It could? Interesting claim but, given that you seem to lack even a passing familiarity with the topic, it's hard to understand why anyone should deem it credible.
That is easily remedied. Amazon.com has his most popular work selling for $11.48.
-
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!
Has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible?
- Thread starter Just_me_Mike
- Start date
Just_me_Mike
Well-Known Member
Jay, I don't deny my lack of familiarity with the topic, it just seems to me, that both a quick conquer and slow move could have taken place at the same time, and wondered if anyone suspects that as a possibility.
Not trying to lecture here at all, it just seems logical that parts of the move could have been done by a few who conquered quickly, and still many that were slow to move.
I assume when archeologist study such things they just go with where the evidence leads them, and the reference you made in the earlier post makes me think that author believes the evidence points to a slow move.
My only question is, is there an evidence of both? If you don't want to answer that, or can't answer that, then I understand.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
perhaps walkntune will provide a reply that actually helps the conversation move forward.
Jollybear
Hey
Autodidact
Sounds good, lets make a thread, me make it or you?
May I ask why you ask this question first? And it don’t matter what your answer is to me, I will give you your answer too.
Alceste
The Psalm writer is using poetic language and nor does he mean the earth is flat. His own words don’t even say “the earth is flat”. He is simply saying that the earth is here and it won’t go away. God made it, it’s firm and established, he made it well, and it cannot move without his will. That is what he is saying. He is not saying the earth is flat.
Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is a circle. Also Job 26:7 says the Lord suspends the earth on nothing.
In other words, the bible does NOT say the earth is FLAT. The bible DOES say it is ROUND.
If you still want to discuss this one we can, but if not, do you have other evidence the bible is wrong?
Tumbleweed41
Yes there is lots of evidence for it. Can you give me any evidence that there is no evidence?
You are correct, I made a mistake or overlooked that as I was reading. I was doing a few posts at the time plus doing stuff here at home. I apologize for that.
I’ll go with the one you brought up below for now. It helps shorten posts if we don’t go with four at a time. Trust me, I get very tempted to make long posts, so I need to go with one example at a time.
If you will notice the writer of Genesis as he is recording the story of Jacob, he is only telling the facts of the story, he is not directly saying that HE BELIEVED the peeled rods made the sheep look the way they did. He simply is telling the fact that Jacob did this and believed in this. The writer of Genesis does not say “hey by the way, I believe what Jacob did, or by the way I don’t believe what Jacob did”. He did not confirm or deny what Jacob did, but simply WROTE DOWN what Jacob did. But then again, he wrote down the good about Jacob AND the BAD about Jacob. The fact is, Jacob did a lot of bad stuff, he was a clever deceiver at many times. And in this case, he was not just the deceiver, but the deceived in what he believed. The fact is, it was God that blessed Jacob, and not Jacob’s false superstitious belief. That is the POINT of the story.
Like watch this, I don’t believe in murdering people. But there was one time I witnessed a murder. And I will tell the story, watch carefully: outside the window there was two men and two women arguing. The one man (we will call him man A) was trying to calm down the other man, but every time he did so, the other man would lash back in anger telling him to “shut up! And stay out of it!” and then man A would stop, and then come back in and try to calm him down again before he hurt someone. Then the other man, took a knife and stabbed man A in the stomach because he was getting on his nerves and ticking him off, because it was not his business to be butting into the argument because the issue had nothing to do with him, therefore man B killed him. The stab was placed into a part of his stomach that when it hit, man A went down and did not move a muscle. The killer then noticing that he killed out of a fit of rage, calmed down instantly and kept saying over and over “I am so sorry (so in so) I am so sorry, I did not mean it, I did not mean it”. Then a few minutes later the ambulance shows up with the cops.
Now noticed I told the facts of the story and some of the apparent reasoning of the killer for why he killed. Do I AGREE with the facts, YES, those are the facts. Do I agree that those events or facts should have happened? NO, but do I say that in the story? NO. Do I agree that this is the reasoning of the killer for why he killed that man because he should have stayed out of the argument? YES, do I agree that the killer should have killed him because he was butting in? NO, I don’t believe he should have killed him for butting in, but did I say that in the story? NO. I did not confirm or deny anything, I just simply told the story, didn’t I? Do I believe the man should have butted in? NO, but did I say that in the story whether I believed he should have or not? NO, I just simply told the story, didn’t I?
