What's new

Welcome to Japan Reference (JREF) - the community for all Things Japanese.

Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

What do you think about the Bible?

Mars Man

先輩
Rest in Peace
Joined
28 Jul 2005
Messages
5,172
Reaction score
166
3. B. 3. continued. . .

The first thing that allows us to determine that there was a lack of knowledge of the world, on behalf of the author(s), is that of the problem with the water volume. As shown above, the seas, and thus the sea basins were to have already been in place on the third day. Even taking plate tectonics to have occurred since that day, the volume of the oceans would not change--the weight of ice disperses its volume.

At verse 7:11 (now that's a convenient place to be) the 'springs of the vast deep' are opened, and the vaults (or trap doors) of the dome are opened, and the waters rise to a height of 15 cubits above the highest mountians. 窶。@ That means, basically, 6.7 meters above the tall mountians.

The waters would have come from above and below, as the story goes, but in that we do know now, that the earth is a sphere, it would be saying that the level of water had been that high above the sea level. That would mean a level of about 2 kilometers above sea level when taking the 'tall mountians' to be at even around 32 thousand meters above sea level. It would also mean a possible increase of 2 meters per hour, over the 40 day (and night) period.

If this had been an actual occurrence, the water would still be here on earth; as all the water that has, for the far greatest part, been here is still here. It is very clear, however, that that much water is not on, nor inside the planet, thus has never been here.

THAT...however, is not the only part of the water problem... more is to come.​

窶。@ツ This point (vs 7:19,20) is important in that it deducts from the general Creationist argument of a flat earth beforehand;
 

bakaKanadajin

先輩
Joined
30 Apr 2007
Messages
1,134
Reaction score
83
Mars Man my friend, I'm still reading over here, just thought I'd chime in so you didn't feel like you're selling timeshare to the homeless. I will admittedly have to sit down with this thread again and read the totality of your remarks at one time to fully grasp them, as I fear I am losing continuity due to the interludes (which of course are to be expected as the topic is large and we all have real lives to lead.) Just thought I'd pop in and respond! You certainly have a wealth of knowledge on biblical interpretation! I fear that, to no fault of your own, most who would choose to disagree with you would not be able to do so based on much more than blind faith, which is the fundamental problem with.... fundamentalists.
 

Mars Man

先輩
Rest in Peace
Joined
28 Jul 2005
Messages
5,172
Reaction score
166
Thanks for your chiming in !! It is greatly appreciated. In the process of tying it all together, it may be good, as I often do in such cases, to print out those pertinent posts, and read, underscore, or highlight (all the while making notes) them off line. It seems to really soak in so much better in that formatl. Maybe I am just too much of a caveman, though...hee, hee, hee....will be back here, on this, tonight. MM
 

Mars Man

先輩
Rest in Peace
Joined
28 Jul 2005
Messages
5,172
Reaction score
166
3. B. 3. continued. . .

Not only would the roughly 2 meter per hour incease of standing water coming from the 'springs of the deep' and rainfall needed to amount to the some two kilometers of water in 40 days, be a problem, but, if, as the Young Earth Creationists theorize to balance their view of the fossil record, all the known evidence for volcanic activity were to have happend then, along with plate movements, the temperature of the water would likely have risen to around 2700 degrees Celsius! It might have been hard to keep things so peaceful for the sea life forms in that case.

In that we far more clearly know now that not all marine life forms can survive in just any kind of water, we also can realize the impossibility of the waters being layered into strata of salt water and fresh water, so the various species could be saved.

On top of that, one proposition by the Creation Scientists is that all the sedimentary rocks were laid down and formulated within that one year period of water standing on the globe. ①

One calculation that has been provided is that there is presently 1,350,106 km3 of ocean water on earth, and 654,106 km3 of Phanerozoic sediments--this, in the scenario where the soil had been stirred up with the flooding so that it could later have settled down, would be extremely muddy water since that is close to two parts water, one part sediment. That in itself--not to mention the heat, would have been the death toll for much marine life...especially coral. (which is animal, by the way)

The next major factor which shows that this story is simply of human origin, is the lack of knowledge it displays about life forms themselves; and the fact that you'd simply never be able to get them all in that handmade boat of hewn logs.

