I'm conflicted about the Bible. Will you discuss it with me?
- Thread starter Conflicted
- Start date
I was replying to the question about original bibles and stuff.
Floods happen. Some are great, some aren't. I can accept regional floods but not a planetwide flood. That's just silly.
From what I recall these cultures all had roughly the same time line / disaster effects for the flood. Now that is weird enough to gather a persons interest in my opinion.
Just added some links with differing opinions.
http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html
http://davelivingston.com/universalflood.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnellyr/summary.html
Yes, flood stories are pretty common. That's because floods are pretty common. And in less developed times than ours, when the average person's world would have been restricted to a relatively small area, it's easy to imagine it'd look to them like the whole world was flooded. Certainly THEIR whole world could have been. But there's no reason to think all those stories refer to the same flood, or that they all happened at once. If there had been a global flood in historical times as described in the OT, there'd be clear evidence of it everywhere. There isn't, so it didn't happen.
Tsunamis, floods, and tidal waves happen. Some are large enough to affect many countries. Sometimes more than one can happen at the same time.
Of the entire 66 books that make up the bible? Not as far as I am aware of. We have to assume the books that were oral in the OT were written down correctly as that is what the Bible uses as it's only reference material for the OT.
You should use that as your signature for every post you make, ..... just so people don't get confused about who you are.
Up until a few hundred years ago the "whole world" included everything out to the horizon! :smile:
Just a point - Oral historians have been shown to keep a highly accurate record of events, without error that they were entrusted with. Otherwise as they say, they did not get that particular position, one that was sought after by many due to the respect it carried.
So I see your humor but do you see my point?
http://tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html
Oral recall was far more important in ancient socities, particularly Judaism, than we have commonly allowed for; and the techniques used for memorization by ancient societies as a whole have a remarkable similarity to techniques promulgated by today's "memory improvement" seminars we now pay exorbitant fees to attend. Byrskog notes that "...as we know today from modern studies of visual memory, most people recall -- correctly or not -- the past through images impressed on their memory. The ancient people were aware of this basic, human characteristic." He also reports exceptional (and very likely exaggerated, in some cases) examples from ancient texts of memory feats [162-3]:
Plato says that the Sophist Hippias of Elis "was able to repeat fifty names after hearing them only once."
Pliny the Elder reports that Cyrus was able to name every man in his army, and that Lucius Scipio remembered the names of every person in the Roman Empire, and that one named Charmadas "recited by heart any book in the libraries."
Seneca boasted of being able to his youth to repeat 2000 names read to him "and recite in reverse order over two hundred verses his fellow students told him..." He does regard this as miraculous, however!
Though indeed these from Pliny are likely (!) exaggerated, "it is evident that the more detailed and the more voluminous the scope of information stored in the memory could be shown to be, the more impressive it was." The ideal was to recall exactly, "as detailed as possible," though obviously the ideal would have limits. Among the Jews, rabbis were encouraged to memorize entire books of the OT, indeed the whole OT, and all of Jewish education consisted of rote memory. Students were expected to remember the major events of narratives - although incidentals could be varied, if the main point was not affected [Wilk.JUF, 32].
This is reflected well in the differences in reportage that we find in the Gospels, for there we find an 80% agreement in the words of Jesus [Linn.ISP, 106]; see also [More.ScCy, 144], and see comments about ma besay-il here.
I realize that. I was bringing something that you may not have been aware of to your attention regarding Oral Historians.
I'm influenced by other verses that show God has a preference for white in times of 'sacred business' the color of the day that sent the men to a place that puts them before the GWT in the first place was red. The Angels there are in white, the perfected men arre in white, the Holy Spirit is likened to a white horse in a vision so the odds are more than zero that the term white is accurate. The question I have is for those who see that place and time as being when the men resurrected at that time are then sent onto further punishment in the lake. Righteousness is compared to white, the men that arrive there that day get pardons because they finished the punishment that came with their crimes and God is giving them a full pardon, a white piece of paper so to speak.