The same goes for the writer of Genesis.
Sounds good, lets make a thread, me make it or you?
May I ask why you ask this question first? And it don’t matter what your answer is to me, I will give you your answer too.
Alceste
The Psalm writer is using poetic language and nor does he mean the earth is flat. His own words don’t even say “the earth is flat”. He is simply saying that the earth is here and it won’t go away. God made it, it’s firm and established, he made it well, and it cannot move without his will. That is what he is saying. He is not saying the earth is flat.
Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is a circle. Also Job 26:7 says the Lord suspends the earth on nothing.
In other words, the bible does NOT say the earth is FLAT. The bible DOES say it is ROUND.
If you still want to discuss this one we can, but if not, do you have other evidence the bible is wrong?
Tumbleweed41
Yes there is lots of evidence for it. Can you give me any evidence that there is no evidence?
You are correct, I made a mistake or overlooked that as I was reading. I was doing a few posts at the time plus doing stuff here at home. I apologize for that.
I’ll go with the one you brought up below for now. It helps shorten posts if we don’t go with four at a time. Trust me, I get very tempted to make long posts, so I need to go with one example at a time.
If you will notice the writer of Genesis as he is recording the story of Jacob, he is only telling the facts of the story, he is not directly saying that HE BELIEVED the peeled rods made the sheep look the way they did. He simply is telling the fact that Jacob did this and believed in this. The writer of Genesis does not say “hey by the way, I believe what Jacob did, or by the way I don’t believe what Jacob did”. He did not confirm or deny what Jacob did, but simply WROTE DOWN what Jacob did. But then again, he wrote down the good about Jacob AND the BAD about Jacob. The fact is, Jacob did a lot of bad stuff, he was a clever deceiver at many times. And in this case, he was not just the deceiver, but the deceived in what he believed. The fact is, it was God that blessed Jacob, and not Jacob’s false superstitious belief. That is the POINT of the story.
Like watch this, I don’t believe in murdering people. But there was one time I witnessed a murder. And I will tell the story, watch carefully: outside the window there was two men and two women arguing. The one man (we will call him man A) was trying to calm down the other man, but every time he did so, the other man would lash back in anger telling him to “shut up! And stay out of it!” and then man A would stop, and then come back in and try to calm him down again before he hurt someone. Then the other man, took a knife and stabbed man A in the stomach because he was getting on his nerves and ticking him off, because it was not his business to be butting into the argument because the issue had nothing to do with him, therefore man B killed him. The stab was placed into a part of his stomach that when it hit, man A went down and did not move a muscle. The killer then noticing that he killed out of a fit of rage, calmed down instantly and kept saying over and over “I am so sorry (so in so) I am so sorry, I did not mean it, I did not mean it”. Then a few minutes later the ambulance shows up with the cops.
Now noticed I told the facts of the story and some of the apparent reasoning of the killer for why he killed. Do I AGREE with the facts, YES, those are the facts. Do I agree that those events or facts should have happened? NO, but do I say that in the story? NO. Do I agree that this is the reasoning of the killer for why he killed that man because he should have stayed out of the argument? YES, do I agree that the killer should have killed him because he was butting in? NO, I don’t believe he should have killed him for butting in, but did I say that in the story? NO. I did not confirm or deny anything, I just simply told the story, didn’t I? Do I believe the man should have butted in? NO, but did I say that in the story whether I believed he should have or not? NO, I just simply told the story, didn’t I?
The same goes for the writer of Genesis.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Actually, I asked you to provide four instances where archeology has proved that the Biblical accounts of history are true. But if you are unable to do so....
Interesting take. So you believe that the sheep just happened to become pregnant while drinking from a trough, and the offspring just happened to correlate their markings to the sticks Jacob set before the sheep. That the writer of Genesis did not actually believe that this occurred through manipulation, he was just writing down the facts.
