Interpreting Theology

Originally Posted by Minion

So you're entire argument about historical accuracy is based purely on assumption, devoid of fact? Cool. Fascinating discussion we're having here.

I don't know. You seem to be dodging pretty well. Interesting indeed. Annnnd, we have the old "I didn't bring it up" dodge. You actually ARE the one who brought it up. Click! Second paragraph. I DID instigate an argument if only because you can't ASSUME that witnesses are unbiased.

There is little to do with actual histotry in the Bible as it has to do with GOD. Sure, theres some accurate fact in there regarding some of the events of the time.

But I was under the impression that as a Christian, you follow the Bible not as a good historical novel, but as a guideline for your morals in your life.

Which is a pretty heavy topic to place on such a very old book. THATS what I am saying.

EDIT: And since we're getting complaints, I won't humor anything else from Minion about the validity of 1000+ (happy?) year old scriptures RIGHT AFTER I REPLY TO HIM.

We're supposed to be discussing theology and ALL FORMS thereof, yea?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

There is little to do with actual histotry in the Bible

See, when you say things like this, I can't help but get annoyed and not take you seriously. The Bible is the best source of ancient history we have. Literally, it has never been wrong regarding archeology. Sure, someone people thought it was from time to time, and then they'd find what they were looking for.

We're not even getting into how terrible a job they did if they did tamper with it. I mean, their savior riding into town on a donkey? Being spit on and taking it? Having women as the first messengers of the gospel (would have been very sketchy back then)? The list goes on. And what's with all the pointless detail in the Bible about which way Jesus went and when to what town and what river he cross and what road he followed? What purpose does that serve in a made up story? You don't hear about what route little red ridinghood took to go to grandma's house, do you? That's because myths don't generally bother with details, but when someone is recording history, they do bother with the details.

The Bible smacks of being a historical document and not a made up story.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Minion

See, when you say things like this, I can't help but get annoyed and not take you seriously. The Bible is the best source of ancient history we have. Literally, it has never been wrong regarding archeology. Sure, someone people thought it was from time to time, and then they'd find what they were looking for.

We're not even getting into how terrible a job they did if they did tamper with it. I mean, their savior riding into town on a donkey? Being spit on and taking it? Having women as the first messengers of the gospel (would have been very sketchy back then)? The list goes on. And what's with all the pointless detail in the Bible about which way Jesus went and when to what town and what river he cross and what road he followed? What purpose does that serve in a made up story? You don't hear about what route little red ridinghood took to go to grandma's house, do you? That's because myths don't generally bother with details, but when someone is recording history, they do bother with the details.

The Bible smacks of being a historical document and not a made up story.

The majority of it, sir, in MY opinion - is just that. Made up.

If it were about recording history, it wouldn't really speculate on inner working of the mind of the characters in it. It would tell the dry facts.

It was written, as you admitted, years AFTER the fact. So many years that generations would have passed.

The story works for you. Good. Great. Run with it! Don't expect everyone to follow suit.

And now, can we please stop with the shit about the validity of the Bible? I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me, and thats all it is - a matter of opinion. DEAL?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Nope. Since this thread is about debating, I don't think we're gonna stop doing that anytime soon. It's not like you can claim we're off topic.

Anyway...

Quote:

If it were about recording history, it wouldn't really speculate on inner working of the mind of the characters in it. It would tell the dry facts.

It's got both. Why does it talk about what Jesus is thinking? Because it's important. Literature can serve many purposes at once, can't it? Especially if it's good literature. Besides, there weren't text books back then. This is the way history was told.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Minion

Nope. Since this thread is about debating, I don't think we're gonna stop doing that anytime soon. It's not like you can claim we're off topic.

I was trying to be courteous to other posters, but if you think you can exhaust ME with inane discussions about your beloved Bible, by all means. Try me.

I just thought it might be nice for, you know, you and I to shut the fuck up so other people won't be drowned out. Other people DO have opinions. I know you hate that.

And technically, we ARE kind of off topic. The topic is "theology." Not "the validity of the Bible."

