Biblical Literalism

I agree.
There is a great deal of figurative language used probably to be able to convey heavenly things that we haven't seen to earthly things that we can get our minds around.
There are some really difficult bits of imagery in the book of Isaiah too.

So what is your view on those fundamentalists who view the Bible as a 100% true and accurate historical document?

I for one believe that there are legitimate historical events in the Bible (and often, when you throw myths together, there will be a framework - nearly every ancient religion has a flood story, which IMO means that there was at least a significant increase in water levels at some point in history), but to claim that everything happened as is, and it's all completely true seems....misguided, at best.

Raise your hand if you believe Noah built a wooden boat and saved all the animals of the Earth from a global flood.

Raise your hand if you believe all of humankind descended from one man and one woman.

Raise your hand if you believe that one woman was created from a rib bone of the one man.

Raise your hand if you believe that humans tried to build a tower to Heaven, and God decided that it was a bad idea and caused everyone to speak in different languages.

Raise your hand if you believe humans existed at the same time as dinosaurs, and were just never mentioned in the Bible.

Raise your hand if you believe God decided to smite two cities because they were "bad".

Raise your hand if you believe God artificially inseminated Mary with his son.

Raise your hand if you believe giants once walked the Earth, and one was killed by a rock hurled by David.

Raise you hand if you belive Jesus raised the dead. At least once. For some reason.

That's all for now. wink

Even evolutionists believe humanity can be traced back to one woman!!!

If God exists all things are possible. (I realize that's a circular argument).

Cities have been destroyed in the past, for example Pompeii. If God created the world, could he not destroy a city?

Linguistics is a very, very interesting science. They have no idea how some languages, like Basque, came to be as they have no linguistic ancestors.

Why am I typing this at work? I need to stop wasting time!

Actually, now that I think about it, EVERYTHING is going to have some sort of bias/agenda, conscious or not; so 100% accurate historical document probably isn't really possible. Let's just say change that to ask "Is the Bible a reasonably accurate account of true events?"

And as to why it seems misguided, well - as stated above, the Bible, it would seem to me (and bear with me that I'm speaking from a position of ignorance, so bear with me and correct me where I'm wrong), would be mostly interested in CONVINCING one that God/Jesus exist (I don't deny that Jesus existed) and that they are loving beings worthy of worship. The Bible would be less interested in presenting occurences and/or arguments which may be true but somewhat contradict the "argument" they are trying to present - hence the heads of Churches deciding what religious writings are and are not to be included in any particular Bible.

Well, it's a bit more complex than that summation. Not to mention the age of the fossils themselves. But ok, I'll give a half point on that one.

Well, that's impossible to debate. No point.

My question was more concerning the reason for the cities' destruction. No point.

Avoiding the question by redirecting topic to incomplete modern scientific knowledge. Minus one point.

You are typing this at work because I'm using my SECRET SATNAIC ATHEIST POWERS ON YOU! Buwahahahahahaha!

Satnaic?

I like points!

Actually, Basque just appears, seemingly out of nowhere. It's unlikely that anyone will figure out where it came from, as it has been exhaustively studied. There are a few (between five and ten) languages that fit this profile. I'll ask my wife, the cunning linguist. wink

Thanks for that info on Basque, that's something I'd like to look into myself. Everyone loves a mystery.

I see. Thank you.

would you have us beleive that "badness" has anything to do with sexuality? The myth is that they were detroyed because of their overwhelming homosexual population.

Not true.

No where in the Bible does it say that. In fact, when God was speaking with Abraham and telling him of his desire to destroy the cities (as told in the book of Genesis), no where does it say because they were gay. It says:

If you read the next chapter, you will see the S&G were considered "wicked" because of the way human were treating each other. there was no respect for the individual, the community, and visitors. You will read that young and old tried to gang-rape Lot's visitors. And even after the visitors (who were angels BTW) blinded the mob,

[quote]11: And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves groping for the door.[quote]

the blinded mob insisted on raping them.

Now that tells you why the cities were destroyed. It had nothing to do with sexuality.

I just said "bad". You say "wicked". I never mentioned sex at all, you did.

Please don't put words (or anything else) in my mouth.

That said, how freakin' horny were these people that after being blinded by angels they were still trying to open a door to rape them?

I believe there is no fiction in the Bible.

I raise my hand to everything Jacob asked cept like Scott said there was no "divine semen".

I believe that there was a form of earth before the creation we see today ( This was the place where Satan and his angels were thrown down too)

I believe man walked with Dinosaurs and in fact dinosaurs are still alive today but of course not in the amount nor size they once were.

I believe there were giants that walked the earth and could very well be the children of women and demons.

I believe that the imagery expressed in Revelations and other corresponding books to the end times we literal in that the descriptions given are either the way to describe what exsists in the future with ancient items and that these descriptions are also a view of the occurences of the spiritual realm which is more real then the hands typing right now.

I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues but taking up snakes is people mistaking the spiritual realm descriptions for our physical world.

I believe in divine healing. I believe in the possession of man by demons.

I believe in a lot more but I also don't need to get fired here!

least not yet!

Wow.

I wonder how Noah got all 300,000 species of Coleoptera (beetles) on the boat, along with the 4500 species of mammals, or, just in general, the 1.8 million named species currently residing on the planet.

How many cubits long was that boat again?

I know, I'm being facetious, but I'm just trying to point out that some things in the bible simply can't have happened. At least not in the manner in which the scripture states.

But you forget the one fact that, if it were not present, the Bible would all be moot.

God.

It is beyond my understanding and if you can understand it then good Lord you need to travel round the world.

The moment we realize we are nothing; is the first moment we realize how incredible God is....

and how incredible is His power.

I hope your sterile.

Ouch. eek!
>
>
>
>
>
Bad grammar equals pain.