What else did the writer not believe? And how is one to separate what really happened from what was mistakenly observed? We can use the same argument to say...
"The writer did not Believe God sent plagues to Egypt, he just wrote down the facts."
"The writer did not Believe the whole world was flooded, he just wrote down the facts."
In this one statement, "he is only telling the facts of the story, he is not directly saying that HE BELIEVED", you have discredited the Bible to a simple story, containing admitted fiction and scientific errors.
How do you reconcile this with a supposedly inerrant Bible?
Jollybear
Hey
Tumbleweed41
Don’t worry, I will give you 4 of them, but I want to talk about the thing below first. One thing at a time, so my mind stays organized. It’s because of talking of many things that I made the mistake of thinking you said something Alceste said. Trust me, I have four, I will give you them, but is it ok if we finish the thing we are talking about in Jacobs story first? Trust me, I am not lying, I have four archeology things for you.
No, you took the story out of context there. The story does NOT say the sheep gave birth BY drinking from a trough and it also does not say they gave birth WHILE drinking at a trough. It says they MATED in FRONT of the branches that were in the trough. So it was there mating that gave birth to young (Genesis 30:39). It does not say they mated and BANG the young came out directly after they had sex.
Actually, this also is not entirely true. Look at the text again. It does not say the offspring of the animals “just happened to correlate their markings to the sticks Jacob set before the sheep” as if the sticks made the sheep look the way they did. The sheep gave birth to babies and the VARIETY came out just as they normally would, which was according to verse 39 “streaked or speckled or spotted”. And then according to verse 40 Jacob SEPERATED the flocks and gave the ones he did not want to Laban and took the others for himself. And also according to verse 42 Jacob also took the strong ones and gave Laban the weak ones, so he separated the weak from the strong.
Right, but then again, it does not say whether he believed what Jacob believed or not, he just wrote down the facts as I illustrated about my story of me witnessing a murder once. My point is, someone can write a story like this and NOT BELIEVE what the person happens to believe who is IN the story. THAT is my point and that is VALID and true in lots of cases. I gave you one myself of me witnessing a murder.
No, no, the writer of Genesis did not MISTAKENLY observe what happened. Jacob was MISTAKEN in his belief on superstition. The writer of Genesis simply wrote down what he OBSERVED Jacob DOING.
I just wrote down for you my observation of a murder. I made no mistakes in what I wrote down and in what I observed. But in that one paragraph, I did not tell you what my beliefs were ABOUT the murder I witnessed, I just simply stated the facts of what I witnessed. But in paragraph below that, I explained what I believed to show you my point. But in the story itself, I just simply told the facts. Just because the writer of Genesis is writing down what Jacob is doing, that does not equal the writer believing what Jacob is doing. If that was the case, the writer would believe in lying, just like Jacob did.
That is like saying “I do not believe someone was murdered when I witnessed it” that is foolish. The fact is, I believe someone was murdered because I witnessed it, but do I believe in murder because I witnessed it? NO, I don’t believe in murder. If the writer of Genesis and exodus witnessed plagues to Egypt, well then they will obviously believe there was plagues sent against Egypt. Actually it would not be a matter of belief, it would be a matter of knowledge, they would have KNOWN plagues were put on Egypt because they “saw it”.
Again, if he witnesses it, he has no problem believing it, for he knows it. He wrote down the facts and the facts are what he KNOWS to be true, more than believes. Now he could have a opinion about the facts, but that is a different issue. But whatever his opinion about the facts are, would definitely not be to DENY the facts he witnesses, that would be plain stupid.
Your mixing two things together when they are not to be mixed. The writer wrote down the facts about Jacob, that does not mean he agreed with everything Jacob did. There is a difference. I just wrote down a story of me witnessing a murder, does that mean I believe in murder? Obviously not, right?
No, I have not done that, I have simply stated something that is very obvious and still goes on today even when people write stuff of history and news, which is, they can write facts, but not write their views INTO the facts or WITH the facts.