I will continue with that part next.​


① This also has problems with the claim that the mountians were pushed up during the flooding/flooded period due to their having sedimentary rock in them themselves, meaning it would have had to have been there already;
 

Mycernius

The Hairy Wookie
Joined
4 Feb 2005
Messages
4,511
Reaction score
195
The waters would have come from above and below, as the story goes, but in that we do know now, that the earth is a sphere, it would be saying that the level of water had been that high above the sea level.
There is a creationist fundie called Kent Hovind, you might have heard of him, who has said that there was a shell of ice surronding the planet and it melted and caused the flood. For him it explains the water above in the bible and also is a good enough explanation for other young earth creationists.
The one major problem with this is that the shell of ice would have to be very thick to have the amount of water to flood the entire planet. That means that such a shell would block all radiation from the sun, including light. Such a shell would prevent any life surviving on this planet.
The entire flood myth is very easy to disprove, but you will not sway the christian fundie.
For example there is no achaelogical evidence whatsoever of a worldwide flood. Covering the enire planet with water would kill all life within the soil, so all Noah would have been left with was a barren, sterile world. Genetic abnormalities would have been prevalent is such a small collection of animals (only two pairs of unclean and seven of clean) not to mention that the only humans to have survived would have been Noah and his immediate family, and we all know where interbreeding can lead to, banjos and webbed feet:).
The planet would have been covered with fresh water, so all sea and ocean creatures would have died. As you can see the entire flood myth is wrought with impossibilties and contradictions and these are just a few. Sure enough apologist sites will try, badly, to explain these away, but they ignore physical laws when they want and try to re-write nature in there own twisted fundie image.
 

Mars Man

先輩
Rest in Peace
Joined
28 Jul 2005
Messages
5,172
Reaction score
166
Good points there, Mycernius. I did touch a little on a calculation for the speed of the increase of the water level--around 2 meters per hour--which would mean some pretty fast melting of that ice sphere too.

Thanks for joining in ! I'll point out a few more things on the matter of evidence for that story's not being true history, but just human imagination.

3. B. 3. continued. . .

According to the story, and as pointed out earlier, the boat was to have been pretty large, and built out of wood. It can be guestimated that building a pyramid might have been easier than building an ocean worthy boat of that size out of wood only; with possibly some metal fittings?

Now a number often thrown around for the number of animals on board, is 50, 000 (25, 000 species). Giving the Creationists the benefit of the doubt on that, even, we still run into lot of problems. Another thing is that would probably have to be up to around a million insects too.

It has been argued that the sea creatures would have had to have been on the ark as well--because, as Mycernius also highlighted, they would have died in the water. ① That point, however, I'll let that rest, just to make it that much 'easier.'

Here are some of the problems we would have:

h. Unless there were some supernatural magic performed, the eight human occupants would have a hard time keeping the birds, bats, and cats from eating any of the insects during that one year on board.

i. Since food for all the animals (including the humans) was to have been loaded up on--enough for one year for each creature--possibly some one third of those said 522 standard stock railway cars (the calculated volume of the ark) would be only for food.

j. With 50,000 animals, each human would have to feed, water and clean, about four animals a minute--and that, working 'round the clock without sleep or eating. (unless they were eating while they worked)② That would have been very hard to do on the lower decks (no lights back then) and with methane coming from natural waste, in such closed in confines, lighting a fire would very likely end in an explosion.

k. We also have to keep in mind--since it seems none of the literalist do--that in all reality, we'd have to say that all the animals (and humanoids) now extinct would have had to be on board too. The biggest problem would be the dinosaurs--in fact it's so big of a problem, that I won't even bother to bring it up here.