Sorry, screwed up! I meant:

"I hope your sterile monkey has the same silly beliefs as you."

Why is it then that God, who is so visibly active in the Bible, hasn't done the Sodom and Gomorrah job in, oh, say, the last two thousand years?

For much the same reasons Odin hasn't stepped foot off the mythical Mount for a few years.

Ragnarok is a show promoted by Don Kirschner.

And the fact that Mount Olympus has been...quiet...doesn't go unnoticed either.

Well in the last two thousand years because Jesus came to die for our sins.

Why doesn't God just flood us?

He promised never too and the rainbow is the remembrance of that.

And as for you Adverb I'm sorry but I'm not sterile.

And in fact Pastors are known for their ability to keep the children coming.

So I'd run for the hills now.

[quote]CTDeLude:
So there was no such thing as refraction of light before the flood?

[quote]Jacob Singer:
no, because it never rained heavily before the flood. in fact, if you subscribe to the creationist theory, the earth was perfect in climate. just a bit of dew was needed to keep it running.

So everything was in black and white?

What do you mean by "perfect"? Whether one subscribes to the creationist theory or not, wouldn't it make sense for plant life to require rain and not just "a bit of dew"? Were the plants affected as well by Man's Original Sin that they now require more water than ever? Was there only 1 type of climate back then? So is "summer" the perfect climate, while "winter" is an imperfect weather? And who the hell is Mr. ROYGBIV???!!! eek!

I've...never heard this perfect weather thingy before. And I was brought up in a purely Creationist beackground.

Interesting.

The climate then was indeed far different then today.

Man could reach the age of 900 or so.

M something was the guys name.

After the Flood life expectancy decreased rapidly to the max life expectancy of 120 today.

Then don't read it.

So you regard all the evidence of glaciation as what - one of those things, like dinosaur bones and fossil fuels, that God put there do deceive the unbelievers and test faith?

No I think we have just mixed up the Ice age for the Flood.

Carbon dating is in no way a hundred percent.

Tell me what you know of the Ice Age then and the fossils and such please.

Yea I'm sure the people of the 17th and 18th and 19th and 20th century thought the same thing.

But times change.

Huh? I'm not seeing your point here.

It would be nice if you caught up with them.

The uncalled for nastiness in this thread is breathtaking.

I could care less if someone considers themselves a biblical literalist. To each his own.

Wait, I thought the Christians were supposed to be the narrow, small minded ones around here.

Call, who's really being nasty in this thread? Or does the mere questioning of the veracity of the Bible qualify as nastiness?

Seems to me this thread has been fairly civil.

I love that no one has really come back to Jacob's argument here... because no one can... and guess why that is? Because it's impossible. God or not, a MAN cannot in one lifetime gather up every animal on Earth and put them on a single boat. If you truly believe in the story of Noah, then you must believe Noah discovered America because he MUST have come over here to round up the animals that only exist in North and South America.

Now, the Bible may not be 100% right about Noah, but it might not be 100% wrong. Maybe the flood only affected a village or a small country, and Noah had to round up all the animals in the near-by area. Sounds stupid, but I have an easier time believing that then him finding and lodging two of every animal on earth on a single boat.

And the great flood-Ice Age idea is moronic. Did people have the knowledge of building boats during the Ice Age? I highly doubt it. And I know that with the idea of God, anything is possible for it (it referring to God because I personally refuse to call God "Him" or even "Her" because, let's be honest, you nor I have no fucking idea what God is), however, nothing is possible for man and Noah was a man. God would have had to help Noah SO FUCKING MUCH that the point of "using" Noah for this task would have been pointless... God would have done all the work.

Why am I spending all this time on just Noah? Because if the story of Noah is wrong or slightly incorrect or a total work of fiction, that leads the possibility of the fact that the rest of the Bible could be absolutely inaccurate. The Bible isn't history... it's a series of lessons to teach a moral philosophy. Anyone who views the Bible as a total work of history (even though some of it is true) if fooling themselves (no offense meant to anyone).

Call its just like Left behavior towards the Right.

See the similarities? Christianity is ultimately far worse then militant Islam.

"Chistians" are supposed to be a great many things... doesn't have shit to do with what they usually are.

Yes, because that is precisely what everyone is saying....

Go back and actually read the story of Noah please because you are leaving things out like the moral condition of the time or even taking into account of everything that perceeded this event.

You'll ask me what you are missing. Go read first please.

Please tell me why then is Christians often spoke of as dimwits and behind the times and everything else, pretty much spoken out against left or right and , say militant islam isn't?

Isn't militant Islam a far greater threat to our way of life?

Wait, if we doubt the Noah story is true, taking into account that the Flood happened because every human being on the planet besides Noah and family was evil is supposed to change our minds?

CTD, you're ignoring the scientific facts. I'm not an expert of the story of Noah, but I do know the basics. He supposedly rounded up every animal on the Earth and put them on a boat to save them. Everything else not on the boat died. Am I correct in thinking this? Because, if I'm not, THEN I'll go read the story.

But if the story is basically thus, my argument stands. Any other information is moot... that's all I need right there.

It is said that it was God who brought all the animals to the Ark...not Noah alone. It was Noah who made the Ark (roughly 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high with a capacity of that of 500 railroad stock cars.

So animals from all over would have been brought by God.

Also at the time the earth was not seperated into different continents. They were one land mass. The Flood was not caused by rain alone but by worldwide undersea earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that caused huge waves surging back and forth across the earth. The tallest moutinatop was at least covered by 22 feet of water...marine life was not wiped out even with the major natural disasters happening. Noah spent more then a year in the ark.

Wait, I thought it was caused by God?

And responding to a question about Noah getting all the animals on the Ark by saying "God did it" isn't really going to change someone who views the whole story as fiction, is it?