There was another time I was working at Home Depot, and I saw a lady fall down in front of the store. She went in and got a bandad, I helped her up. And then I was asked by the store manager to write down a statement. I was given specific instructions, not to give my views of what I thought of what I saw, just to simply state what I saw, nothing more and nothing less. So, I did just that. I told them, I did not see the women from the start of when she fell, I saw only when she hit the ground, for I was walking toward the store and then turned my head at the very moment she was falling, so I only got the end of the fall, not the beginning of it. She fell on the “apron” front part of the store, near the flowers. Here umbrella was under her left leg facing up. I went over and asked her if she was ok, and she said yes, then I helped her up and we went into the building to get a banded for her scraped knee.
That was the facts, I gave no views about what I thought of what I saw. This goes on all the time in business and in News and history. Sometimes the facts are screwed by dishonest people unfortunately, but this is not always the case.
In the case of Jacob, the writer is not saying he believes in what Jacob did, nor is he saying he does not believe what Jacob did, he is not telling his views at all about it, he is simply writing the story.
I don’t need to, I showed above that the writer is not telling his views within the story and showed how your reasoning is flawed.
But I am still open for you to show me how my reasoning in this post is even more flawed.
Don’t worry, I will give you 4 of them, but I want to talk about the thing below first. One thing at a time, so my mind stays organized. It’s because of talking of many things that I made the mistake of thinking you said something Alceste said. Trust me, I have four, I will give you them, but is it ok if we finish the thing we are talking about in Jacobs story first? Trust me, I am not lying, I have four archeology things for you.
No, you took the story out of context there. The story does NOT say the sheep gave birth BY drinking from a trough and it also does not say they gave birth WHILE drinking at a trough. It says they MATED in FRONT of the branches that were in the trough. So it was there mating that gave birth to young (Genesis 30:39). It does not say they mated and BANG the young came out directly after they had sex.
Actually, this also is not entirely true. Look at the text again. It does not say the offspring of the animals “just happened to correlate their markings to the sticks Jacob set before the sheep” as if the sticks made the sheep look the way they did. The sheep gave birth to babies and the VARIETY came out just as they normally would, which was according to verse 39 “streaked or speckled or spotted”. And then according to verse 40 Jacob SEPERATED the flocks and gave the ones he did not want to Laban and took the others for himself. And also according to verse 42 Jacob also took the strong ones and gave Laban the weak ones, so he separated the weak from the strong.
Right, but then again, it does not say whether he believed what Jacob believed or not, he just wrote down the facts as I illustrated about my story of me witnessing a murder once. My point is, someone can write a story like this and NOT BELIEVE what the person happens to believe who is IN the story. THAT is my point and that is VALID and true in lots of cases. I gave you one myself of me witnessing a murder.
No, no, the writer of Genesis did not MISTAKENLY observe what happened. Jacob was MISTAKEN in his belief on superstition. The writer of Genesis simply wrote down what he OBSERVED Jacob DOING.
I just wrote down for you my observation of a murder. I made no mistakes in what I wrote down and in what I observed. But in that one paragraph, I did not tell you what my beliefs were ABOUT the murder I witnessed, I just simply stated the facts of what I witnessed. But in paragraph below that, I explained what I believed to show you my point. But in the story itself, I just simply told the facts. Just because the writer of Genesis is writing down what Jacob is doing, that does not equal the writer believing what Jacob is doing. If that was the case, the writer would believe in lying, just like Jacob did.
That is like saying “I do not believe someone was murdered when I witnessed it” that is foolish. The fact is, I believe someone was murdered because I witnessed it, but do I believe in murder because I witnessed it? NO, I don’t believe in murder. If the writer of Genesis and exodus witnessed plagues to Egypt, well then they will obviously believe there was plagues sent against Egypt. Actually it would not be a matter of belief, it would be a matter of knowledge, they would have KNOWN plagues were put on Egypt because they “saw it”.