l. With those 50,000 animals that supposedly came of the ark (and remember that 25,000 species number is low because they say that only one of a kind is needed--you only need one horse to get a mule, a donkey, a zebra, etc.) we would have to have an extremely fast evolutionary pace in the calculated-from-numbers-in-the-Bible 4,337 years since the flood. One calculation is at a rate of about 40 per year...40 new species evolving a year. ③

m. Now with all those animals and food (which is a squeeze to on that large ship, even, but may) there is one question as to if the thing would actually float, rather than just be so heavy that it couldn't rise with the rise of water level.

n. And then last, but not least by any means (and as Mycernius hinted at too) is the fact that after forty days of super flash flood waters and torrents, and after having been under water for about one year, those poor creatures which had been cramped in that log barge for that one year, would come out to a totally barren and destroyed landscape--olive trees still standing with leaves on them? hardly.④


What we can clearly see, is the writers of that story did not have the knowledge that we do today. They did not have the experience. The story there about a flood, Noah's flood, is merely a human creation.​


① In an earlier post, when talking about that, I sarcastically said it would have been 'the death toll for much marine life.' Of course this is sarcastic, because we can be very, very sure that extremely little of any kind of life form can live in water at a couple of thousand degees Celsius. ② 50,000/8 people=6,250 animals per person/24 hour day=260.41 animals per person per hour/60 minutes to the hour=4.34 animals per minute per person. ③ For beetles, that would have to be about 9.6 species a month. ④ We would also have to take into account plants like cacti, which would surely have died too--especially in water that had been a couple of thousand degrees Celcius. (I'm being a little sarcastic here too...of course at that temp, all plant life would have been gone)
 

Mycernius

The Hairy Wookie
Joined
4 Feb 2005
Messages
4,511
Reaction score
195
This mans videos on youtube are very interesting to watch. See the ones on "Why do people laugh at creationists?" Up to 11 parts so far and makes some very good points on why the bible is wrong on creation. As Mars man has pointed out bronze age, nomadic tribesmen didn't have much of an idea about the universe as we have. Yet people today still think that this book is the fount of all knowledge. The question is really simple,, who would you rather believe, a superstitious bronze age tribeman who doesn't even understand the principle of thunder, or modern day science?
 

Mars Man

先輩
Rest in Peace
Joined
28 Jul 2005
Messages
5,172
Reaction score
166
POINT NUMBER 3


C.
In the Pentateuch, we find statements that reflect the thinking and norms of the sub-culture that composed the documents much more than the concepts derived from objective observations of nature.

1. The first one is, actually, the calendar of seven days which came pack and parcel with the tradition that later developed from that. We can see that as the root of the creation account, the flood account窶。@

2. Another one is that of the frame of mind that Noah was supposed to have had which led to sacrificing of a 'clean' animals for the purpose of pleasing YHWH. (Gen 8:20, 21) Sacrificing was a development particularly emphasized by Judaism, and it would be extremely hard to present evidence for it being a natural necessity for the well-being of humanity.

3. The idea that sexual contact leaves a person in an 'unclean' (thus not worthy) state is one of the Jewish religious belief-system at that time, and not a natural matter. (Ex 19:15)

4. The idea behing the command to 'not murder' (Ex 20:13) is more obviously one of the cultural element of that society at that time. It is to be noted that the verb 'to kill' is not used here--so as to indicate that there may be a reason for killing a person. (as can often enough be seen in these writings)

What can be gleaned from that is the more obvious intent to instill the idea that killing without a reason--or godly reason--is detrimental to the social state. This goes against the established fact of natural occurence that beings do kill for a reason, and the reason is established by the social groups within which that being that kills operates and/or adheres to.

5. The concept that a female's menstrual state is an 'unclean' state in the eyes of a said intelligence which is held to be responsible for such a state, is to deny the truth of nature. This is thus simply a reflection of the patriarchial social rule of that ancient society. (Lev 15:19~30)

6. The teaching that it is of greater uncleanliness to have a female baby than a male baby, is surely not a matter of universal nature. (Lev 12:1~8)


These, among others, show far much more than anything else, that the author(s) of such concepts were merely human beings...and in an very unenlightened social structure/state.


