any other 'sacred' scripture should be taken literally. Read in the New Testament where it says that some things are to be understood spiritually. What is the difference between understanding something spiritually or literally?

Literal to me seems like a cold, focused quasilogical sort of reasoning whereas spiritual, whilst not denying the facts, seems like a process in which emotions, gut feeling and things like love and joy, sadness and courage enter the train of thought.

I'm sorry it wasnt good enough for your mind. It did, however more than satisfy me.

I'm just wondering what YOU mean by spiritual. When i read that ("in the New Testament where it says that some things are to be understood spiritually."), i take spiritual as meaning "of heavenly things" as opposed to "earthly things" and also pertaining to the application of earthly knowledge to understand the (literal) things of heaven.. what i mean by this is i believe heaven to be a real, literal place, but since it is outside of our (general) experiences- - God's Word helps us to understand.

I'm not trying to insult you, so keep that in mind when i say that when someone tells me that they think that the Bible is just (in your case- largely) metaphores, i picture them as pick-and-choose...wishy-washy in their understanding.

To me, the hardest verse in the Bible is Gen 1:1 ("In the begining, God created the heaven and the earth."). If one accepts that, the rest mostly falls in place, because it states when; it states Who; and it states what was done. And each one of those can be taken literally.

Sorry that i was not any help, though.

xtreem

quote:Australia contains flora and fauna not known elsewhere on the planet, if there where originally only one continent, how did the Koalas come to be only in Australia?

That is such a ridiculous statement/question.

Here are some comparable statements:

Why are lions and aloe indigenous to Africa ?

There is no logical reason why sloths are native to South and Central America.

It makes no sense that a lemur is primordial to Madagascar.

It's inconceivable that Gladiola's originated in southern Africa.

Tulip's come predominantly from Asia...how absurd.

*

*

I mean...WHAT ?

All animals and plants are indigenous to a specific area.

While I know that this simple concept was not the intended point, it was a very bad way of saying, "Evolution must be true, because THIS proves it !".

The Bible does not go into GREAT detail about how the animals were dispersed throughout the planet, but that does not mean that however it happened is impossible.

I also have not heard any definitive proof (scientific, or otherwise) that all the continents used to be one. Even if they were, all the animals that survived were on Noah's Ark, and when they finally left the boat, the animals went where they went.

You must also consider the science of it all...the Bible doesn't explain everything, and it is quite often appropriate to look to science for logical answers to questions pertaining to non-spiritual events and occurances.

That science, and the logic behind it, should not be used as a deciding factor regarding the validity of the Bible or the existence of God, because both are spiritual, and science does not entertain spirituality.

All I am saying is that this line of thinking is severely flawed, and to use it as some sort of proof that God doesn't exist is ludicrous.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

That is such a ridiculous statement/question.

With all due respect, it seems because you cannot give a reasonable answer, you have become unreasonable. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:While I know that this simple concept was not the intended point, it was a very bad way of saying, "Evolution must be true, because THIS proves it !".

I have an open mind on it, yours seems closed, that's a great pity, however evolution is lauded by many scientists and great thinkers as the best way humans have of explaining 'how God did it'.

quote:The Bible does not go into GREAT detail about how the animals were dispersed throughout the planet, but that does not mean that however it happened is impossible.

Apparently not.

quote:

All I am saying is that this line of thinking is severely flawed, and to use it as some sort of proof that God doesn't exist is ludicrous.

You are making an assumption that because one cannot take all of the bible as literal, that equates to non-belief. Sounds like stereotypical thinking and speaks of a defensiveness that is not at all necessary. I am simply asking questions about those things that I find no answers for.

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

science does not entertain spirituality??? other way around, sister... how many scientists have you heard of that murdered religious men for their controversial new religious ideas?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



I'm not trying to insult you, so keep that in mind when i say that when someone tells me that they think that the Bible is just (in your case- largely) metaphores, i picture them as pick-and-choose...wishy-washy in their understanding.



