Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my! Irrational acceptance of the myths of the Bible makes one look as evil as the God of the Bible. Don't worry, in real life I am sure that you are not this bad.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Bible - Why Trust It
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Goodman John
Active Member
If Noah had been successful in bringing others to God, wouldn't there have more people on the Ark in addition to Noah's family? As there were no others listed, he must not have convinced anyone else. One doesn't need to have it spelled out- one only need to apply a littel deduction and critical thing skills to see the situation properly.
You want me to explain why the drowned babies were not innocent? You've got me there, I can't tell you why they weren't innocent. I'm not arguing their guilt, though- you are. But consider this: since when have we ever considered an infant to be guilty of ANYTHING? If we can show such leniency toward babies, why does God- in your view- take such a hard line against them?
As I will explain again, though, I do not believe it's God doing all of these things. In my view, it's Satan (masquerading as God) jerking Man around and causing no end of trouble- not God. I fail to understand why you would attribute such evil acts to God when God is the Good part of the equation. I don't understand why it is that when I attribute the horrors befalling Man in the OT to Satan, you insist that it's God committing these reprehensible acts. You're arguing for God being no better than Satan!
Last edited:
It’s obvious that you have done a lot of thinking on this, which is a good thing! Are you open to adjusting your views, in light of additional context?
A Scripture to start with, is Genesis 6:1-4. (I’m going to post a comment I just made, from another thread.)
Question about demons
You know, God has never interfered, according to Scripture, in human affairs to the extent He did at the Flood, right?
So conditions had to have been very drastic! Well, the beginning of Genesis 6 reveals something very drastic!
Can you grasp the severity of this situation?! It was hard for me, when I was first taught this. But as my linked post, above, stated, there is evidence, from the ancient myths which share a common thread...”gods” having sex w/ humans. Even their offspring are mentioned. In the Bible they’re called the Nephilim.
When I was first taught this, I was thinking, “Why didn’t every body jump onto the Ark, then?”
Because the people didn’t believe it.... same type of misleading influence that exists today (Revelation 12:9), was being perpetrated by those demons (despite Noah’s preaching....yes, Peter said Noah preached to them! - 2 Peter 2:5); they were no doubt saying “God has never intervened before, why would He now? Remember, these demons acted as gods among the people, as per the ancient myths.
Even today, there have been discoveries of ancient inventions, like the pyramids, etc., that modern science cannot figure out how ancient man knew how to build.
This explains it!
Alright, pick it apart, and let’s discuss it further.
At least it seems that you believe in Spirit life.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Textual criticism is a branch of textual scholarship, and of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification of textual variants, or different versions, of either manuscripts or of printed books.
Philology
Philology also includes the study of texts and their history. It includes elements of textual criticism, trying to reconstruct an author's original text based on variant copies of manuscripts.
Scholars have tried to reconstruct the original readings of the Bible from the manuscript variants. This method was applied to Classical Studies and to medieval texts as a way to reconstruct the author's original work. The method produced so-called "critical editions", which provided a reconstructed text accompanied by a "critical apparatus", i.e., footnotes that listed the various manuscript variants available, enabling scholars to gain insight into the entire manuscript tradition and argue about the variants.
A related study method known as higher criticism studies the authorship, date, and provenance of text to place such text in historical context. As these philological issues are often inseparable from issues of interpretation, there is no clear-cut boundary between philology and hermeneutics [the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts]. When text has a significant political or religious influence (such as the reconstruction of Biblical texts), scholars have difficulty reaching objective conclusions.
Some scholars avoid all critical methods of textual philology, especially in historical linguistics, where it is important to study the actual recorded materials. The movement known as New Philology has rejected textual criticism because it injects editorial interpretations into the text and destroys the integrity of the individual manuscript, hence damaging the reliability of the data. Supporters of New Philology insist on a strict "diplomatic" approach: a faithful rendering of the text exactly as found in the manuscript, without emendations.
Literary criticism
Literary criticism (or literary studies) is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Really?