窶。@ Gen 7:4 gives us the 'in just seven more days' forumla, as well as vs 8:10, 12. This, after having weighed in all points, evidences a leaking of explicit state of mind;
 

Chi65

後輩
Joined
14 Nov 2007
Messages
951
Reaction score
21
Aha. . .

OK, I have to confess, it will take quite some time to go through everything here, but the basic canon is pretty clear, and I somewhat expected this from you. Why?
Well, experience of age, right?

I agree with you on many parts and had heavy and lively discussions on other forums already for longer (I am also on the RD forum, and, since I know that chap, on P. Gabriel, and others). Via one of these forums we found an interesting thread here (not this one) and that brought me here.

I am not a militant atheist, but also not a blind theist(protestant by upbringing, and simply by being lazy, not yet out of their list).
I have met people and beliefs all over the world, by the way and was always invited with respect and given some interesting parts of the puzzle.
(An uncle studied comparative religions amongst others and ended up documenting australian Aborigine language and songs, to give you an idea of the wide range)

I respect the bible as fiction, of course made by men, as you rightly said, but I can as happily join an invitation to a fine Goma and think about the image of Fudo.
If you so wish, I could make an extra thread about that experience, also in relation to the bible and the image of devil or not, hehe.

To such places I can always go back to, and we had most wonderfull and openminded talks there, and not only there. As said, for me its a puzzle, and everyone has a hint to what there really is (or not) behind.

Cheers, Mars, here is an artistic Moon/Venus, by the way, with a scientist father, after all ;-)
 

Mars Man

先輩
Rest in Peace
Joined
28 Jul 2005
Messages
5,172
Reaction score
166
Hello there, Chi65 san, and thanks for joining in! I appreciate your input although I admit I cannot follow some of the points exactly.

Anyway, if you get the time, please do try to follow through with the back-reading on this thread, so that you can add to it. What I have been doing so far, is to develope the argumentation--as you had noticed--for the observation that the Bible is merely a collection of documents composed by humans, and whatever degree of 'supernatural' input it may have, needs not reflect any modeled god by those same written works--or other noncanonical works.

Please do take note of the definition I am using for the word 'Bible' here in this thread.

The other subject you mentioned regarding Goma and Fudo, would likely be another thread, I do agree. The concepts behind them would have to spelled out more, though; I'm not so familar with them.

In the up-coming posts, I will probably go into highlighting the god model that the Hebrew Religious writings build; since it also plays a major role in understanding just what they had had in mind, and how that can be used in testing the belief-system.
 

Chi65

後輩
Joined
14 Nov 2007
Messages
951
Reaction score
21
Never mind, just give me time to read it all first and properly, to pay the according attention and digest it, OK?
(I think, you are doing fine!)

By the way, we have an interesting book in Germany:

"Lexikon der biblischen Irrtümer"
(from W.J. Langbein, 2006, Aufbau Verlag,
sorry, not yet translated, but easily available for Germans)

and you probably know the "God Delusion" from Richard Dawkins?

And are you also into writing such a book now?
 

Revenant

Sempai
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Messages
615
Reaction score
37
The Bible has some very excellent advice and some very romantic stories that if believed, would be very happy paradigms. It does have some extreme similarities with earlier religions, and some laws and guidelines that don't make sense besides a 'God said so, we've got to do that'. Theology and apologetics get extremely difficult. Not an easy book to base my belief system on.... I tried.
 
Last edited:

Mars Man

先輩
Rest in Peace
Joined
28 Jul 2005
Messages
5,172
Reaction score
166
I have fallen so far behind with this thread, yet would like to keep it going--even though it will sift downward from time to time. I plan on eventually opening a thread which will look at the god-models drawn up by the several systems' databases, and it would be good to have this thread in the neighborhood.

I strongly urge any who have just looked in on this thread to go back and check the definition of the word 'Bible,' and the point which all this embedding is supporting.



POINT NUMBER 4: The god-model prescribed in the Masora .vs. nature

A. The most promenant aspect ascribed to the god-model of the Jewish religious system of old is that of the creation of all things--the universe. The writers of the several documents carry that tenet along, throughout the works regularly enough.