Beware of those who say they are not going to do something and then go ahead and do it anyway! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) How does that site's explanation satisfy you? Sincerely, how? I don't get it, the basis of their case was that Yahweh is used in circumstances where 'God' is seen by men, and Elohim when 'God' is not able to be seen, yet the word Elohim is used in both examples given. To my mind the obvious reason is it cannot be taken literally and to do so is to surrender one's free will to the instruction of others.

The Roman Catholic church has long cited the Protestant use of it's bible as evidence of the papal authority. They say one cannot understand the bible, without first reading the works of the church fathers and authorities, they decry relying on one's own understanding -- and for a thousand years they killed whoever disagreed with them.

To simply accept things are so because an apparent authority asserts so, is the mark of despotism for ages past. "Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it's mistakes". (Author?)

i'll throw my 2 cent's in 4 the hell of it i'm an athesis but i c the bible as a good book of moral's 2 life by i don't believe all the shit actually happened but i believe that it teach's us a good way 2 live and i believe that mosis however u spelled it saw that the world was going 2 b doomed so he did some cheap parlor tricks said it was a "god" and that he's always watching u so u better watch out u better not pout i'm telling u y god is watching u mmmmm that sounds similar 2 something else i heard 2 keep kids in check mmmmm don't know where exactly o well but that's my 2 cents

I just noticed something...one other poster used to say 'Namaste' at the end of his/her posts.

Your signature is too similar...I suggest that you are the same person.

If so, why did you change your screen name ?

Just curious.

quote:With all due respect, it seems because you cannot give a reasonable answer, you have become unreasonable.

I am ridiculous because I think what you said was outlandish and preposterous ?

I don't see the correlation.

My answer was adequately reasonable, whether or not you found it to be believable.

quote:I have an open mind on it, yours seems closed, that's a great pity, however evolution is lauded by many scientists and great thinkers as the best way humans have of explaining 'how God did it'.

Did I say you didn't have an open mind ? If I did, I apologize. I don't think I did, though.

My mind was open from the day I was born.

Please do not presume to understand me, simply because I believe one way or another.

I did not come to the beliefs that I have by falling on my head from the top of a 3 story building.

Scientist's hold fast to the theory of evolution because it seems to justify their belief that there is no God, and that we are the greatest species in the universe.

It's greed, pride and selfishness.

That is it, and that is all...no matter how logical you claim to be (talking about said scientist's here).

quote:You are making an assumption that because one cannot take all of the bible as literal, that equates to non-belief. Sounds like stereotypical thinking and speaks of a defensiveness that is not at all necessary. I am simply asking questions about those things that I find no answers for.

God tells us that His word is complete, and perfect in both it's context, as well as it's delivery.

Since I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I believe that what He has said is true.

That means that every single letter is ordained, and protected in it's validity by God, the omnipotent creator of our existence.

I would not believe in God if I found Him to be flawed by human definition.

How could He claim to be all that He says He is, if He is not "perfect" ?

I would have no reason to trust such an entity.

To have faith in Him (something we cannot see, touch, taste, hear, or experience outside of spirituality) is complete trust. It is insane, to the common eye.

I know, because I used to have such an eye. *winks*

That is not a hard concept.

Try not to side-step. You are detracting from the debate.

I am not at all defensive (I am simply VERY aggressive by nature. Sorry for that...I will try and tone it down).

I do, however, have a hard time tolerating blatant attempts at disregarding the emminent possibilities that are available to us, by asking questions that are not supported by actual thought (or so it seemed).

I found it to be slightly insulting, and not at all as "innocent" a question as you are indicating that it was.

You seem like an extremely intelligent person, and if you were being serious by asking that question, you were doing yourself a terrible injustice by representing yourself in such a manner.

For simple questions that have OBVIOUS answers (such as the one you presented), you could have Googled it.

I did not find it at all insightful, or even purposeful.

If I misperceived it, I apologize.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

science does not entertain spirituality??? other way around, sister... how many scientists have you heard of that murdered religious men for their controversial new religious ideas?

Ok, let me explain that a little better.