So you want to do crack and bring pimps, and whores in your dad's and mom's home, so your parents must agree and say, "Sure son. Go ahead. Do whatever you want. Break the cabinet while you are at it."
I don't think so.
I know the kind of people that would enjoy parents like that though. There is a name for them. They are called rebels.
(Genesis 6:12) . . .all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. . .
(Revelation 11:18) . . .and your own wrath came, and the appointed time . . .to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.. . .
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
nPeace
Veteran Member
The use of the word successful here is subjective.
Noah was successful, according to the Bible. The account says, 'Noah did just so.' He warned the people. He finished the ark. He brought in the animals, and he went in with his family. He survived destruction.
Jesus said, thus it will be, in his day.
People mistakenly associate success with numbers, but this is a mistaken view, especially where Jehovah is concerned.
Success is not dependent on how people respond. It is dependent on what one does.
Hence, Matthew 24:14 says, "...this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."
Everyone gets a witness. How they respond is up to them.
God made an entire human population from two humans. He then made an entire population from eight persons. He can make an entire population from a few million. Numbers don't matter.
Those who respond chose the right path, and benefit. Those who don't, lose out.
Throwing away everlasting life is a choice. Adam made that one. Will we?
No problem.
Children learn best by what they see. They are great imitators. This is a fact.
Jehovah knew this long before us, and knows it better.
Children learn from what their parents do
Children see, Children Do
The account of Lot and family, bears this out.
(Genesis 19:4, 5) 4 Before they could lie down to sleep, the men of the city - the men of Sodom from boy to old man, all of them - surrounded the house in one mob. 5 And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: “Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may have sex with them.”
Jehovah knows every situation better than any of us, and he is all wise.
Aside from that, Jehovah is the giver of life. Children are really lent to us, and there is no life that Jehovah cannot replace. The Egyptian women that spared the Israelite boys, saw this. Job saw it, and many others.
We all have various beliefs and views.
However, if we believe the Bible, I think we should be able to back up what we say, with scripture... and not have irreconcilable discrepancies.
I asked someone this, but they seemed reluctant to give me an answer. So perhaps you can tell me your view. Whom is Jesus referring to at Luke 12:4, 5?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
[/QUOTE]
Apropos of... what, exactly?
You are making the mistake you constantly make - that of having a presumption that one has a religious agenda, and then making the mistake of attributing anything that person says, to your presumption.
I have tried to point this out to you numerous times, but you still repeat it.
Read the post again.
Nowhere did I say that Einstein believed in my God, nor did I make a point of it.
Please. This is tiring.
I think you are the one with the agenda.
Come on. As a scientist, should you not be using the proper methods.
A good scientist does not start with a presumption, and then make up conclusions that supports it.
Why did you quote Einstein a agnostic who believes in a humanist Jesus, and scripture is childish mythology.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Religion requires "faith", to be believed.
It's what the qualifier "religious" in "religious beliefs" actually means.
It's very clear what I'm talking about: to believe in a religion, you require faith.
I know of no religion that does not require faith to believe its religious claims.
If you really think so, then clarify your point.
sooda
Veteran Member
Funny, since Luke never met Jesus.
In the original version the gods destroyed all human life with a flood because they were so noisy.
nPeace
Veteran Member
OK, let's play the "play dumb" game.
What don't you understand exactly?
You said the result of textual criticism in not an opinion.
If it's not an opinion, what is it? A fact?
I am not arguing back and forth with you, "it is. it isn't." I simply gave you the facts. You'll have to deal with that.
The results of textual criticism cannot be, and is not fact. It is opinion.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I don’t know why you interjected the “teaching” about textual criticism; I don’t need it — I’ve been doing that sort of thing for years.OK, let's play the "play dumb" game.
What don't you understand exactly?
You said the result of textual criticism in not an opinion.
If it's not an opinion, what is it? A fact?
I am not arguing back and forth with you, "it is. it isn't." I simply gave you the facts. You'll have to deal with that.
The results of textual criticism cannot be, and is not fact. It is opinion.
