Ignorance promoted in the name of religion

[Spidey]

flip, either you choose to overlook the inconsistencies or excuse them as “God changed his mind”

I wasn’t going to comment on this issue again in this thread, but since you quoted me…

One that comes right to mind is incest, if the entire human race started with two people, then by default there had to be incest. Then later in the bible incest is frowned on…if that is not an inconsistency, than I don’t know what is. (God should have created more than one mating couple to avoid this condition)

inconsistency…as in “not consistent”.

You can explain it away any way you want to, but it is there, none the less.

And one incongruity, just for the heck of it…God created the Heavens and Earth in 6 days…and then he had to rest!

And one contradiction to round out the three…God is Loving and Merciful…but he makes a bet with Satan, then destroys the life of one of his most loyal followers. (in a test, none the less)

Now I’m not going to go on and on giving examples, but they “are” there, ignore/explain them if you wish.

[Duper]

Scripture doesn't say God doesn't change Him Mind.. heck .. it tells us out-right that He does on a couple of occations. It tells us that He doesn't Change. ...as in His Nature.

Is that really so hard to grasp?? How could someone that is Infinite in time and space change? He's always in the Now.

[Spidey]

That doesn’t change the fact that it’s an inconsistency.

So if God decided next week, that murder is ok, then I guess that it would be.

[flip]

Well if we go on that line of reasoning Spidey, then their was no Adam or Eve and the whole things a farce. Given that this book is at least unique in its nature and I can only believe that God created everything or their was a perfect alignment of the stars, I'm not gonna dismiss it so quickly.

Aside from that, the one inconsistency you pointed out is the exact same one were debating? I've already conceded that's a hard one.

[Spidey]

It’s not a “farce” it’s an ancient persons concept of how life began on this planet, in the absence of any other reasoning, such as science. The details are not important, it may well be a metaphor, the important thing is the lesson about lost innocence.

[flip]

I answered to hastily in my first post. As far as the 6 days thing. First let me make clear, were discussing what the bible says of itself and not whether its true or not. I've just sat and read Genesis, chapter 1. The whole thing reeks of God taking his time, which considering how the book describes his nature makes perfect sense to. To one day start a seed and slowly overtime watch it grow to maturity. Doing each thing one at a time and then the next in it's time. That makes sense to me, The God that the bible describes. It also is scientifically sound.

but he makes a bet with Satan, then destroys the life of one of his most loyal followers. (in a test, none the less)

Yeah I've wondered this myself. He also did the very same thing to his \"only begotten Son\". Honestly I have no answer for that. I can only make guesses. My opinion is that Job was sacrificed for the many. Just as Jesus was. In fact this is a story dated many years before Jesus that paints a pretty parallel picture of the 2. Some would call it prophetic. Also Job was not destroyed, all that God had given him had been taken away but his life and when the test was over he was given back twice what he did before. I see this as God showing the devil that one day, someone just like Job is gonna come and put everything back to normal. Again this assumes Job is real but it still describes the same God that is described everywhere else.

Incest

According to the Bible I'd have to agree with Thorne on this one. It doesn't leave any room for anything else. If Adam and Eve weren't the only 2 people then there is no Christian religion. You have to be able to trace back to one man for another man to be able to take his place. That's key I guess. You can't believe in Jesus if you dont believe in Adam's oneness. Incest in a sense is not so much evil as it is destructive. When breeders do this its not looked on as immoral. It's a tool they use to add or remove characteristics. After a certain time it would become destructive and then need to be to a stop. Just like eating pork cannot be a sin but it is bad for you.

[Sergeant Thorne]

The details are important. Anyone who can say that the details of scripture are not important hasn't even begun to grasp scripture, but is fascinated with their own philosophy with no concern for scripture.

"Science" involves philosophy, if anyone's honest enough to admit it. Good science lays aside philosophy and follows the evidence wherever it leads, which is rather contrary to human nature. Good science involves disciplined honesty. I have been privileged to witness this kind of honest inquiry, and I've taken a lesson from it, but I find it to be rare. The point is that this is not what the vast majority of science in our day is (with regard to these philosophically loaded issues, at least).