To put it into perspective science today would have to start exploring the theory of multi-verses being the source of the material for our big bang. When stars explode they do not reform, instead the remnants go off in a multitude of directions and eventually combine with the remnants of many stars exploding and that is how a new star gets it's material.
Understandable, so far it hasn't fit, what if it starts to fit better and better as 'new proof' becomes available? (something like only a computer could discover because of the odds or just the bulk of info that would have to be gone through)
That's fine, if science has it right then does the current understanding of the bible have to be adjusted or is the 'wrong version' locked into stone and the book is condemned? If the creation days had to start with 4,000 as a base number and then each day being that number multiplied by 1,000 before the best match between science and the text of the bible being closest to matching. If that information was part of the signs that come with the very end then it would have to be 'disguised' in the beginning. Seeing the days advance like that is only possible for a time when powers of 10 are common knowledge and the solution to dealing with large numbers.
If you have fallen angels as beings that were life-size to the statues (biggest) the building the ancient monuments could have been easily done. One angel foe 20 years or 20 angels for 1 year, take your pick. They were put into a pit during the flood (immortals would not die in a flood of water that laster 10 years) That event took the 10,000 saints that Moses and Enoch (in Jude) reference.
Lucky us as none of the fallen angels were very fond of mortals. The last 3 1/2 years is supposed to see a return to those days. Satan is a fallen angel, the Beast from the Pit is a fallen angel that was active before the flood and the False Prophet is almos angelic (most likely as he is sent to the lake) 4 buried angels are said to manifest into 200,000 horsemen. In about 3 years they kill 1/3 of mankind, put them pulling blocks (no food, no water, no rest) how fast could the trip from the quarry be brought down to? Using a model of the biggest statues how fast could they lift the blocks into place to assemble the pyramids? That is who the legends sp4eak of, memories fro after the flood and the grandkids were off starting new nations and such. Noah's kids would have been part of the community of giants, their wives would have been classified as giants so the stories after the flood would have been from their side of the family. Goliath and the races of giants that were exterminated after the flood was when that line of beings ended. (they should have had the 'best memories' of life before the flood)
For this exchange how about we go with things the bible says that raise question, just like you already did, no prophecy involved I read ahead.
Perhaps that is why heaven is mentioned first, ie '..heaven and (then) the earth' Science dates it as about 13.B and 4.5B. Before the earth had sunlight and rotation it could not have existed by the requirement for day 1 to end experiencing light/dark while being on it's surface. Say 4B years ago, it would take 3.6B years before the earth cooled enough that water could be found in liquid and vapor form. That would have been the end of day 2 meaning day 2 was from 4B to 400M years ago, day/night until water vapor and liquid water on some part of the earth. (highest elevations would have been the coldest and in a cooling world that is where liquid would first form today) It would tale another 360 M years for those mountain streams to cool the crust enough that the obean basins could fill with water. I don't have the energy input required to convert deep space temp of 'ice' to be liquid as we know it but the carbon footprint must be enormous even over a long period of time.
Before the sun was shining (end of day 1 ) the solar system was forming and even the sun was without form as far as producing light was concerned. Even the the earth did not exist until the light part was fulfilled and it had rotation of some sort. For the heaven to form God had His Spirit 'get the material' that would make the universe 'real', there is no better way I can explain it.
The sun was there, what it gives off is named, light, and it put the reader at a location, a place in heaven that will be called the earth and something new exists, sunrise and sunset on earth
That marks the dividing line between heaven an earth, We and our birds are earthly creatures because we have to touch ground sometime, Land and atmosphere and surface of water and atmosphere are the boundary, when birds are flying they are considered to be 'fowls of heaven', angels would appear that way but would never need to land. Water is used, stage two of life on earth was to have water in two forms vapor and liquid (no ice is possible on a molten world)
A world that had been molten rock acquired a 'skin' to the extent that pools (dew) of water could be found. Timeframe foe day 2 is 4B - 400M years, day 3 would be 400M -40M years ago day 4 is the time thing and day 5 is gone before the seas are said to be full
(day 4 = 40M - 4M) day 5 = 4M - 400,000 years ago)
Moss would be the first life to grow on a new volcanic island miles from nowhere, The first moisture would be from condensation and it would have to form dew/triclke/stream/river/ before ocean could be used. If several days are allowed before life is mentioned in relation to the 'seas' then can it be 'assumed that it was an 'ongoing operation all the time'? If moss could exist when dew was present then by the time trees were reproducing ponds and lakes would have existed and they would eventually grow into the oceans we know today.