The matters which are related to natural workings--the 'book of nature' if you will--can be tested for accuracy by what we know today. The first step is to induce the described god-model, then list things that relate to the real world (natural matters, events, etc.), and then test both against what is known and knowable today. The results will show the conclusion that the works were merely written by humans to be the most secure one.

1. The god-model in the Masoretic Texts is shown as having created everything in the universe. That everything is what we can see now, and is what the authors had had before them back then, even if they were greatly ignorant on many points.

Gen 1:1~2:4; 2 Kings 19:15b; Pslm 96:5; 136:5,6; Prov 8:22-31; 16:4; Isa 42:5; Jer 27:5; 32:17; Amos 5:8; 9:6​

2. The god-model is shown to have a personal name (proper noun) as well as many descriptive titles. The personal name was something along the lines of Yehweh (YHWH) which by Jewish superstition became surpressed in usage. This name is called the tetragrammaton, and appears in the text more than 6, ooo times. That the common nouns god or lord are not the personal name intended by the authors, is clear.​

a. YHWH is the personal name of the god-model.
Ex 3:15b; 6:3①; 15:3; 20:24; Lev 19:12; Deut 6:4 (cf 18:19, 20); Josh 9:9; 1 Sam 20:42; 2 Sam 7:26; 1 Ki 8:16, 29; 2 Ki 23:27b; Ezra 6:12; Neh 1:9b; Job 1:21c; Pslm 5:11b; 68:4; 83:18; 135:13; Prov 30:9; Isa 25:1; 42:8; 48:9; 54:5; Jer 7:12; 16:21; 33:2; Eze 20:14; Lam 3:55; Amos 5:8; 9:6; Micah 4:5; Zep 3:9; Zec 13:9b; Mal 2:2; 3:16; etc.​

I will then continue from here in the next post.



① The usage and concept behind the word 'name' must not be overlooked here. The most obviously correct understanding here is that the author intended to declare that what the name meant in actions to be taken by YHWH had not been known to the forefathers--not that the personal name had not been known. The Hebrew has eh-yeh asher eh-yeh and the LXX renders that as ego eimi ho on (to be explained later)
 
Last edited:

Mars Man

先輩
Rest in Peace
Joined
28 Jul 2005
Messages
5,172
Reaction score
166
4. A.

3. The god-model ( hereafter YHWH) is shown to rather freely and easily communicate with human beings, and interact with them. The scenes provide direct contact in most cases, but messenger contact on behalf of YHWH in a few.​

Gen 2:16-18; 3:8-11, 13-19; 4:6,7,9-15a; 6:13-21 etc. etc.
Ex 3:4,6-10, 13-22; 4:2-12; 19:3-6, 9-13, 16-20, 24; 20:1-17, 22-24:2,3,4, 12-15; etc. etc.
Lev 1:1-3:17; 4:1-5:13; etc. etc.
Num 1:1-16; 2:1-31; etc. etc.
Deut 1:1,3,5, 6-8; 3:23-28; 5:2,4, 6-22; 6:1; etc. etc.
Josh 1:1-4; 3:7,8; 4:15,16; etc.
Judges 1:1,2; 3:9,10,15; 6:7-10; etc.

and the list goes on throughout most of the documents of that canon.​
 

Mars Man

先輩
Rest in Peace
Joined
28 Jul 2005
Messages
5,172
Reaction score
166
4. A.

4. YHWH is shown to have a place of abode, in the heavens, basically, yet is capable of being in certain locations or spaces. This element does not contradict with that of having knowledge of what's happening everywhere, as also drawn out by the documents. This prescription of YHWH does, however, not support the assertion that the Jewish religious leaders of old concieved of YHWH as being omnipresent.​

a. place of abode is above the heavens:​
Deut 4:36; 26:15; 1 Ki 8:10-13, 49; 2 Chron 6:30; Pslm 2:4; 11:4; 80:14; 102:19; Isa 40:22; 66:1a; 63:15a​

