Biblical question and problems

[Crono]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: MrToilet
Wow- didn't think people would be this interested...

anyway, to get this thread back on topic- I guess just have concerns about people proclaiming the Bible as the end-all/be-all factual source for everything, when there are obvious omissions, inaccuracies, etc. Didn't think this thread would veer toward incest so fast.

What inaccuracies or ommissions? The Bible was meant to be a guide for mankind from God on how we should live and the path to salvation, and not as a science textbook to explain everything in the universe. Even then, the Bible is incredibly accurate and well preserved, and is as relevant today as when it was first completed.

The bible may very well explain a lot more than people give it credit for, especially the atheists. Of course, the explanations are not literal, but given in allegory.
The truth is always hidden in the open.

<-- agnostic, very strongly leaning towards a universal force, not quite like and not quite unlike a "god".

The creation story is meant to be read literally, and is not an allegory. The Bible is always literal, except when it explicitly uses metaphorical language. It's just another way people try to dismiss the Bible as a bunch of "fairy tales" for the weak minded, when it is anything but.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: MrToilet
Wow- didn't think people would be this interested...

anyway, to get this thread back on topic- I guess just have concerns about people proclaiming the Bible as the end-all/be-all factual source for everything, when there are obvious omissions, inaccuracies, etc. Didn't think this thread would veer toward incest so fast.

What inaccuracies or ommissions? The Bible was meant to be a guide for mankind from God on how we should live and the path to salvation, and not as a science textbook to explain everything in the universe. Even then, the Bible is incredibly accurate and well preserved, and is as relevant today as when it was first completed.

The bible may very well explain a lot more than people give it credit for, especially the atheists. Of course, the explanations are not literal, but given in allegory.
The truth is always hidden in the open.

<-- agnostic, very strongly leaning towards a universal force, not quite like and not quite unlike a "god".

The creation story is meant to be read literally, and is not an allegory. The Bible is always literal, except when it explicitly uses metaphorical language. It's just another way people try to dismiss the Bible as a bunch of "fairy tales" for the weak minded, when it is anything but.

"Meant" for the proles and actually meant are quite different.
After-all, Lucifer was the angel of light.
That being said, you are free to believe whatever you wish.
Thank god!(for freewill)

Illusion is a reality and reality is an illusion.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: MrToilet
Wow- didn't think people would be this interested...

anyway, to get this thread back on topic- I guess just have concerns about people proclaiming the Bible as the end-all/be-all factual source for everything, when there are obvious omissions, inaccuracies, etc. Didn't think this thread would veer toward incest so fast.

What inaccuracies or ommissions? The Bible was meant to be a guide for mankind from God on how we should live and the path to salvation, and not as a science textbook to explain everything in the universe. Even then, the Bible is incredibly accurate and well preserved, and is as relevant today as when it was first completed.

The bible may very well explain a lot more than people give it credit for, especially the atheists. Of course, the explanations are not literal, but given in allegory.
The truth is always hidden in the open.

<-- agnostic, very strongly leaning towards a universal force, not quite like and not quite unlike a "god".

The creation story is meant to be read literally, and is not an allegory. The Bible is always literal, except when it explicitly uses metaphorical language. It's just another way people try to dismiss the Bible as a bunch of "fairy tales" for the weak minded, when it is anything but.

You are free to believe whatever you wish.

I know I am, lol. Don't need to tell me that

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: dullard
Book of Genesis:

001:027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

001:028 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.



Notice the bold part. Where does it say he created only one man and only one woman? "Them" could very easilly refer to hundreds or thousands who were created (at once or over a period of time). In Chapter 2, the bible speaks of one specific man, but that doesn't mean it was either the first or only man.

If I only speak of MrToilet in this post/thread does it mean that MrToilet was the first and only Anandtech member at the time of this post?

Examples like this illustrate why the Bible, if you assign it any meaning at all (which personally I do not), cannot be taken literally. There are far too many points that are open to such interpretation that you can read into it any meaning you wish.

 

[AMCRambler]

Cain killed his father and slept with his mother for teh win!

 

[Warthog912]

^ See this is my problem with the bible. No flamefest going on here. But "them" could have easily referred to male and female, as in two people. With such open ended stories left for interpertation it is difficult to believe something such as this could be accurate.

Again, no flames, just a personal side note

*edit* Man, you guys are fast...