Light was there by the end of day 1 , sunlight and rotation of the earth, end of day 2 was water in two forms, end of day 3 was trees existing (using todays requirement for a forest atmosphere), day 4 sat the orbit of the earth around the sum become the same as it was on the end of day4, 4M years ago.
They were given names, all heavenly bodies existed as part of the words 'created heaven' from Ge:1:1, 'created earth' has an 'and then' before it, the heavens haven't changed much in 4B years.
The weight of the oceans was the final weight added to planet earth so that the orbit it had when that happened is the same we have today. The heavenly bodies were given names and a purpose in our lives.
Microbes are the least important (lifeform) to the story of the bible, other starts are more important to the universe but they are mentioned almost like an afterthought. That holds true for whales as far as ocean life goes and the same as the creepy crawly things as far as life on dry earth is concerned.
That is a reference to them being 'modeled' after these creatures.
Re:4:7:
And the first beast was like a lion,
and the second beast like a calf,
and the third beast had a face as a man,
and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.
If I felt that way I would be wasting my time in looking for a blend between science and the Bible, not that I spend more time than threads like this take up.
It still works out that the waters existed there be haeven was created so it points to something past what we know as the universe. The 3rd heaven would be so far past it that we (the universe) would recede in size till we were no longer visible. The next step up from the creation of th earth would be the creation of the heaven and that would be at 40B years ago, 15B since the big bang and 25B to gather the 'water for the big bang.' That's not even a theory yet lol
We can't travel back to the time Ge:6 covers but reality is the theme rather than it being myths is promoted as being literal, as fantastic as it sounds. Mankind would have trouble settling the wotld in 1500 years, fallen angels should be able to do it in 15 years
The wizard stuff does have parameter such as a start and stop time, who is affected is another parameter in the verses below ti woul be the ones being taken that are cursed ratrher than the ones left.
M't:24:40:
Then shall two be in the field;
the one shall be taken,
and the other left.
M't:24:41:
Two women shall be grinding at the mill;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
M't:13:41:
The Son of man shall send forth his angels,
and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend,
and them which do iniquity;
M't:24:28:
For wheresoever the carcase is,
there will the eagles be gathered together.
Be sure to 'scope' it out before the end. Putting the 4 time-lines in overlap means it takes 1/4 of the time to understand the impact of that.
Not everything is supposed to be fixed before the deadline for getting it fixed. Perhaps the delay is the tree of life is nor ready ot te number destined to be alive for the 1,000 years hasn't reached the right number yet. That may seem trivial but those same people are alive for the full 1,000 years and then they live inside New Jerusalem for eternity as priests in the new earth
If everything that had life here gets it restored in the new earth then the city has the right number and the longer it takes than more people there will be to start off the 'garden building for the flesh that the living water will bring back from God's memory.
Lu:12:6:
Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings,
and not one of them is forgotten before God?
No, it means if in book 60 He says the most important date will be kept a secret and then let it the date loose in book 62 would not be possible.
Humans are the intended reader, what form should it take?
The Bible defines it, accepting that is a different matter but it does show the difference between reality and mysticism.
Isa:53:9:
And he made his grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death;
because he had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Isa:53:10:
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him;
he hath put him to grief:
when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,
he shall see his seed,
he shall prolong his days,
and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Before you judge Him as being cruel that bruise is the halfway point to the salvation of mankind.
If it explains that by the end og the book what matter does it make that it isn't in the order you would find easiest. The more difficult it is the odd increase that it is divine if it can (be made to) make sense.