b. present in a certain and specific location:​
Ge 11:5 (goes down to see Babel); 17:1 (the verb form of ra'ah (to see--and in this case passive, to be seen--can be both literal or figurative, depending on context. In this general flow it appears most likely to have been intended to be literal.) Gen 17:22; 18:1-3, 13, 17, 20, 22; Ex 3:6; 19:3, 9, 20; 33:11, 23; 40:34, 35 (cf Lev 16:2); Nu 16:42​

c. knowledge is incoming to YHWH from everywhere:​
2 Chron 16:9; Job 34:21; Pslm 11:4b; 66:7; Prov 15:3; Jer 16:17; Zec 4:10; etc.​

d. that knowledge is perfect:​
1 San 2:3c; 2 Chron 6:30b; Job 36:4; Pslm 104:24; 147:5; Jer 17:10; etc. etc.​
 

Mito Natto

Registered
Joined
20 Jan 2008
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Sorry to break the flow here but wanted to add my angle.

Jesus was the Solar Deity of the Gnostic Christian sect, and like all other Pagan gods, he was a mythical figure. It was the political establishment that sought to historize the Jesus figure for social control. Emperor Constantine convened the Council. It was during this meeting that the politically motivated Christian Doctrines were established and thus began a long history of Christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud.
 

Mars Man

先輩
Rest in Peace
Joined
28 Jul 2005
Messages
5,172
Reaction score
166
While being familiar with that theory, I also happen to know that evidence for it has not been such as to cause any ripple among scholars in that field--not due to any disruption that such theory may or may not cause for the general understanding about the historical figure which became the 'Jesus' that we read of in the early Christian writings, but simply because of inconclusive evidence.

That point, however, should come later...about the historical personage, Yeshua. For now I am looking at the Jewish god-model, and will get to the Christian god-model later.
 

Mavrek

先輩
Joined
23 Dec 2007
Messages
107
Reaction score
2
Bible is a sacred book and words of God . I am a student of bible and trying to be more religious because with out acting upon the religion life is nothing .
 

sabro

Sempai
Joined
23 Apr 2004
Messages
917
Reaction score
35
Mavrek-- I too am a student of the Bible... I noticed you have a Pakistani flag. Are you a Christian or Muslim?
 

Mycernius

The Hairy Wookie
Joined
4 Feb 2005
Messages
4,511
Reaction score
195
Bible is a sacred book and words of God . I am a student of bible and trying to be more religious because with out acting upon the religion life is nothing .
I'm sorry you feel that life is nothing unless you follow a religion. As for the Bible being a sacred word of God, I think this thread is showing it up for what it really is. A collection of mystical writings from various Jewish, and Christian doctrines, which contradict each other. It is as sacred as War and Peace or The Iliad. A piece of classic literature, yes, but the word of God, no.
 

Half-n-Half

先輩
Joined
17 Jul 2007
Messages
915
Reaction score
69
There is a creationist fundie called Kent Hovind, you might have heard of him, who has said that there was a shell of ice surronding the planet and it melted and caused the flood. For him it explains the water above in the bible and also is a good enough explanation for other young earth creationists.
The one major problem with this is that the shell of ice would have to be very thick to have the amount of water to flood the entire planet. That means that such a shell would block all radiation from the sun, including light. Such a shell would prevent any life surviving on this planet.

I know this post is old, but it is also interesting to note a certain fact about Kent Hovind's shell of ice. Yes, even if it were possible for this shell of ice to exist and be thick enough to not melt until the flood and still have life on earth even though all the solar radiation was blocked out, *breath* there is still one fundamental problem even an amateur physicist understands. When that ice finishes melting and finally falls onto earth, it would pick up so much speed that as it went through the atmosphere it would superheat and boil off the flesh of any living being underneath it.

Kent Hovind, plain and simple, is an idiot. If anybody here is a Kent Hovind fan, I am not sorry for that comment. However, I try not to use Kent Hovind as an example against ALL Christians because most Christians are sane and moderate. 99% of my friends are Christians and they are all very nice, intelligent people who would never buy this load of crap.
 

sabro

Sempai
Joined
23 Apr 2004
Messages
917
Reaction score
35
As for the Bible being a sacred word of God, I think this thread is showing it up for what it really is. A collection of mystical writings from various Jewish, and Christian doctrines, which contradict each other. It is as sacred as War and Peace or The Iliad. A piece of classic literature, yes, but the word of God, no.