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Examples like this illustrate why the Bible, if you assign it any meaning at all (which personally I do not), cannot be taken literally. There are far too many points that are open to such interpretation that you can read into it any meaning you wish.

It also illustrates why, if you want to read that far into it, you really ought to read it in the original languages, because the original Hebrew could give more indication of what "them" referred to than the English translator did. Not saying that is necessarily true in this case, but it's dangerous to make assertions about what the Bible means if you don't know what it actually says.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: mugs
They had additional children, Seth was one. I believe they had daughters as well. They must have.

I didn't read your Noah link, just skimmed it... but it doesn't say that the Biblical version was plagiarized, it could have been the other way around. Or it could have been two independent accounts of the same event.

Adam and Eve had more children.

Also, you can look at the Flood stories as stories that all point to a similar event that is recorded properly in the Bible. Tower of Babel could have garbled other significant events. There are other stories and traditions that are similar to the Biblical text. You could look at it as pointing to a true event that was recorded differently and garbled in different versions.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Examples like this illustrate why the Bible, if you assign it any meaning at all (which personally I do not), cannot be taken literally. There are far too many points that are open to such interpretation that you can read into it any meaning you wish.

It also illustrates why, if you want to read that far into it, you really ought to read it in the original languages, because the original Hebrew could give more indication of what "them" referred to than the English translator did. Not saying that is necessarily true in this case, but it's dangerous to make assertions about what the Bible means if you don't know what it actually says.

i thought we didnt have the original hebrew, but rather, the oldest "original" translations were all in the greek.

yes, i do understand the OT was originally writtein in hebrew, and the NT in greek, but im almost certain i read that the actual ancient hebrew translations dont exist and that the best available were greek translations of it.

i could be wrong, or way off, its been a few months since i bothered to read up on it much.

 

[nakedfrog]

Just get a copy of the Jefferson Bible and call it a day. You might also find one of the other denominations more in line with your beliefs as well.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

i thought we didnt have the original hebrew, but rather, the oldest "original" translations were all in the greek.

yes, i do understand the OT was originally writtein in hebrew, and the NT in greek, but im almost certain i read that the actual ancient hebrew translations dont exist and that the best available were greek translations of it.

i could be wrong, or way off, its been a few months since i bothered to read up on it much.

The Dead Sea scrolls contained part of the Hebrew Old Testament.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

*shakes head*

You guys have it all mixed up.

God is a human creation.

 

[thehstrybean]

Originally posted by: MrToilet
Let me start out- I consider myself Christian, I go to church, etc, etc. I just don't think the Bible is completely factually accurate, as the Lutheran Church tells me.

For starters - if indeed the early history of humanity (Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel) is indeed true - How did Cain have any children? According to Scripture, Adam and Eve had two boys, Cain, and Abel, right? Did they subsequently have more children? I don't remember reading that anywhere.

And why is it that the Noah flood story plagiarize material from an old Sumerian epic? There is a story titled "The Epic of Gilgamesh" that is strikingly similar to the Noachian flood story from Genesis. Here's a link detailing the similarities:
Comparisons

Anyway- can anyone answer these for me? Any more input?

Yes, the Sumerians had a flood epic, so does every other ancient culture. The Greeks had many, including one of a little place I'm sure you've heard of. Atlantis, anybody? Almost every culture believes in a flood, so there probably was one.

 

[thehstrybean]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Isn't it true that alot of the bible was pulled and pieced together from other religions?

No...Every religion is basically seperate, but the similarities are rather striking and curious...

 

[Fraggable]

1) QUIT TRYING TO MAKE THIS A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE because it's NOT. Nothing he asked can be proven scientifically, just like the beginning of Earth can't be because NO ONE WAS THERE.

2) back in Adam Noah's day, there was no problem with incest. It did not have negative effects until later on, like until Lot's time. BTW, Adam and Noah both lived about 900 years, so obviously something was different about the environment (like less radiation from the sun because it was filtered through water).

3) tweakmm- 'I'm not sure if that's exactally how it works, someone who knows more about evolutions can probably explain in greater detail.
It wasn't like all of a sudden there were a male and female human and they started procreating to create the human race. '

umm yeah it is like that. it takes a male and a female to procreate and that's how it must have started. It doesn't take an expert to figure that one out. Someone tell me what amoeba we started out as and i'll believe it. OOPS you can't because you WEREN'T THERE therefore it ISN'T SCIENCE.