Again, if he witnesses it, he has no problem believing it, for he knows it. He wrote down the facts and the facts are what he KNOWS to be true, more than believes. Now he could have a opinion about the facts, but that is a different issue. But whatever his opinion about the facts are, would definitely not be to DENY the facts he witnesses, that would be plain stupid.
Your mixing two things together when they are not to be mixed. The writer wrote down the facts about Jacob, that does not mean he agreed with everything Jacob did. There is a difference. I just wrote down a story of me witnessing a murder, does that mean I believe in murder? Obviously not, right?
No, I have not done that, I have simply stated something that is very obvious and still goes on today even when people write stuff of history and news, which is, they can write facts, but not write their views INTO the facts or WITH the facts.
There was another time I was working at Home Depot, and I saw a lady fall down in front of the store. She went in and got a bandad, I helped her up. And then I was asked by the store manager to write down a statement. I was given specific instructions, not to give my views of what I thought of what I saw, just to simply state what I saw, nothing more and nothing less. So, I did just that. I told them, I did not see the women from the start of when she fell, I saw only when she hit the ground, for I was walking toward the store and then turned my head at the very moment she was falling, so I only got the end of the fall, not the beginning of it. She fell on the “apron” front part of the store, near the flowers. Here umbrella was under her left leg facing up. I went over and asked her if she was ok, and she said yes, then I helped her up and we went into the building to get a banded for her scraped knee.
That was the facts, I gave no views about what I thought of what I saw. This goes on all the time in business and in News and history. Sometimes the facts are screwed by dishonest people unfortunately, but this is not always the case.
In the case of Jacob, the writer is not saying he believes in what Jacob did, nor is he saying he does not believe what Jacob did, he is not telling his views at all about it, he is simply writing the story.
I don’t need to, I showed above that the writer is not telling his views within the story and showed how your reasoning is flawed.
But I am still open for you to show me how my reasoning in this post is even more flawed.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
And Jacob took him rods of green poplar and of the hazel and chesnut tree and pilled white strakes in them and made the white appear which was in the rods
And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink that they should conceive when they came to drink
And the flocks conceived before the rods and brought forth cattle ringstraked speckled and spotted
What it literally says, and what the author seems to take as fact is....
- Jacob took three different types of sticks, marked them and set them in the watering troughs.
- He put them there so that they should conceive when they came to drink.
- The resulting lambs were striped, speckled and spotted.
If, as you posit, the sticks did not help the sheep conceive, and influence coloring, then the writer was MISTAKEN in his belief that they did.
You claim the writer did not believe it? Then why did he write it down as fact?
You claim the writer was a witness? Who was this scribe who followed the events in Genesis?
Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it a collection of writings written by people as they saw it, subject to human error?
Yes, I too have written fiction without believing that what happens in the story could actually happen. I do not, however, pass this off as the Word of God.
Again, who is this scribe, and why did he write events as they occurred, indicating the supernatural, if he did not believe them to be supernatural?
Would this be an example of the inerrant Word of God?
Just as in the story of Jacob, the writer would KNOW the sticks influenced offspring, because he "saw it". Unless, of course, he was mistaken.
An obviously mistaken story at that.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
But the earth isn't suspended on nothing. This is another thing that relativity explains.
Also, plates, compact discs, coins, and many other things are both flat and round.
Jollybear
Hey
Tumbleweed41
Here is the NIV translation of this passage in Genesis 30:37-40 “Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban's animals.”
The way I read this is that they mated in front of the branches, and gave birth later. Actually the way I literally read it, is they mated in front of the branches and gave birth. It does not say WHEN they gave birth. It does not say whether it was DIRECTLY after having sex or not. You can’t say that it does say they gave birth immediately right after having sex. It’s not directly there.
If you want to say that the sheep gave birth to young the very second after having sex, then to be consistent you would have to say that in Genesis 29:33-35 Genesis 38:4 and 1 Samuel 1:20 and 1 Samuel 2:21 all of these people when it says “they conceived and gave birth” is saying they gave birth the second after they conceived. So the VERY SECOND they conceived, the very second right after they gave birth according to your rational? Just because they don’t detail every single thing in the sentence, does not mean they gave birth the very second after conception. Most authors would just write generally, ASSUMING there readers would intuitively GET what they’re saying. If we go by what your saying, then to GET what the biblical authors are saying, they would have to detail every single sentence, if that were the case, we would have a bible the size of a bookstore. That is not practical, nor reasonable.