Your main problem here, Spidey, is that you don't understand God's nature. I'm not going to even try to reason it out. Ultimately it's a big mess, and the answer is God himself. The word of God says:

39 "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 "But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

27 "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

All of our discussion here is meaningless if we don't actually come to God, and how can anyone know God who doesn't respect his word above the word of men?

4 ... Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.

You all need to be converted (in the Biblical sense).

[Bet51987]

...Also Job was not destroyed, all that God had given him had been taken away but his life and when the test was over he was given back twice what he did before.

Not exactly. God never returned Job's seven sons and three daughters.

Bee

[Spidey]

You are right, the Bible is perfect.

And the only “problem” I see here is…I’m discussing my point of view…and you are preaching.

[Foil]

...science has yet to and will never disprove the existance of God or his creation that we call earth.

Science does not waste time trying to disprove a God.

Exactly. Good science doesn't concern itself with things outside its realm, and makes no assumptions either way about the supernatural.

Any 'scientist' who claims to have either disproven or proven something about God isn't much of a scientist in my book.

One thing this thread has shown me is that the bible is truly made of Play-Doh.

Bet, the fact that interpretations are being debated doesn't mean there aren't any correct interpretations, or that it can mean whatever people want it to.

-----

For example, think about your posts here on the DBB over the years you've been here. At times, your words have been misunderstood and quoted to mean things you didn't intend, right? People (including myself) have misinterpreted what you meant by various phrases, because they don't know you personally, or the quote was taken out of context, etc.

Does the debate over your intended meaning imply that your words are 'play-doh' and have no established meaning, or that their meaning is just whatever people want it to be? Of course not, and it's the same with scripture.

[Kilarin]

I respect your historical insight, Lothar, but to say that it's not meant to be historically accurate just because it is

I think you have a valid point Thorne, but I think we need to take the FORM in which a story is told into account as well. For example, the story of Job is told in poetry. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a real Job, but it is a good indication that the version of his story that we have is NOT the literal words everyone spoke. People don't speak poetry. Someone comes along later and takes the gist of the conversation and translates it into poetry.

Funny thing about Hebrew poetry, it doesn't rely on rhyme. The book that has been translated into more languages than any other work just happens to use a form of poetry that survives translation into any language. Interesting coincidence there.

In Hebrew poetry, there is no rhyme of sound, but a rhyme of ideas. It's called Parallelism. There are several different forms, Synonymous, Synthetic, Antithetic, etc. The one we are most interested in for looking at Genesis would be Synonymous: You say something once, then repeat it in a slightly different way, For example: Ps 19:1
The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.

now, Note the structure of the creation week:

Code: Select all

Day 1: Light                           Day 4: Sun, Moon, Stars
Day 2: Air and Water             Day 5: Fish and Birds
Day 3: Dry Land, and Plants Day 6: Land Animals, And Man
                                Day 7: Rest

(darn code tag doesn't work so I just did the best I could with the spacing above)

Day 1 through 3 parallel day 4 through 6. Days one through three establish environments, days four through six populate those same environments. Day one, light, Day four, Sun moon and stars. Day two, Air and water, Day five, fish and birds to live in the air and water. Day three, dry land, and the crowning jewel of environment, the living environment, plants. Day six, animals to live on the land, and the crowning jewel of animals, rational man. Of course, day seven crowns it all with a sanctuary in time, the Sabbath.

It's POETRY. The fact that it's poetry does NOT mean it's not true, but it DOES mean that interpreting it poetically is not out of line or hypocritical. The point is, God created everything. The exact details of HOW are probably well beyond OUR comprehension, let alone that of people living well over 3000 years ago.

I used to believe that doing transliterations of the text, with literal textual word comparisons, somehow gave us the most 'pure' meaning. But that's not the case - in fact, I think it more often leads to flawed interpretations.