Quote:

It's got both. Why does it talk about what Jesus is thinking? Because it's important. Literature can serve many purposes at once, can't it? Especially if it's good literature. Besides, there weren't text books back then. This is the way history was told.

Its not historic is it's speculation on the innerworking of a person's mind. Thats presumption.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that the Bible was actually written by god himself.

And "stories" and "fiction" are also classified as "literature." Is it a historical novel? Perhaps a THRILLER MYSTERY? If it weren't for the RELIGION section of Barnes & Noble, Minion, which shelf would the Bible be placed upon? I don't think it even qualifies for the philosophy section!

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

And technically, we ARE kind of off topic. The topic is "theology." Not "the validity of the Bible."

Theology is the "knowledge of God." Since the Bible is about God, it and anything about it are fair game.

Quote:

Its not historic is it's speculation on the innerworking of a person's mind. Thats presumption.

Maybe the author was told what the historical figure in question was thinking about by the person himself?

Quote:

If it weren't for the RELIGION section of Barnes & Noble, Minion, which shelf would the Bible be placed upon? I don't think it even qualifies for the philosophy section!

First of all, it generally has it's own section. Unless you go to a second-rate B&N that has more varieties of latte than it has books. Secondly, what's your point? If there was no mystery section, where would Sherlock Holmes go? Who cares?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Minion

Theology is the "knowledge of God." Since the Bible is about God, it and anything about it are fair game.

But we're not even discussing God.

Quote:

Maybe the author was told what the historical figure in question was thinking about by the person himself?

There's more than one author of the Bible, Minion.

Not to mention, like you said, written GENERATIONS AFTER the events occurred. These are your words.

People didn't live up to 100 back then, dude. They were lucky to see 40.

Quote:

First of all, it generally has it's own section. Unless you go to a second-rate B&N that has more varieties of latte than it has books. Secondly, what's your point? If there was no mystery section, where would Sherlock Holmes go? Who cares?

My point is that if it were used as a historical document exclusively, it would be in the history section. Not right next to the New Age Wicca books in the religion section.

I re-iterate: There is some historical truth in the Bible. But thats not it's expressed purpose. That would be "to spread the word of God."

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

Not to mention, like you said, written GENERATIONS AFTER the events occurred. These are your words.

I did not say that and, in fact, I said, not more than a few posts ago, that we have manscripts dating back to about 100 AD. That's like, 2 maybe 3 generations. It's like hearing about it from your grandpa.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Minion

It's like hearing about it from your grandpa.

"Back in the day, when I was a kid, I walked 30 miles in the snow BAREFOOT to get to school! You little ungrateful BASTARDS!"

That was always totally true and historic. ALWAYS BELIEVE YOUR GRANDPA!

Most amazing jew boots

Not everyone's grandpa was senile. Besides, if they only lived till they were 40 (many lived longer) their bodies deteriorated before their minds ever could. No reason not to trust their memory. Especially, like I said, when so many of them agree on something.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Minion

Not everyone's grandpa was senile. Besides, if they only lived till they were 40 (many lived longer) their bodies deteriorated before their minds ever could. No reason not to trust their memory. Especially, like I said, when so many of them agree on something.

The only benefit you get is that this tradition doesn't get translated a WHOLE BUNCH OF TIMES over again. People just add their own little spin.

And remember - anything that comes out of a human's mouth has a spin.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

But remember - if several humans, independent of each other say the same thing, it's probably true. Or at least true enough to get you the chair if these people claim you murdered someone. I'd say we as a society have a great deal of faith in this kind of evidence.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Minion

But remember - if several humans, independent of each other say the same thing, it's probably true. Or at least true enough to get you the chair if these people claim you murdered someone. I'd say we as a society have a great deal of faith in this kind of evidence.

Aren't you the one who thinks if something is said in majority, it is the right decision?

I bet burning Joan of Arc was a great idea. Let's not forget those Nazis! And the Inquisition? Perhaps running the American Natives off of their land entirely? Yea. Those weren't bad decisions at all.