I can say in all honesty, that every single time I have read that story from the NIV version, I NEVER ONCE thought about what you are telling me now, that the sheep gave birth INSTANTLY after having sex. That never crossed my mind, not once in the way I read the text.
The sheep happen to give birth to a variety “streaked, speckled and spotted”. And Jacob also separated them. He got lucky, but actually it was not lucky, but a blessing. Genesis 30:29-30 says that God blessed Jacob. It was not his superstition that blessed him, it was God. The writer of Genesis just wrote down what Jacob did and thought. Basically Jacob thought God was blessing him with the help of his superstition.
Not so, an angel did not come and tell him he did a fine job in breeding. That is not anywhere in the story. Yes, an angel appeared to him in his life, but not to tell him he did a good job at breeding.
The writer wrote down what Jacob did and what Jacob thought and what happened as it was being done. In other words, it LOOKED like the superstition was true, because the sheep came out streaked, speckled and spotted. But was it chance that did that, luck that did it? Or the sticks that did it? Or did God do it? The text says God blessed him, not a superstition which Jacob was practicing with the sticks in the troughs. Jacob thought God did it with the help of the sticks apparently, but that was not so, God blessed him. The writer was writing down everything that was done in the story, he was not saying he believed anything about the sticks. The author does not directly make that clear about himself.
Jacob could have written it down later on in his older life and passed it down. Or as many believe, Moses wrote it and received it by a vision or direct revelation from God, and then Moses wrote down what he saw in that vision.
If you’re asking me is it all true in it’s message? Then yes it is all true, if your asking me did it contain any mistakes? Like spelling errors and stuff like that, then the answer is yes, it did contain mistakes like that. But I believe it was written by honest men if that is what you mean. But honest men does not mean men who cannot make a mistake.
I am honest and I made a mistake when I thought you said something when in fact you did not say it, but alceste said it. That is how I believe the biblical authors were and there scribes were when they copied it over and over as well. I don’t believe the bible contains corruption in other words. I believe it speaks AGAINST corruption and I don’t believe it speaks a double standard, in other words, it itself being corrupt while preaching against corruption. Although in the case of the first authors, I don’t believe they made any mistakes. But when the original texts were copied, then mistakes happened, but very slight mistakes, nothing to really change or corrupt the message.
Also there is another way to look at this story. Perhaps Jacob like a lot of prophets in the bible, used the striped branches as an allegory of what God was going to do for him. That is how a lot of prophets were in the bible, they did certain things that symbolized what was going to happen. So, was it superstition, or was it divinely directed to symbolize something else? That is different then superstition. Anyway, Jacob did both good things and bad things and they are both recorded by the writer. Just because the writer writes about the bad, does not mean he agrees with the bad about Jacob, that just shows the author is honest in writing the good with the bad, he lays it all out on the table.
Here is the NIV translation of this passage in Genesis 30:37-40 “Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban's animals.”
The way I read this is that they mated in front of the branches, and gave birth later. Actually the way I literally read it, is they mated in front of the branches and gave birth. It does not say WHEN they gave birth. It does not say whether it was DIRECTLY after having sex or not. You can’t say that it does say they gave birth immediately right after having sex. It’s not directly there.
If you want to say that the sheep gave birth to young the very second after having sex, then to be consistent you would have to say that in Genesis 29:33-35 Genesis 38:4 and 1 Samuel 1:20 and 1 Samuel 2:21 all of these people when it says “they conceived and gave birth” is saying they gave birth the second after they conceived. So the VERY SECOND they conceived, the very second right after they gave birth according to your rational? Just because they don’t detail every single thing in the sentence, does not mean they gave birth the very second after conception. Most authors would just write generally, ASSUMING there readers would intuitively GET what they’re saying. If we go by what your saying, then to GET what the biblical authors are saying, they would have to detail every single sentence, if that were the case, we would have a bible the size of a bookstore. That is not practical, nor reasonable.