I may have to disagree with you a bit, depending on exactly how you meant this.

I think using tools like Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to do transliterations of the text is one valuable PART of doing Bible research. Learning the original meanings of words can help you understand why different versions translated a text in different ways. It also helps to eliminate "one version only!" prejudice. Once you get a better understanding of how complex a process translation is, you begin to realize that translation is as much an art as it is a science and NO translation is perfect. If you attempt to preserve the original wording you may sacrifice understandability and meaning. And the more you attempt to translate the IDEA the more of your own opinion leaks in. No method of translation is perfect, all have flaws and should be examined carefully and used in conjunction with other translations when available.

Furthermore, understanding the original meanings of words is one important step in another part of good Bible research, which is that of understanding the social/historical context of what was said. Oddly enough, if we wish to elevate the idea and intent of a text over the actual words, we must first concentrate in detail on the meanings and histories of those words.

And I THINK that all you were saying was that we can't concentrate on the words alone, in which case I absolutely and 100% agree.

God never returned Job's seven sons and three daughters.

Indeed. One of the very important lessons of the book is that life here is NOT fair. It stinks. Of course, one of the other lessons is that we are RIGHT to be upset about this.

One thing this thread has shown me is that the bible is truly made of Play-Doh

If you got a group of Tolkien fans and scholars together and asked "Did Balrogs have wings", you would stir up an incredibly impassioned debate. And that over a work that's written in modern English by an author who only died in the sixties. The text we are discussing were written thousands of years ago in an ancient language. Of COURSE there are various points of view and interesting discussions. That does NOT mean that the original meaning is not there, or that the discussion is pointless.
<edit> Just saw Foil's post, he said it better.

Oh, and by the way, yes, Balrogs DO have wings.

[Foil]

The details are important. Anyone who can say that the details of scripture are not important hasn't even begun to grasp scripture, but is fascinated with their own philosophy with no concern for scripture.

Of course the details are important. My issue with your young-Earth interpretation is that you're trying to look at the details while excluding the structure they belong in (e.g. the view of Genesis creation days in terms of only the literal words, outside their historical and cultural context).

Good science involves disciplined honesty. I have been privileged to witness this kind of honest inquiry, and I've taken a lesson from it, but I find it to be rare. The point is that this is not what the vast majority of science in our day is (with regard to these philosophically loaded issues, at least).

In my experience, it's the young-Earth crowd that ends up corrupting their attempts at good science with a philosophically-driven agenda.

I've personally attended various young-Earth presentations over the years, and I can only remember one which vaguely approached the quality and rigor of a scientific presentation. The rest were more like rallies or political conventions, with maybe a few anecdotal mentions of science... but they always talk about dinosaurs! [Heh, one I remember even had the audience listening to a muffled audio recording, which the speaker claimed was "a living dinosaur somewhere in the Congo"; the young folk (including me at the time) thought that was awesome. ]

[flip]

I didn't feel like I was preaching Spidey. You presented me with 3 valid questions and then alluded that the Bible was contrary on these points. I was just pointing out the reasons I felt they were actually in agreement and not in opposition at all. That's my view honestly. To me, the Bible is the only real tangible evidence that God exists. Take again Genesis. Supposedly written in 1450-1410 B.C. I see nothing scientifically absurd there. There it claims god separated water from water. Odd way to describe the atmosphere but air is just water chemically rearranged. Same as the claim to have made man from dirt. What are our body's chemically made of? The same elements and minerals as the earth. I mean a tomato is just dirt chemically rearranged so I find nothing impossible to believe or wrong about those statements. So my arguments are not so much preaching as they are scrutiny. So far the Bible is winning

[CUDA]

Good science involves disciplined honesty. I have been privileged to witness this kind of honest inquiry, and I've taken a lesson from it, but I find it to be rare. The point is that this is not what the vast majority of science in our day is (with regard to these philosophically loaded issues, at least).

In my experience, it's the young-Earth crowd that ends up corrupting their attempts at good science with a philosophically-driven agenda.