When performing a scientific experiment, a scientist will not say, "Now how does spirituality factor in to this equation ?"

See what I am saying, now ?

quote:Originally posted by Shaokhano:

i'll throw my 2 cent's in 4 the hell of it i'm an athesis but i c the bible as a good book of moral's 2 life by i don't believe all the shit actually happened but i believe that it teach's us a good way 2 live and i believe that mosis however u spelled it saw that the world was going 2 b doomed so he did some cheap parlor tricks said it was a "god" and that he's always watching u so u better watch out u better not pout i'm telling u y god is watching u mmmmm that sounds similar 2 something else i heard 2 keep kids in check mmmmm don't know where exactly o well but that's my 2 cents

Ummmmmm...

You need to read it.

Seriously.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I just noticed something...one other poster used to say 'Namaste' at the end of his/her posts.

Your signature is too similar...I suggest that you are the same person.

If so, why did you change your screen name ?

Just curious.

Had the one tag since joining totse, and Namaste is not an unusual salutation http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote: God tells us that His word is complete, and perfect in both it's context, as well as it's delivery.

Since I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I believe that what He has said is true.

That means that every single letter is ordained, and protected in it's validity by God, the omnipotent creator of our existence.



Every single letter?

New International Version (NIV)

God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

John 4:23-25

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

John 4:23-25

God is 'a' Spirit or God 'is' spirit. So much meaning hinges on one letter, especially if one is taking a literal view. If I were to read different versions of the bible which do I take literally?

"every single letter is ordained, and protected in it's validity by God, the omnipotent creator of our existence"

King James Version (KJV)

24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

24"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Amplified Bible (AMP)

24God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).

Contemporary English Version (CEV)

24God is Spirit, and those who worship God must be led by the Spirit to worship him according to the truth.

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Every single letter?

Yes, in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, every letter and word was inspired.

English tends to be less precise in its individual word meanings, compared to some other languages, so when the scholars translated the Bible, the different versions express the meaning and structure of the Scriptures as closely as possible in English, though with some variances.

Some versions/translations of the Bible are more accurate to the original texts than others, and other versions are easier to read for the lay (uneducated) person.

This is why the study of the Scriptures requires more than a cursory examination, but intensive scholastic focus into its literal and contextual meaning, including studying the original letters, words, and phrases used to better achieve a clear picture. This is aided by study guides such as Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, and commentaries from accurate Biblical scholars.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

all the animals that survived were on Noah's Ark, and when they finally left the boat, the animals went where they went...

That science, and the logic behind it, should not be used as a deciding factor regarding the validity of the Bible or the existence of God...

What a strange little fantasy

world you live in. Noah's Ark?

I take it as a grossly overedited collection of fictional short stories and myths, thinly plagarized from other sources and comprised into a poorly-structured poem, generously added to over the course of several decades by a bunch of sexually frustrated monks. Next question, please.

Feel better now ?

Viraljimmy:

Why do you write on only half the page? That's starting to bug me.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Ok, let me explain that a little better.

When performing a scientific experiment, a scientist will not say, "Now how does spirituality factor in to this equation ?"

See what I am saying, now ?

no, because you're not making any sense whatsoever.

science is a method. it does not pertain to any specific belief system, it is simply the process by which deductive thought produces degrees of certitude about the natural world.

spirituality, on the other hand, has a zillion and one different interpretations, allegiances, and other nuances. it is a vague word that refers to many different things; the only universal understanding of it is as a reference to the supernatural.

science is not concerned with spirituality, and rightly so. if a particular person practicing science has strong religious leanings, then it is his/her prerogative as to how he acquires and applies knowledge gained from its dutiful exercise... but the science must be done well, or it is worthless. spirituality must be concerned with science.

however, a non-spiritual scientist has absolutely NO obligation to spirituality. his/her science will not suffer for the lack of spiritual concern. this says nothing of the positive or negative effects which his/her science may yield for the public at large.