I can say in all honesty, that every single time I have read that story from the NIV version, I NEVER ONCE thought about what you are telling me now, that the sheep gave birth INSTANTLY after having sex. That never crossed my mind, not once in the way I read the text.
The sheep happen to give birth to a variety “streaked, speckled and spotted”. And Jacob also separated them. He got lucky, but actually it was not lucky, but a blessing. Genesis 30:29-30 says that God blessed Jacob. It was not his superstition that blessed him, it was God. The writer of Genesis just wrote down what Jacob did and thought. Basically Jacob thought God was blessing him with the help of his superstition.
Not so, an angel did not come and tell him he did a fine job in breeding. That is not anywhere in the story. Yes, an angel appeared to him in his life, but not to tell him he did a good job at breeding.
The writer wrote down what Jacob did and what Jacob thought and what happened as it was being done. In other words, it LOOKED like the superstition was true, because the sheep came out streaked, speckled and spotted. But was it chance that did that, luck that did it? Or the sticks that did it? Or did God do it? The text says God blessed him, not a superstition which Jacob was practicing with the sticks in the troughs. Jacob thought God did it with the help of the sticks apparently, but that was not so, God blessed him. The writer was writing down everything that was done in the story, he was not saying he believed anything about the sticks. The author does not directly make that clear about himself.
Jacob could have written it down later on in his older life and passed it down. Or as many believe, Moses wrote it and received it by a vision or direct revelation from God, and then Moses wrote down what he saw in that vision.
If you’re asking me is it all true in it’s message? Then yes it is all true, if your asking me did it contain any mistakes? Like spelling errors and stuff like that, then the answer is yes, it did contain mistakes like that. But I believe it was written by honest men if that is what you mean. But honest men does not mean men who cannot make a mistake.
I am honest and I made a mistake when I thought you said something when in fact you did not say it, but alceste said it. That is how I believe the biblical authors were and there scribes were when they copied it over and over as well. I don’t believe the bible contains corruption in other words. I believe it speaks AGAINST corruption and I don’t believe it speaks a double standard, in other words, it itself being corrupt while preaching against corruption. Although in the case of the first authors, I don’t believe they made any mistakes. But when the original texts were copied, then mistakes happened, but very slight mistakes, nothing to really change or corrupt the message.
Also there is another way to look at this story. Perhaps Jacob like a lot of prophets in the bible, used the striped branches as an allegory of what God was going to do for him. That is how a lot of prophets were in the bible, they did certain things that symbolized what was going to happen. So, was it superstition, or was it divinely directed to symbolize something else? That is different then superstition. Anyway, Jacob did both good things and bad things and they are both recorded by the writer. Just because the writer writes about the bad, does not mean he agrees with the bad about Jacob, that just shows the author is honest in writing the good with the bad, he lays it all out on the table.
Jollybear
Hey
Shadow wolf
When the book of Job says the earth is suspended on nothing, it is using general and poetic language. The point is, it LOOKS like it’s suspended on nothing. Like just floating before nothing, the point he is making is, the earth is not HANGING by a string or something holding it up. It can’t fall. Of course there are other factors involved in the outside of the earth, like gravity, and different dynamics of space and what not. But the author was being general.
It’s true that coins have a circle but are flat. But how do you know the author meant circle as in a coin and not a ball?
When the book of Job says the earth is suspended on nothing, it is using general and poetic language. The point is, it LOOKS like it’s suspended on nothing. Like just floating before nothing, the point he is making is, the earth is not HANGING by a string or something holding it up. It can’t fall. Of course there are other factors involved in the outside of the earth, like gravity, and different dynamics of space and what not. But the author was being general.
It’s true that coins have a circle but are flat. But how do you know the author meant circle as in a coin and not a ball?