While the results aren’t all hard facts, they are often “best” or “informed” guesses, based on the facts we have available. Yes, there is “filling in of holes.” But, on average, it’s much more evidentiary than what you’re doing.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Thank you for demonstrating what we are trying to point out to you, all along. I really hope you are taking notes.
We can make wrong interpretations of what we see, can't we? Moreover, if our focus is on one thing, and has already formed a presumption, or presupposition, it can contribute even more to a wrong interpretation, and conclusion.
What comes before and after I mentioned Einstein? In other words, what is the context?
I think that would help one understand why I mentioned Einstein.
Why did I quote Einstein?
I don't want to repeat the entire post, so...
1) Please note my first paragraph. What's my point?
2) Please note what follows that paragraph, and then what directly follows Einstein's quote. What's my point?
Point...
Have a valid basis for referring to something as a myth, and state it, rather than just making the claim.
I'm saying Einstein stated his basis, so my question was, 'Would you for example, go back and forth with [him].' arguing about what is myth.
I don't think he would waste that time, but rather, 'he would probably ask the same question I asked'. Namely, 'what is your basis for referring to this as myth?'
Regarding the quote I posted, it is clear Einstein did not refer to the Gospel accounts as myth.
He specifically said, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
True, Einstein had a problem with the Judaism and the Hebrew scriptures, and from what I read, this may be based on his arguments against what author Erik Gutkind was saying about God, the Jewish people, and science.
Also, the fact that Einstein's view on the Hebrew scriptures, is that it is based on, quote "primitive superstition" unquote...not childish mythology, as you claimed.
If you disagree, then please get a hold of the letter, and take note that Einstein never said childish mythology. Note what he said on the sixteenth line from the bottom - "primitiven Aberglaubens".
What Einstein believes, or believes not, has no bearing on what I believe, and I do not use men as a basis for, or support of my beliefs. That would be, in my opinion, irrelevant.
There you have it.
Your obsession with claiming that anyone that disagrees with your beliefs on science, must have a religious agenda, is evident. Making that claim evidently seems to be your agenda.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Sorry. I, as well as other scholars, use the same "facts" that you, or "experts" do, and the "results" are always different.
They are opinions... period. End of story.
Not my agenda it is yours misrepresenting Einstein, note bold
More to the point that Einstein described the Bible as 'childish superstition, and primitive legends.'.
In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
The letter will go on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair on Thursday and is expected to fetch up to £8,000. The handwritten piece, in German, is not listed in the source material of the most authoritative academic text on the subject, Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion.
One of the country's leading experts on the scientist, John Brooke of Oxford University, admitted he had not heard of it.
Einstein is best known for his theories of relativity and for the famous E=mc2 equation that describes the equivalence of mass and energy, but his thoughts on religion have long attracted conjecture.
His parents were not religious but he attended a Catholic primary school and at the same time received private tuition in Judaism. This prompted what he later called, his "religious paradise of youth", during which he observed religious rules such as not eating pork. This did not last long though and by 12 he was questioning the truth of many biblical stories.
"The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression," he later wrote.
In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory.
His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, your side abuses facts. For example quoting our of context is a favorite way to lie by creationists.
The fact is that there is no scientific evidence for creationism and literally mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. The lack of evidence for your side is largely due to the cowardice of creation "scientists" . If you understood the concept of scientific evidence you would be able to see this.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Can you explain what faith is, so that I understand what you are saying?
It is belief based on the subjective beliefs without objective verifiable evidence.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I won't argue with you, since you will just repeat yourself. If you show me in the letter where he used the word childish, then I will accept that you are not just making claims.
The letter is in the German language, so are you sure you are quoting what Einstein really said?
I'm telling you, he never used the word childish.
However, I already stated, he viewed the Hebrew texts as primitive, and filled with superstition, and legends.
I also know Einstein views on Spinoza's God.
Let's forget that though, as I explained, what my point was in the post. What he believed is therefore irrelevant to the point I was making.
Tell me though, how did I misrepresent Einstein?