now, to get back to the original issue. science is in no way restricted from entertaining the possibility of the spiritual realm(s). in fact, there are countless proper scientific experiments that have been conducted to prove or disprove the existence of supernatural phenomenon. i'm sure you've heard of many of them, and have used some to defend your spiritual inclination. for example - the effects of prayer, the existence of ghosts, quantum theories, the possibility of virgin birth, the outer reaches of the cerebral cortex responsible for feelings of divinity/nirvana, faith-healing, extra-sensory perception, autistic savants, spontaneous human combustion, etc, etc, etc...

aaaah, i wasn't going to do it, but what the fuck,

(cont'd from post above) ....and, most pertinent to the discussion, the study of the the origin of life.

the current theory? evolution. so... whose idea of spirituality should science have concerned itself with here?

digital? i was talking to you.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

Yes, in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, every letter and word was inspired.

English tends to be less precise in its individual word meanings, compared to some other languages, so when the scholars translated the Bible, the different versions express the meaning and structure of the Scriptures as closely as possible in English, though with some variances.

Some versions/translations of the Bible are more accurate to the original texts than others, and other versions are easier to read for the lay (uneducated) person.

This is why the study of the Scriptures requires more than a cursory examination, but intensive scholastic focus into its literal and contextual meaning, including studying the original letters, words, and phrases used to better achieve a clear picture. This is aided by study guides such as Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, and commentaries from accurate Biblical scholars.



Ok, so what you are saying is that the bible can only be understood with much thought and reference to the original meanings. This is what the Roman Catholic priests and their various cults teach.

If this is so, how then is one to read any of the several versions literally? Which is it: God is 'a' Spirit, or God 'is' spirit?

If this is so, the only way to god is through a priest?

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

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Ok, so what you are saying is that the bible can only be understood with much thought and reference to the original meanings. This is what the Roman Catholic priests and their various cults teach.

If this is so, how then is one to read any of the several versions literally? Which is it: God is 'a' Spirit, or God 'is' spirit?

If this is so, the only way to god is through a priest?

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

Are the only educated people priests? No.

Can a normally educated person research the original words and meanings of passages to discern the writer's intended meaning? Yes.

Both 'a Spirit' and 'is spirit' are accurate, actually. God (the Father) is a Spirit, one of three persons in the Trinity, and He is spirit, or not a physical being but a spiritual being.

Interesting semantic differences though...

Guess it depends on the translation editors choice of capitalization and article inclusion/usage.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:



Interesting semantic differences though...

Guess it depends on the translation editors choice of capitalization and article inclusion/usage.



Sufficient evidence that one cannot simply walk into a motel, pick up a Gideons bible and read it literally.

quote:Originally posted by bushy:

Ok, i went to sunday school every day growing up, went to a catholic school. What not. I think that bible is a good idea, but It should not be taken literaly.

1. The people who wrote it were not witnesses to the events. For most of the bible. its that he says she says shit.

2. The bible that people read in church is edited, books are missing, pages are missing. Its put together as people see fit. Some places in the bible are extremely loosely translated.

3. If jesus was god, EVERYONE WOULD KNOW. Also, it has been proven that life started at the southern tip of africa. Throught the bible it refers to the middle east and the northern area of africa. Eden would have started ar the south of africa.

4. Jesus never said he was the son of god. and If you were gods son you would want people to know.

Im jsut really pissy, i had a long discussion today about the bible and i was really mad cause this guy took it lteraly.

Ill admit its a good moral book, but it takes away the free choice. God wouldnt make laws that we govern ourselves by. Why would he let his people fight over him? HUH? He wouldnt. suposidly hes and all loving god. yet, he lets people represent him and fight for him. What the hell kinda god is that?



1. Prove that they were not. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, and so on were written by different people from different perspective. As to be witnesses.

2. Those are called the dead sea scrolls. They are missing from the bible, however they do come around to colleges. You're still able to read them.

3.Jesus Wasn't GOD!

4.He said the son of man, price of peace, Price of Nazareth, etc. He was the son of God, the Old testament foretells the coming of Jesus.