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
I am saying that our fight and flight instinct is the proper method for our awareness of reality and that our rational and logical mind is for rationalizing what comes into our awareness.What ever you are aware of dictates your thoughts. If you try to make reality fit into a logical method of thinking then you are making your thoughts dictate your awareness.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I am aware of reality, reality dictates my thoughts. As it does the majority of rational thinkers.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Well Good! Now do you understand that your awareness is expanded and contracted by your fears and faith.Since you understand that awareness dictates your thoughts you our aware that depending upon where your awareness is in reality also dictates where your thoughts are also.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Yes, that is a nice tidy translation that fits your thoughts. I was using the direct Hebrew translation. Do you not find the original writings of the author sufficient?
Genesis 31:11-12 And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I. And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee.
Well, since in Genesis 31 the author states, in reply to the angel "and I said, here I am", we should assume Jacob wrote at least the section related to Jacob.
If, as I stated above, Jacob did write it, then the narrative is first hand, and therefor the author did believe in the superstition.
Mistakes? Is this, or is this not the inspired Word of God? Mistakes lead to mistranslations, which lead to errors in theology.
Here you admit belief that major errors have not occurred, and you admit that errors, however minor, did occur.
This is not concurrent withwith a belief in an inerrant Bible. Are the only mistakes in "transcription" you will admit to those that conflict with rationality and improved scientific knowledge?
Symbolization is another way of saying, "if you find an error, it was just symbolic"
Obviously using your definitions, we will come to an impasse on this subject.
Lets move on to your archeological evidence. Then we can deal with the real world.
Alceste
Vagabond
He is not using "poetic language". He is stating in a plain, matter of fact, straightforward way that the earth "can not be moved". He thinks it is static. Motionless. In fact the bible deals with this theme many, many times, becaus the fallible, human writers of the Bible stories believed the earth was stationary, flat, supported on pillars with heaven "above" it, and the land of the living dead "below" it.
It's pig-ignorant wishful thinking to argue otherwise. I've proven the Bible is factually incorrect on this point. I don't care if what is a factual error to me and the rest of the world is "poetic language" to fundamentalists like yourself. The error and the reason for it is as plain as day for those who care to see the world as it genuinely is.
Scientists fall into that category, generally.
Even if this were true, which it isn't, it is still factually incorrect. The earth spins and wobbles solely on the impetus of its own momentum and the gravitational force of the sun, and will one day be burned to nothing and scattered amongst the stars when the sun nears the end of its natural life span.
A circle is not "round". A circle is a flat disc. A SPHERE is "round".
Seeing the comical mental gymnastics with which you get around the very obvious fact that the writers of the bible thought the earth was stationary and said so on numerous occasions throughout the books, I don't think pointing out more errors would be any more fruitful.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
How do you know?
Was the bible using general and poetic language to describe the events surrounding the life of jesus too? Why or why not?
How do you distinguish between factual language and poetic?
If god is as good as he says he is, why would he need to use general or poetic language to explain anything? Surely he would be able to explain anything clearly and without the need for interpretation, which leads to confusion. Or maybe he wants to cause a bit of confusion. But then, why would he punish people for being confused if that is what he wants?
Gabethewiking
Active Member
I seen this several times, it is because people who believe this lack the understanding of words in the english language, or do they just pretend one word means something completely different?
Could the people believing "circle" meaning "sphere" explain this to me and the rest of us?
Anyone with the "original" Hebrew text referring to this circle? What does it say? Circle or synonymous or something else?
Maybe THIS is why Creationist have "problems" with Evolution, if they think a circle is a sphere, well, of course they cant understand basic evolution. Oh, I forgot, they always say, very loudly, that they are not ignorant, they are very well educated about Evolution, I am the one that is wrong... Because they say so.
Gabethewiking
Active Member
So the Bible is not literal then?
Alceste
Vagabond
Let me ask you this - if the Bible's "circle" actually means "sphere", where exactly is the "above" that occurs repeatedly and is the dwelling place of god? And where are the "edges" and "corners" referred to in several passages?
Face it: the folks who wrote the bible did not know the earth was round, or that days were the result of the earth's spin rather than the orbiting of the sun. Apparently your god saw fit to allow them to remain completely ignorant on the subject.