Matthew78
aspiring biblical scholar
This is the appropriate forum.
Excellent! I have a number of examples that I want to discuss so that might result in many threads being started.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
This is the appropriate forum.
i do not know the exact placement in the bible...
but there is a passage where the jews complain that pharoah orders them to create bricks, but will not supply the straw.
What is conviently left out is that the pharoah was about improveing upon with the resources they had in the best possible way.
While the jews cried out they left out that Pharoah insisted they use sand instead of straw. It made stronger better bricks!
I assume it was left out because it gave Pharoah a good light & they wished to make him look bad!
I was wondering if this was the appropriate area to discuss what I consider to be flaws in the Bible. For example, I could list what I consider to be a flaw and then ask for responses from people who believe that the Bible is inerrant and explain my skepticism of their answers if I have any.
The story of Adam and Eve, imo, has to be allegorical to fit within the Adam and Eve story and comply with God's sixth day creation, mankind.13 Cain said to the LORD, My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.
The only way, imo, to reconcile Gen. 1:26-27 and Genesis 4:13-14 is to realize that Adam and Eve were, in the mist of other people and therefore, NOT the very first people to have occupied the earth.26 Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. 27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Interesting thread I must say. Thank you Mattew78!
I always found the discrepancy in Biblical genealogies to be interesting. So far I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of the following.I was wondering if this was the appropriate area to discuss what I consider to be flaws in the Bible. For example, I could list what I consider to be a flaw and then ask for responses from people who believe that the Bible is inerrant and explain my skepticism of their answers if I have any.
Of course not.Wouldn't you agree that since Adam was mentioned in the legal genealogical records as a literal person who bore offspring we can deduce that Adam was an historical person?
You mean you see no value whatsoever in being able to trace a Hebrew lineage literally back to God's first workings? As opposed to not? Really?Let me clarify. If the position is taken that Adam was an allegorical character, as presented by the Bible, then there would be no need to have included him in the genealogy, especially as having offspring.
Wouldn't you agree that since Adam was mentioned in the legal genealogical records as a literal person who bore offspring we can deduce that Adam was an historical person?
There is an inordinate amount of high quality biblical scholarship available. Don't confuse your inability with necessity.I see the problem here Raymond. You are using logic. You have to throw that out of the window if you want to discuss the bible.
Oh dear, are you saying there is no scholarship around the Bible?I see the problem here Raymond. You are using logic.
You have to throw that out of the window if you want to discuss the bible.
:tribal:
No. You are saying that.Oh dear, are you saying there is no scholarship around the Bible?
Either you're not being honest or you literally do not know what you're talking about.No. You are saying that.
There is an inordinate amount of high quality biblical scholarship available. Don't confuse your inability with necessity.
Either you're not being honest or you literally do not know what you're talking about.
It appears I owe you an apology. I mistakenly thought ...
Honesty is an appreciated quality on this forum. consider it as a long term investment.No. You are saying that.
I did not say there was no scholarship. You said that. It was your straw man.Honesty is an appreciated quality on this forum. consider it as a long term investment.
Apology accepted :beach:Thed third option being: all of the above.
Your assertion was simple. 'it is impossible to discuss the Bible in a logical way.'I did not say there was no scholarship. You said that. It was your straw man.
I see the problem here Raymond. You are using logic.
You have to throw that out of the window if you want to discuss the bible.
:tribal:
Your assertion was simple. 'it is impossible to discuss the Bible in a logical way.'
Maybe its time you clarify it a little bit more what you meant with your words:
You know, sometimes its better being upfront instead of going in circles.Nope, still not got it, but you are getting warmer.
I am saying Raymond made assumptions about the logic that would be applied by the reader, and what their interpretation would be, and was surprised to be pulled up on it (as I was when I joined here), but the book is so ambiguous even people who read it religiously cannot agree on the passages.
So "No, you cannot apply logic".