5.You're a fuckin' idiot for being 'pissy' because people DO take the bible literally. Do you know what a belief is? A belief is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. "To each his own." If you feel that you have enough evidence to say the bible is a mere nice idea, then so be it. If another has enough evidence to believe that it is literal, so be it.

6. You said it yourself, 'Freedom of choice.' According to the bible the only reason we live is to choose to love God or not to. Heaven or hell. God doesn't CONTROL people. All throughout history we've battled in the name of religion. Who cares? It isn't God they battle for, it's in the name of their RELIGION.



[This message has been edited by HellzShellz (edited 02-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I really don't see how anyone here could take it literally, even though they've said they do. Does that mean you literally do not wear clothes with different types of fibers? Do you stone adulterous women?

No, you Follow the laws of your land!

Some of you people seem very religious and mislead. "Don't cut your hair, it's a sin", "Don't wear make-up it's a sin too."

That's religion... not God.

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

I beleive like all religous texts, the origin and the validity of The Bible just simply cannot be proved.

God wrote it. Ok. But we cannot know for sure just like we cannot know for sure if God DIDNT write it.

It all comes down to this. The Bible is here, some people beleive it, some people don't. We can't prove if its God's word, or some guy who decided to claim that.

It's here, take it as you will. I personally think the Bible has many good stories and lessons, but as for its validity, I rank it with none.

God didn't write the bible. You people have your facts twisted and distorted, YET you still call them facts. God gave dreams and visions to HUMANS that could write the bible and bear witness to the events going on. Reason being, he probably knew some easily swayed fool would be influenced by his own 'facts' he/she seems to have pulled out of his/her ass. Why look for a reason NOT to believe? Why not a reason to believe?

The discovery of Noah's Ark.

The red Heiffer being born, recently, in the middle east.

**It's been over 2000 years since a red Heiffer has been born.**

Your believers know that the red Heiffer is sacred and is used for the mercy seat.

There's your Holy War!

No matter how much proof you're given you'll still look for a reason not to believe. I've posted enough of my thoughts to you people. "To each his own." Look into what you don't understand. Read, translate, comprehend, so that you can understand. Be open-minded.

I'm non-denominational, but I can admit the possibility that God might not be real.

I know nothing, but what I know.

omg, shuuuuuuut up.

"I know nothing, but what I know."?????

are you kidding me??? is that supposed to be deep?

"No matter how much proof you're given you'll still look for a reason not to believe."

that's called healthy skepticism... besides, just saying that you provide so 'much proof' does nothing to strengthen your argument... why don't you actually provide the proof??? oh yeah, cuz you don't know what convincing proof looks like, since actually using your brain critically is a bad thing in your mind...

Why look for a reason NOT to believe? Why not a reason to believe?

well, i can't argue with you there, since my momma told me that mighty mouse (the one TRUE god) wants you only to focus on why he exists, or you'll go to mighty hell where a mouse-trap will pin you down inches from sweet cheddar cheese for all of eternity. i'm glad we both agree, you should come to my mighty prayer group some time. im me.

I originaly posted here, and asked if, those who said they took the bible literally, 'do not wear clothes with different types of fibers' or stone adulterous women'.

The answer, which I thought to be satisfactory at the time, was that, "the Mosaic Laws have been repealed from the Gentiles (anyone not Jewish) by the New Covenant".

But this brings with it even more problems.

Psalms 19:7 - "The law of the LORD is perfect "

Why would the law be repealed if it was perfect? If it was perfect, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with stoning adulterous women. So the question still stands. Do you stone adulterous women? If not, why not? Can I stone adulterous women and be fine with god? According to the bible I would be, since the law is perfect. If I would be wrong with god, then the law would be imperfect.



P.S. Did Jesus have long hair?

Isn't there also a passage in the New Testament (not sure of the exact book and chapter, but it's a pretty "famous" one) that says something along the lines of "Jesus said that he was not here to abolish the old laws"

Sorry for the vagueness, but I remember reading that, and having a "Jewish Christian" go on and on about it.