Does science come to the conclusion easily, to take advice on the Bible you would have to be chatting to an Apostle, I forget the verse that states that.
Withe the populations given i fractions mankind could whittle itself down to about 600,000 people and revelation could still unfold.
It makes the difference between 'fiction' and 'good fiction'.
Any idea how hard it is to get hindsight to see it would be more valuable if it looked ahead with the same accuracy? I don't either but it's gotta be somewhere above zero.
Still, a few dedicated men and a book and 2,000 years should get something better than 3500 sects when you consider the money poured into 'it' during that time.
I'll have to look at it later.
Like increasing it's pairs of genes count.
I would hope that applies to everybody, I'm sure God doesn't stay awake nights , ....
In this case it would be the single text or one of the 3500 versions, be faster to start with the one text and go from there
And why do we have to assume anything? Just because you think god had a hand in it doesn't mean that it did.
Just because you believe in absolutes doesn't mean there are absolutes when dealing with ancient manuscripts. The NT is full of omissions because the early church was more interested in the politics of control and omitted many early Christian writings because they didn't fit their agenda. What I find interesting is that he protestants think the Catholic church is evil when it was the Catholics who put the bible together under Constantine's authority. Can you not see the irony in that? What happened to the gospels of the other 8 apostles? They were written you know? It just so happens that there is only one surviving copy because the church ordered all copies destroyed. Can you tell us why? Do you know anything about them?
Ears, people have then ya know.
It is easy to see the NT starting off with the 4 Gospels as being the material copied and preached from. some of the letters were would be a 'collection' of comments but books like Revelation would have come in print form with no prior discussion as to what would be in it.
Let's assume that we agree that with no god, life has no meaning.
That brings us to, 'So what's the problem with that'? What makes you insist that life has to have a meaning?
Or how does having a god give life meaning? There are millions of people who find joy and meaning in life without a god. Is not life itself enough to justify getting out of bed in the morning? I have as much trouble trying to figure out why people need a god to bow down to, who need a master to tell them how to live and behave toward their fellow travelers.
@TenPenny : Let's assume that we agree that with no god, life has no meaning.
Though this thread is also useless to argue about . If you choice not to beleive no human being can ever prove to a non believer other wise . People that do believe have there reason why and this is what they share between god and thenself . Though its funny people that don't believe sure spend a lot of time with this. Myself, if I don't believe in something I wouldn't waste one moment of my time with what ever . Just like now I am not going to keep going back and forth with this argument , why should I ? You clearly don't want to believe and I am not going to spend time wasting with it, its your choice just like its my choice to believe . I can live with whom ever is a non believer and who is ... Believe me I wouldn't lose any sleep over it ... End of story .
Plain and simple , if there no god then there nothing , creations as we see it would not exist .
Though this thread is also useless to argue about . If you choice not to beleive no human being can ever prove to a non believer other wise . People that do believe have there reason why and this is what they share between god and thenself . Though its funny people that don't believe sure spend a lot of time with this. Myself, if I don't believe in something I wouldn't waste one moment of my time with what ever . Just like now I am not going to keep going back and forth with this argument , why should I ? You clearly don't want to believe and I am not going to spend time wasting with it, its your choice just like its my choice to believe . I can live with whom ever is a non believer and who is ... Believe me I wouldn't lose any sleep over it ... End of story .
Like so many Christians that I have talked to, you assume that because someone doesn't accept your version of god that they are atheists. It never enters your mind that if you were born in India you would have been raise a Buddhist or in Iran that you would be a Muslim and be just as devout as you are a Christian for having been born here. After studying religions for many decades, I now have my own spiritual system. It makes more sense to me. What I find offensive about Christianity are those who have a political agenda and want to impose their morality on the rest of us. That is why I come on these threads - to assess whether or not someone is a threat to our freedoms or not. I couldn't care less what you believe either, as long as you don't start trying to impose them on others or telling them they are going to burn for not accepting your beliefs. Then I'll try to verbally rip you a new one.
I don't have a bible, but the paper from it would better to burn than money or other books if you had to stay alive.