Historically speaking, thats very, very wrong. Especially when you're talking about something abnormal like an apparition, a UFO, or maybe a voice from God.

It's out of the ordinary. People WANT to believe in these things. So they will. They are COMFORTED by each other. But don't fool yourself into thinking that if MANY believe, then its TRUE.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

We're not talking about majority decsions. Look, if 5 million people see a UFO and they all describe it the same way, then it probably happened. The idea that many people can hallucinate or will lie about something the exact same way? Now, THAT'S mathematically impossible.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Minion

We're not talking about majority decsions. Look, if 5 million people see a UFO and they all describe it the same way, then it probably happened. The idea that many people can hallucinate or will lie about something the exact same way? Now, THAT'S mathematically impossible.

BUT MINION!:

Originally Posted by Minion

But remember - if several humans, independent of each other say the same thing, it's probably true.

Do you have any idea how many people have claimed to see the same exact kind of UFO flying around in the sky - no knowledge of each other or other sightings - and have the SAME EXACT VISION?

HOLY SHIT, I GUESS THAT MEANS THEY DO EXIST!

Come on. You've got a scientific brain. Use it.

All I am saying is that its a great story -I NEVER denied that. But thats all it is: One giant fable. And I have a feeling thats what it's original intention was. People just manipulated it through it's evolution.

You should read Canticle for Lebowitz. ^_^

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

Do you have any idea how many people have claimed to see the same exact kind of UFO flying around in the sky - no knowledge of each other or other sightings - and have the SAME EXACT VISION?

I'll guarantee they really did see the thing they described. Was it a UFO? Probably not, but it was something. It's kind of hard to hear entirely different words coming out of the same person's mouth, though. I mean, were all the Biblical authors going deaf or what? Were they Aramaic as a Second Language students? Help me out here.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Minion

The Bible smacks of being a historical document and not a made up story.

The Bible says Adam and Eve were the parents of every living human. Genetically impossible. It also says Moses and his family of 6 or whatever were the only living decendants after the flood and repopulated the earth. Genetically impossible. The Bible says all living animals except those on the ark perished in the flood. Impossible. The earlier humans lived to be 600-1000 years old. Bullshit, as well as impossible. All original interpretations of the creation of the Earth led Jews to believe the earth was flat according to the verses of the OT. Of course now that we know that's impossible, there are all sorts of "truer" interpretations of the verses claiming it actually means round. Is it so hard to admit the writers of the OT didn't know what the hell they were talking about? Sure they've recorded a historical event here and there, and kept super-good track of their geneologies, but that in no way proves true the other 50+ "facts" that are impossible (unless you want to claim everything was a miracle back then, which is just a lazy man's denial blind faith).

There are also a number of OT prophecies that were never fulfilled. I can list them if you'd like. The God of the OT has very human characteristics. Jealousy. Changes his mind. Toys with humans. Tells his people to plunder and murder. All to spread His merciful glory.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Okay, thats a mouthful. You want to make one point and see where we go from there?

Seriously, what is with you people and argument spamming? Winning an argument by asking 500 questions in one post is pretty lame, considering that it's much easier to ask a question than to answer it.

I will have to ask, though, how you know any of that is impossible and if you can cite Biblical references for any of it. Also I would love for you to post about any OT prophecies that haven't been fulfilled. But one at a time, please.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Seriously, what is with you people and argument spamming? Winning an argument by asking 500 questions in one post is pretty lame, considering that it's much easier to ask a question than to answer it.

Well, they weren't questions, more like "facts" of the Bible that are scientifically impossible unless we involve the word miracle.

Quote:

I will have to ask, though, how you know any of that is impossible and if you can cite Biblical references for any of it.

As for the things which are genetically impossible, I learned in my genetics class that in order for a group to maintain diversity for repopulation there has to be around 40 individuals (or something like that). And we all know how incest leads to mutations, etc.

As for people living 600-1000 years old, we know that our lifespan has actually increased over time thanks to cleaner environments, better medical care, etc. A human body simply cannot withstand living 600-1000, unless there are magic voodoo spells on them that the Bible didn't talk about.