 

[MrToilet]

I understand that many different civilizations had flood stories or something similar. I find it odd that the Noachian flood and the Sumerican Epic have *so* many things in common.

From what I gather, the "Cradle of Civilization", the area between the Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq flooded constantly- so obviously there would be stories about floods from this area. It's interesting, though, that many Biblical stories which are taken as "factual" are similar to fictional epics from other civilizations- case in point 'The Epic of Gilgamesh'.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Fraggable
3) tweakmm- 'I'm not sure if that's exactally how it works, someone who knows more about evolutions can probably explain in greater detail.
It wasn't like all of a sudden there were a male and female human and they started procreating to create the human race. '

umm yeah it is like that. it takes a male and a female to procreate and that's how it must have started. It doesn't take an expert to figure that one out. Someone tell me what amoeba we started out as and i'll believe it. OOPS you can't because you WEREN'T THERE therefore it ISN'T SCIENCE.

Haha

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: thehstrybean

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Isn't it true that alot of the bible was pulled and pieced together from other religions?

No...Every religion is basically seperate, but the similarities are rather striking and curious...

There actually is a theory about Jewish tradition being pulled from Egypt tradition which was pulled from Sumerian tradition and on and on, but it lacks anything concrete about it.

It boils down to faith.

 

[thehstrybean]

Why are people in here bashing religion? The OP didn't ask if you believed in Christianity, he asked specific questions about Adam & Eve's kids and the flood account. So please stay on topic and be kind. I think it's pitiful how people who don't believe bash Christians.

 

[HN]

On being made fun of for being bald:

"Kings 2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

i just find that amusing

 

[MrToilet]

Originally posted by: Fraggable

umm yeah it is like that. it takes a male and a female to procreate and that's how it must have started. It doesn't take an expert to figure that one out. Someone tell me what amoeba we started out as and i'll believe it. OOPS you can't because you WEREN'T THERE therefore it ISN'T SCIENCE.

Science is not just about direct observation - so this is a moot point. Geology, paleontology, meteorology, physics, chemistry, biology - they all involve indirect observation and attempting to extrapolate trends, e.g. laws, from that data. For example, chemists can't see how molecules bind together, but there are trends and documented reactions that allow them to predict how certain compounds will react.

Just because you "weren't there" has no bearing on whether it's "science" or not.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Why are people in here bashing religion? The OP didn't ask if you believed in Christianity, he asked specific questions about Adam & Eve's kids and the flood account. So please stay on topic and be kind. I think it's pitiful how people who don't believe bash Christians.

Because people are haters.

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Why are people in here bashing religion? The OP didn't ask if you believed in Christianity, he asked specific questions about Adam & Eve's kids and the flood account. So please stay on topic and be kind. I think it's pitiful how people who don't believe bash Christians.

well religion has to come into the issue because the beginning of everything can't be scientifically proven, so it takes faith to believe anything. Where there's religion, there will be religion bashing.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: MrToilet
I understand that many different civilizations had flood stories or something similar. I find it odd that the Noachian flood and the Sumerican Epic have *so* many things in common.

From what I gather, the "Cradle of Civilization", the area between the Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq flooded constantly- so obviously there would be stories about floods from this area. It's interesting, though, that many Biblical stories which are taken as "factual" are similar to fictional epics from other civilizations- case in point 'The Epic of Gilgamesh'.

Which just further proves the validity of the flood story. There are a lot of people that doubt the Bible, but every once in a while there is a discovery that further proves the reliability of the Bible as a historical reference. Ex: tablet that proves the existence of Solomon's temple (saw on National Geographic yesterday ).

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: MrToilet

Originally posted by: Fraggable

umm yeah it is like that. it takes a male and a female to procreate and that's how it must have started. It doesn't take an expert to figure that one out. Someone tell me what amoeba we started out as and i'll believe it. OOPS you can't because you WEREN'T THERE therefore it ISN'T SCIENCE.

Science is not just about direct observation - so this is a moot point. Geology, paleontology, meteorology, physics, chemistry, biology - they all involve indirect observation and attempting to extrapolate trends, e.g. laws, from that data. For example, chemists can't see how molecules bind together, but there are trends and documented reactions that allow them to predict how certain compounds will react.

Just because you "weren't there" has no bearing on whether it's "science" or not.

no it's not based on DIRECT observation but you do have to observe something. there's nothing to conclusively prove how the universe began that you can observe, therefore it's not science. It's faith.