| |
| Author |
Message |
|
| Guest |
 Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:02 am |
 |
|
|
|
I think a good way to realise just how much of the Bible was made up by man without God's influence is to look at judgements based on common misbeliefs of the time.
Now, firstly, I'm not saying God didn't tell Noah the world was flooding, Noah didn't necessarily need to know it wasn't the entire world and God may have had His reasons for saying that instead of the truth, but maybe not as well.
The theory I've always favoured is that the Euphrates and Tigris rivers overflowed to the extent that they joined in the middle, and considering the limited forms of communication available back then it would have seemed like the whole world to them.
This can also be used for another point, that the Bible is meant to be taken loosely, not literally.
For example, I don't think Genesis was ever meant to be scientifically accurate.
God could've created the Big Bang and everything that followed, but instead of explaining this to a people who had absolutely no understanding of astrophysics He may have just given the abbreviated "7 day version".
People of the time would've never been able to understand an explanation of the complex details.
This doesn't mean the stories aren't true in part, and the conclusions people draw after reading the stories don't need to necessarily change, but I think that if more people realised or just thought about the possibility that the Bible isn't an 100% accurate record of history and even that some of it may be coming directly from other past religions, there wouldn't be so many "fundamentalist" mistakes and silly justifications for wars.
Anyways, there's some thoughts, where's all yours? =)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:41 pm |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SubJunk I think a good way to realise just how much of the Bible was made up by man without God's influence is to look at judgements based on common misbeliefs of the time.
Now, firstly, I'm not saying God didn't tell Noah the world was flooding, Noah didn't necessarily need to know it wasn't the entire world and God may have had His reasons for saying that instead of the truth, but maybe not as well.
The theory I've always favoured is that the Euphrates and Tigris rivers overflowed to the extent that they joined in the middle, and considering the limited forms of communication available back then it would have seemed like the whole world to them.
This can also be used for another point, that the Bible is meant to be taken loosely, not literally.
For example, I don't think Genesis was ever meant to be scientifically accurate.
God could've created the Big Bang and everything that followed, but instead of explaining this to a people who had absolutely no understanding of astrophysics He may have just given the abbreviated "7 day version".
People of the time would've never been able to understand an explanation of the complex details.
This doesn't mean the stories aren't true in part, and the conclusions people draw after reading the stories don't need to necessarily change, but I think that if more people realised or just thought about the possibility that the Bible isn't an 100% accurate record of history and even that some of it may be coming directly from other past religions, there wouldn't be so many "fundamentalist" mistakes and silly justifications for wars.
Anyways, there's some thoughts, where's all yours? =)
like "good on you"..is "caught out" another catch phrase(pun!)!?caught outa what!?netted by your human perspective!?and what you are saying has merit!but the fact you are saying it is of no effect or the wrong effect to those who justify their actions for war or whatever.to ask is to be weak!!(to those who rule by force)
the bible being itself a translation down to common (of the times) has both the possibility of misunderstanding and understanding.but you said it youself.human perspective.and by definition(bible)the human perspective is up for grabs.(corrupted!?)the christ is meant(sent) to represent(present) the uncorrupted perspective for man.
the question you have posed to me is are fundamentalists beyond assimilation.(resistance is futile)what do they represent!?what are they really fighting for!?even if they dont "get it" according to the whoever if we accept the fact that a higher power runs it all then what is their ignorant purpose!?if indeed it is ignorant!?what is the western modern world selling that they arn't buying and who is responsible to translate it for them!?is absorption a time related issue!?are there pressures to speed it up!?why is force necessary!?is this a sign of superior intelligence!?or is the real story about something else.ignorance itself.the superior ignorance must eliminate the inferior ignorance.how can the supernatural ever be discovered if the natural is taken as real(for granted).and what is the simple definition of the natural.the struggle for survival!?and when agreed upon how soon does it escalate to the struggle to keep/gain the perks!?does success(cooperative) breed contempt!?if history is both a good and bad teacher is not the real issue the mind that perceives one way or another!?so if it comes down to each man's mind.then the question is.......what is "mind" for man.i define mind as....do as your told.all men are simply doing as their told.(by their mind).their choice(known or not) to follow orders.and familiar orders are the easiest to like and even enjoy.and familiariety breeds contempt!?like minds agree..unlike minds do not!?and what are agreement and disagreement about!?for unless there is a fundamental thread of acceptance that supersedes all disagreements then what is the result for mankind!?and how is this fundamental thread of agreement expressed that overides any misunderstanding!?i would call it goodwill!!the goodwill of the good samaritan.and check out luke 16.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:06 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lexx never learned english........actually i call it six-pack shorthand...minus the "drawl"!!ok....12 pack!!thought you of all people(hunny)would understand!!or are ya sayin ya do!!