AGREE 100% and thats the point I was trying obviously unsucessfully to make. science compliments the works of God. it reveals to us in minute details the intricacies <sp>of what he has created. It does not dispute or refute what is

[flip]

Yeah I guess I should define what I mean when I use the word science. To me science are those things that cannot be disputed. 2+2=4, water is made up of one part hydrogen 2 parts oxygen. The Laws of science. Anything else to me is conjecture and not science at all.

[Spidey]

One thing this thread has shown me is that the bible is truly made of Play-Doh.

Bet, the fact that interpretations are being debated doesn't mean there aren't any correct interpretations, or that it can mean whatever people want it to.

-----

For example, think about your posts here on the DBB over the years you've been here. At times, your words have been misunderstood and quoted to mean things you didn't intend, right? People (including myself) have misinterpreted what you meant by various phrases, because they don't know you personally, or the quote was taken out of context, etc.

Does the debate over your intended meaning imply that your words are 'play-doh' and have no established meaning, or that their meaning is just whatever people want it to be? Of course not, and it's the same with scripture.

Yes, but we have the author to ask in this case, not so with the Bible.

On a sad note…John Updike died yesterday…but I guess the bright side is now people can go about the business of telling everyone what he meant. (without his input to dispute it)

…………………

Ya see flip, this is why discussion on line is so aggravating…(ya have to keep reiterating, instead of moving on)

I didn’t ask three “questions” I presented one example of each of the three…inconsistencies, incongruities & contradictions, as I see them.

How I would handle someone who said these things…”Yes I can see how you could come to these conclusions”

How you guys handle someone who said these things…” Quote some more scripture, and tell them they are wrong”

My original statement allowed for some give and take, you guys argue from the point of view that you know best, and that is preaching. (some more than others)

[Foil]

On a sad note…John Updike died yesterday…but I guess the bright side is now people can go about the business of telling everyone what he meant. (without his input to dispute it)

So would you say it's now completely pointless for even English scholars to talk about the original intent/meaning for a given Updike work?

[flip]

How you guys handle someone who said these things…” Quote some more scripture, and tell them they are wrong”

Sure Spidey that is the norm but You can't accuse me of doing that. I've stayed objective the whole time. Never once \"quoted\" scripture. The whole time I've only said let's look at the Bible just as text. I'm not afraid to test the Bible, if it is what it claims to be it has nothing to fear. My only assertion has been this. Balancing all 66 books against themselves do I make the decision if this is a collection of books written by various men or is it THE WORDS OF GOD spoken to these men and recorded by them. Laying them all side by side they seem to all have a common author and thats what I can't overlook. You might call this preaching, I just call it what I came up with while thinking about it.

[Spidey]

Foil...

Turn on you sarcasm detector.
...........

flip, if you look two posts above mine, you will notice the text “Your main problem here, Spidey”…followed by some more scripture, then some preaching…my reply included “problem” so why did you assume I was referring to you?

Then I just said “some more than others” and you still take offence…Dude if the shoe don’t fit…don’t wear it.

[flip]

Well you specifically named me and then said \"how you guys\" so I figured you were lumping me right in with that group. I strive to keep myself objective and keep it a technical discussion so I wanted to make the distinction. I look at the Bible as a big mystery myself and enjoy digging around. I don't get upset with how others see things and even ask on occasion
One thing I do feel about God. He don't need me getting in the way and becoming a hindrance, so I just tell people how I feel and when they disagree with me I respond
\"”Yes I can see how you could come to these conclusions”\"

[Duper]

That doesn’t change the fact that it’s an inconsistency.

So if God decided next week, that murder is ok, then I guess that it would be.

you should read it a bit more carefully. So I guess you're more perfect than God to be able to distinguish right from wrong.


Having said that, i know you don't believe in God.

[Foil]

Turn on you sarcasm detector.

Your sarcasm was noted; my question remains, however.