Quote:

Also I would love for you to post about any OT prophecies that haven't been fulfilled. But one at a time, please.

I came across a website that pointed them out. http://jews-for-allah.org/the-Jewish...bleEzekiel.htm
Instead of spamming them here, I'll just ask you what your overall opinion is of the points the guy makes. It basically says how the prophecies for various historical wars and conflicts never came true.

Double Post:
Here's an example error for those who don't want to read the site (looks as Sass... JK!):

Isaiah 19: 21-22, "21 Thus the Lord will make Himself known to Egypt, ... They will worship the Lord with sacrifice and offerings, ...22 And the Lord will strike Egypt ... so they will return to the Lord, and He will respond to them and heal them."

Apologetics: They will return to the Coptic Church, it is a future prophecy.

Rebuttal: The prophecy refers to Hebrew religious practices, the OT is not a christian book, but a Jewish book. The Coptic Church never was widespread, so the vast majority of Egyptian never belonged to it, even at its height. Therefore, the non-Coptics cannot return to it. Islam never converted the Coptics, but did successfully convert the peasants away from the old gods for Allah. ALSO, the prophecy is about sacrifice being offered. Christianity is not a religion that offers sacrifice, for it maintains that Jesus was the essential one time sacrifice! The prophecy involves sacrifice, and that disqualifies Christianity.

Observation: This prophecy has several serious problems; v. 21 states that the Egyptians will worship God in the Hebrew manner, which has never happened in Egyptian history; v. 22 states that the Egyptians will return to the Lord, but it is established history that the Egyptians never worshiped YHWH, they remained loyal to the old gods until Islam took over the country.

Conclusion: According to the measure of Moses, this is a false prophecy.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I don't care about some guy who has a website. Make your arguments from your own mind. If I want to browse around for a Biblical skeptic on the internet, I can do that myself.

Quote:

As for the things which are genetically impossible, I learned in my genetics class that in order for a group to maintain diversity for repopulation there has to be around 40 individuals (or something like that). And we all know how incest leads to mutations, etc.

Well, that doesn't really qualify you as an expect in genetics. You can be doubtful, but I wouldn't throw around the word impossible after having only one class in genetics.

Incidentally, I've heard that if Adam and Eve had the right genetic combinations, it would indeed be possible for them to have produced all of the different basic genetic characteristics we know of today. As for genetic defects, the answer to that and your "how could they have lived that long" question are basically one in the same. We are talking about the beginning of the human race and an early, unpolluted Earth. Adam and Eve could simply have had no genetic defects, thereby allowing them to interbreed their children without much harm. It would certain make sense for God to have created the first humans this way. We have gentic defects now because our ancestor's genes have been effected by various diseases and other effects of their environment which has grown considerably more hostile since the population of the human race grew.

So, you see, it doesn't take magic or voodoo necessarily. Just a loving and sensible creator. And as much as you may like to doubt it, we are not arguing whether or not it happened. That is unprovable. We are arguing about whether or not it was possible, and indeed, it was.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Minion

I don't care about some guy who has a website. Make your arguments from your own mind. If I want to browse around for a Biblical skeptic on the internet, I can do that myself.

I think it's funny when people like you automatically dismiss an argument as irrelivent because it's on a website. This isn't a "Biblical skeptic" website(the author has full faith in the books written by Moses), and the arguments he makes are concise and accurate. Your inability to comment on what he says demonstrates your inability to argue against his points. Don't put on a "it's internetz so it doesn't count!" facade.

Quote:

Incidentally, I've heard that if Adam and Eve had the right genetic combinations, it would indeed be possible for them to have produced all of the different basic genetic characteristics we know of today.

Where'd you hear this from, pray tell? Could it be... a creationism "science" website/pastor? Considering neither of us are genetic experts, we have to trust what experts say. And I guarantee you a VAST majority of geneticists (aka, geneticists who don't have Christian faith-based agendas) will agree that the Adam/Eve story is genetically impossible very improbable.