Ah! Ha! Thought I'd get a rise outta ya! He! He!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:43 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by kazza I agree SubJunk. There is another aspect that has often puzzled me as well. I have had discussions with yeccies regarding all sorts of dodgey scientific theories they have thrown up to explain how the universe could have been created only 6000 years ago. They come up with theories on radiation has changed over years, the speed of light has slowed down, continents drift faster than we think etc. etc. etc. A few of these make absolutely no sense at all - the rest are even worse.
Now what I don't understand is why they don't just say God made the universe to appear old?
I say 'I can observe light from a star that is x distance away. Since light travels at a finite speed I can conlude that that light has been travelling for y amount of years so the universe must be at least that old.
They say 'Well obviously the speed of light has changed over the years.' When this is debunked in its most simple form it gets more and more complex and more and more outrageously wrong.
Why don't they say 'God created that ray of light 6000 years ago and put it halfway between you and the star.'
or 'God put the continents where they are, but he put lots of evidence around to suggest that they had been moving.' instead of saying 'You are wrong, Gondwana broke up 6000 years ago (despite this requiring continental drift of several kilometers per year).'
etc.
You get my point. I really am curious about this. Of course, if they did say that there would be no scientific way to disprove them, and religion and science could remain seperate. In fact, they could consider science to be a religious study, because we would be studying the 'evidence' that god had left for us. I don't know, maybe they just want an argument.
you dont get it!?it's up to the followers to come up with the god made the universe "look" old!!it's groupy fill in thing!!you see it all the time in any discipline.and by the way,they have already done it!!filled in the blanks themselves!!and ever hear of "the hook" applied to the songs in the music industry!?fishers of men has many meanings!!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:48 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lexx you dont get it!?it's up to the followers to come up with the god made the universe "look" old!!it's groupy fill in thing!!you see it all the time in any discipline.and by the way,they have already done it!!filled in the blanks themselves!!and ever hear of "the hook" applied to the songs in the music industry!?fishers of men has many meanings!!
UH!! Does Lexx ever talk in English!!
Ha Ha!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:48 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by HillbillyHunny UH!! Does Lexx ever talk in English!!
Ha Ha!
never learned english........actually i call it six-pack shorthand...minus the "drawl"!!ok....12 pack!!thought you of all people(hunny)would understand!!or are ya sayin ya do!!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:34 pm |
|
|
|
|
I agree SubJunk. There is another aspect that has often puzzled me as well. I have had discussions with yeccies regarding all sorts of dodgey scientific theories they have thrown up to explain how the universe could have been created only 6000 years ago. They come up with theories on radiation has changed over years, the speed of light has slowed down, continents drift faster than we think etc. etc. etc. A few of these make absolutely no sense at all - the rest are even worse.
Now what I don't understand is why they don't just say God made the universe to appear old?
I say 'I can observe light from a star that is x distance away. Since light travels at a finite speed I can conlude that that light has been travelling for y amount of years so the universe must be at least that old.
They say 'Well obviously the speed of light has changed over the years.' When this is debunked in its most simple form it gets more and more complex and more and more outrageously wrong.
Why don't they say 'God created that ray of light 6000 years ago and put it halfway between you and the star.'
or 'God put the continents where they are, but he put lots of evidence around to suggest that they had been moving.' instead of saying 'You are wrong, Gondwana broke up 6000 years ago (despite this requiring continental drift of several kilometers per year).'
etc.
You get my point. I really am curious about this. Of course, if they did say that there would be no scientific way to disprove them, and religion and science could remain seperate. In fact, they could consider science to be a religious study, because we would be studying the 'evidence' that god had left for us. I don't know, maybe they just want an argument.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are GMT
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