With all the exegetical resources and references Biblical scholars have for such study (or analogously, the resources English scholars have for studying Updike's work), you believe that studying original meaning is completely pointless?

[Spidey]

Duper!

HuH What HuH? (context context context)

Dude, if God can change his mind on incest, then he can change his mind on murder. I said nothing about being more perfect than God!

2...wrong, I’m not a Christian, but I’m also not an atheist.

…………

Foil

No, I don’t believe that studying original meaning is completely pointless.

[Duper]

Since God's nature isn't going to change, neither will He change His mind on murder. God isn't human. (yes startling isn't it! )

God never changed his mind on incest. He never advocated sex or marrage with your children or parents. Cousins was not concidered incest in that culture then. In western culture thanks to GENERATIONS of inbreeding by the English royal line, it's forwned on.

Where Cain's wife is concerned, we are NEVER given any details about her other than the mention of her. ANY attempt to decifer her origin is purely speculation. God could have created her just as He did Eve. He stayedin personal contact with Man for some time; so why not? He created an entire planet full of life why not another wife?
We're simply not told.

Any time that God changed His mind was in direct relation to people and/or judgement and the intersession of a person for those people.

THAT is context.


P.S.

As a Side note, I found This. It's a pdf of some basic bible history and origin. Notice the age of the manuscripts used for translation. It's only a few pages long.

P.S.S.

....Balrogs have WINGS??!! o_0 yikes!

[Sergeant Thorne]

We are told that Adam called his wife "Eve" because she was the mother of all living.

20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

That's not speculation.

[Duper]

Gee Whiz. thanks for the leg up thorne. Obviously you know more about scripture.


sigh..

let me postulate this:

This is a metiphorical line. or maybe even prophetic. If you were to take this \"literally\" then it would include all things living. Period. birds, fish, mastidon..

that's what it says.

As I said before and as did several others, her existance is not important. It's not the point. God was remaining faithful to Cain even in the face of all his delibrate sin. What about all the people that God had assigned to KILL Cain ON SIGHT?! Where did they come from \"all of a sudden\"? It's not what's important.

[flip]

Again I must reiterate. For Jesus Christ to be who He claimed to be, you MUST be able to trace his lineage all the way back to Adam. From Adam to Abraham then to Jesus. The first covenant was made to Abraham when he was told that from his lineage a great people would be born.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Ahh, so it was sarcasm.

If you were to take this "literally" then it would include all things living. Period. birds, fish, mastidon..

Duper, that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. That would only be true if you isolated this text from the rest. Taken literally, in context, it means that all living [humans] came from her. Come on now.

P.S. I'm not trying to know more about scripture--I couldn't care less which one of us knows the most--I'm just trying to present what I know. I mean in the face of someone trying to paint me like an ignorant fool I'll let you know exactly how it is, but the understanding of the Bible that I claim is not a source of pride with me. I didn't get it on my own, and I don't know that I ever would have. There was a time when I read the Bible without seeing what it said.

[BigSlideHimself]

An earlier post used the metaphor of a painting: where the spectators could only guess at the painting's meaning, whereas only the painter could actually know. I don't know that this is always true. For the same reason that I don't think anyone truly knows why they do the things they do, I don't believe an artist can pinpoint exactly why he made the choices he did.

None of what I just said applies to my thoughts on interpreting scripture. I mention it because I think we need to make distinctions about what we're talking about.

If the Bible's authors were divinely inspired - if God was writing His word through men - could the men understand the depth of their own writing? I believe their intent would be germane to construction of the idea - but to the idea itself? I don't know.

I believe the Bible was written by men. Just men. I believe the Bible is capable of error just like any other work by men. I also don't believe that original intent is always the rubric by which a work should be construed. There are situations where an author's intent is german and paramount in interpretation. I believe there are other situations where an author's intent is negligible to the point of being moot.