I don't think this thread does anything of the sort... neither somehow "proving" that it isn't the "sacred Word of God" nor demonstrating contradictions. At most it shows that there is a disparate variety of modern opinions regarding a collection of very old writings, which some still hold as sacred.
 

Mycernius

The Hairy Wookie
Joined
4 Feb 2005
Messages
4,511
Reaction score
195
I did say I think, but my approach to the bible is that of an atheist. Maybe I am a little more objective about it, as I see it as myth, the same way as I view the Qu'ran, Vedic texts, etc. As an insight to the history of mans developing beliefs it is there to be studied, but it must undergo the same critical anaylsis you would give to Greek, Egyptian and Romans myths. Because it is not yet a dead religion, Christianity, along with Islam and other living religions, will have people defending the book as sacred and true, in some cases to the point of stupidity *cough* Kent Hovind*cough*, which can distort and even, especially in the case of Islam, and even worse Scientology, block and threaten anyone who examine the religion in a more acedemic light without letting God come into it.
You can do this with myth as they are now dead religions with no-one to object to "insulting" their faith. I do think in 2000 years time Christianity and Islam will have either go the way of Roman beliefs or morphed into something very different from what people use today. Christianity is not the same as it was during St. Augustines times, Judaism is not the same as it was 3000 years ago, and Islam is not the same as it was when Muhammad died.

Glad to see you back into discussions Sabro san:)
 

Mars Man

先輩
Rest in Peace
Joined
28 Jul 2005
Messages
5,172
Reaction score
166
Nice to see you coming 'round, sabro, yes indeed. I might add, gentlemen, that we could say the evidence presented so far is clearly on track with a single projectory course, unless, of course, more secure evidence from what has been presented so far, with what will be presented over the course of the yet-to-be-filled-out part, could more objectively secure a different understanding of the data plots on the graph.

I wish, at times, that it could be laid out more quickly, but I'm afraid I don't have that much time on my hands, and in fact, going too fast would not be as productive anyway. I'll try to keep working at a fair pace here--and just in case, let me say here that this is all embedding along the lines of as exhaustively as possible supporting the conclusion I had given earlier.

No one, not a single person, scholar nor novice, can say with any degree of validity whatsoever, that something like this can be done in even a single volume. Let's enjoy the discussion and presentation. I would suggest that parameters of terms, and definitions be kept in mind here. For that reason would suggest looking at (if not done so already) earlier posts on what 'Bible' means here, and, at this point, what comparisons are being made--or, in other words, the control and the tested. I'll be back soon enough.
 

sabro

Sempai
Joined
23 Apr 2004
Messages
917
Reaction score
35
Normally, I would be the last to tell you two gentlemen that things are relative and need to be judged on terms relative to what you are studying. There is however a need to bring this discussion into some relative context, and to demonstrate from my perspective why this particular exercise lacks validity.

As an Athiest, it doesn't give you a more "objective" view of the text, it gives you a different bias. This might explain why your "critical analysis" of what may seem to be a ridiculous belief set of even a person like the Kent Hovnid you mentioned is more a statement of your own personal values than a rational and objective assessment of what his beliefs are and how they function. Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, nor do they exist without reason. That in any analysis of any belief system one would examine the context of the system, and the reasoning and functions of that system... not simply judge that system against their own and find it wanting. I'm not certain this is a valid as an expression of judgment.

What we have done here is to set up a series of parameters... cardboard constructs... based upon judgments and expectations... and then conveniently knocked them down... showing how in the construct they don't meet the judgments and expectations. Again, an interesting exercise that says more about your values than what you are examining.

The parameters you should be examining and the angle that should be evaluated are the external strictures set up by the belief system within itself. You can't impose some artifice nor shift the definition of terms but have to look at the context.

Other than that, St. Augustine remains relevant and widely read to Christians even in the 21st century.
 
Top Bottom