Quote:

We are talking about the beginning of the human race and an early, unpolluted Earth. Adam and Eve could simply have had no genetic defects, thereby allowing them to interbreed their children without much harm. It would certain make sense for God to have created the first humans this way.

And what about Noah and his family? None of the above "explanations" could apply to them.

Quote:

We are arguing about whether or not it was possible, and indeed, it was.

Anything is possible. We aren't arguing whether it's possible, we're arguing whether it's probable, which it isn't.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Minion

Nope. Since this thread is about debating, I don't think we're gonna stop doing that anytime soon. It's not like you can claim we're off topic.

Actually, the thread was suppose to be about discussing your interpretation of theological ideology because I have no idea how people are conceptualizing these things. Not that I didn't know debates were bound to happen, but whatever.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

I think it's funny when people like you automatically dismiss an argument as irrelivent because it's on a website. This isn't a "Biblical skeptic" website(the author has full faith in the books written by Moses), and the arguments he makes are concise and accurate. Your inability to comment on what he says demonstrates your inability to argue against his points. Don't put on a "it's internetz so it doesn't count!" facade.

I think it's funny when people like you download arguments instead of acutally having a thought of your own. If you can't even bring up a point without using google, then maybe you should learn more about what you're talking about before you criticize it. Anyone can search for "bible+inaccuracy" or "bible+contradiction". Way to put effort into your posts.

Quote:

Anything is possible. We aren't arguing whether it's possible, we're arguing whether it's probable, which it isn't.

No, we're not. First of all, you haven't even shown in any measure that it's improbable, except to say "well, I hear it in my genetics class." Make an argument. If you want to raise a point, then say something that someone can actually argue with. Not just "someone told me it's true, so it is." Prove it.

Secondly, it doesn't matter how probable it is because you can't talk about probability when you're talking about historical events. History is untestable, unreproducable. Therefore, any historical event or possible historical event is equally probable. There is no way to do a statistical analysis on what could have happened in history. So, if it's possible, then it could have happened. If there is no contradictory historical evidence and the event is a possibility, then there is no reason to say it can't be true.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Minion

I think it's funny when people like you download arguments instead of acutally having a thought of your own. If you can't even bring up a point without using google, then maybe you should learn more about what you're talking about before you criticize it. Anyone can search for "bible+inaccuracy" or "bible+contradiction". Way to put effort into your posts.

Well, OT historical inaccuracies are not my specialty, and I'm not going to become specialized in it when 1) I can prove the Bible rediculous through other means and 2) it's already accepted by the majority of Christianity that there are errors. The only group that still clings to inerrancy are fundamentalists, which apparently you are. My condolences. If you feel you can legitimately discard arguments because of the format in which they're presented, good for you. It's your denial, not mine. If you would post a website to present your argument, I'd respond to it, because I don't care what format the argument is being made in, I care about how solid the argument being made is.

Quote:

No, we're not. First of all, you haven't even shown in any measure that it's improbable, except to say "well, I hear it in my genetics class." Make an argument. If you want to raise a point, then say something that someone can actually argue with. Not just "someone told me it's true, so it is." Prove it.

I got my information from a college class. You got yours from a Christian-science whateverthefuck. I'd say you're the one who needs to start proving something.

Quote:

History is untestable, unreproducable. Therefore, any historical event or possible historical event is equally probable. There is no way to do a statistical analysis on what could have happened in history.

It's a fact that Biblical prophecies from the Bible concerning Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar didn't come true. If you want, I will post the verses, and then post a historical article from an encyclopedia contradicting those verses. Of course, this is EXACTLY what the website I linked to did, but that "doesn't count." Uh huh.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Okay, you're not making anything that even resembles an argument. I can't see how this is anything different from trolling. Copying and pasting is no different from spamming. Add to that some obvious flames and I'm having a hard time figuring out why I haven't thread banned you yet. If your next post doesn't have an actual argument in it, that is at least paraphrased, not plagarized so as to show that you put some degree of effort into posting, you will be thread banned. You've been warned.

There's nowhere I can't reach.