[CUDA]

I believe the Bible was written by men. Just men. I believe the Bible is capable of error just like any other work by men. I also don't believe that original intent is always the rubric by which a work should be construed. There are situations where an author's intent is german and paramount in interpretation. I believe there are other situations where an author's intent is negligible to the point of being moot.

the Bible was written by man and authored by God. There are 66 books in the Bible written over a 1500 year span by 40 authors from various walks of life from Kings, to shepards. and tax collectors. and yet it is 1 continuous flowing work, yet the amazing thing is that these men never met each other and never read each others works before authoring their individual books. for this to happen by chance is not possible.

[Bet51987]

Bet, the fact that interpretations are being debated doesn't mean there aren't any correct
interpretations, or that it can mean whatever people want it to. For example, think about your posts here on the DBB over the years you've been here. At times, your words have been misunderstood and quoted to mean things you didn't intend, right? People (including myself) have misinterpreted what you meant by various phrases, because they don't know you personally, or the quote was taken out of context, etc.

Does the debate over your intended meaning imply that your words are 'play-doh' and have no established meaning, or that their meaning is just whatever people want it to be? Of course not, and it's the same with scripture.

Sorry I left you hanging Foil...

It's what Spidey already said. I'm here to correct any message so the intended meaning becomes clear but God is not so His messages still remain unclear and subject to countless interpretations. I find if peculiar, and no sarcasm is intended, that he has communicated with some humans over the years and still does but has yet to clarify His works. This, among a host of other reasons, lead me to believe that my view of God is much more realistic. I know that some will simply say that God does not owe us an explanation but that's not one of the pills I take.

Any deity who created a universe, designed it's first humans, and gave us instructions would have made them crystal clear.


The bible.... "They inherited the earth and then the army came and scorched it." = "Mayfield College."

Bee

[CUDA]

Any deity who created a universe, designed it's first humans, and gave us instructions would have made them crystal clear.

the Message of the Bible is clear

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

[Spidey]

The message I get is…behave or be smited!

[Duper]

The message I get is…behave or be smited!

isn't that what you grewe up with at home? Isn't that how our society operates?
Why's God get such a bad rap? You'll get more mercy from God than you will any court on earth.

[Spidey]

Why does God get such a bad rap…..

Like the mercy that the Canaanites were shown when he told Moses to kill them all and take their land?

[CUDA]

heh, We wouldn't have had 9-11 if they had listen to him huh

[Duper]

They were also decendants of Canaan. (see Gen 9:24-28)and Gen 10:15-20)

God knew thier hearts. (you know.. the whole Ommipotent thing?) There was also one gal and her family was left off the hook in Jerico. God is supreme and I know you have a problem with that. (most folks do) God's judgement is PERFECT.. another thing that most have a hard time with.

On a whole nuther note, if Joshua (not Moses ) had Done what he was told, Isreal wouldn't have nearly the trouble it is now. (as Cuda pointed out) Kinda like when Ruffus reminds Bill & Ted to wind their watch .... twice (that's a horrible analogy)

Bottom Line Spidey. People don't like God because they don't want to face what He says He is. As followers of Chirst, none of this \"judgement stuff\" is a problem for or to us. We're exempt. (as long as we \"keep our focus\") and even there, God is long suffering. And THAT is our salvation from ultimate judgement.

[Jeff250]

So if God decided next week, that murder is ok, then I guess that it would be.

you should read it a bit more carefully. So I guess you're more perfect than God to be able to distinguish right from wrong.

Since what is right and wrong is just whatever God decides it to be, who better to distinguish what is right and wrong!

[Spidey]

Thanks for the correction Duper. (Just proves I didn’t look it up)

You say there were descendants of Canaan, is that because God let some live or did the Jews let some live?

I do believe the sacred command was something like …every man woman & child. (not really important though, my point is still valid) God ordered genocide, you can see the mercy in that, I can’t. To me this is an act of an angry person with no restrictions, or anybody to account to.

I guess it boils down to, your definition of mercy is different than mine. We can leave it at that.

[CUDA]

you should probably do some research into why God said to kill ALL the Cannanites before you comment on this.