Bible criticism

[Dajjal]

. Science confirms that the entire earth was never covered with water.

I pasted in the bible verse that state the earth was covered, Genesis 7.19 in post 72.

So genesis is wrong as science confirms.

No. Claiming that the entire earth in Genesis means the entire planet (rather than the earth from horizon to horizon) is wrong. In those days people had no idea of how large (or small) the entire planet was. They gave an account of what they saw--i.e., the earth from horizon to horizon.

If you wish to argue that those who saw and recounted the entire earth as far as the eye could see assumed that the entire planet--however big the planet might be--was covered, go with that. Personally, I don't know what they thought. I do know they gave an account of what they could see.

As I read the following verse 7.19 it says the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered.

Genesis 7.19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

This book is supposed to be the infallible word of God, and the point of this thread is to show it is not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That proves nothing only another opinion. Unless you think this man was a time traveler and knew Noah personally.

Also the Bible is not something you can discuss truthfully unless you have a whole lot of knowledge about the subject which I sure you don't.

Or the Bible is something which has grown into a thing that cannot be challenged because you have to believe in the first place to "understand", no belief, no understanding, therefore anyone who attacks it has not belief therefore cannot "understand it" therefore all criticism will be rejected out of hand.

So convenient.

 

[hobelim]

. Science confirms that the entire earth was never covered with water.

I pasted in the bible verse that state the earth was covered, Genesis 7.19 in post 72.

So genesis is wrong as science confirms.

lol.....I guess the story of the three pigs is also wrong, and Charlotte's Web is a bunch of lies... as science confirms, and there is no humpty dumpty

What are we going to tell the children???

If we have any sense, we are going to tell the children that the bible too is fiction.

Yes, fiction, not false, as all fiction alludes to fact.

 

[Kristian]

God are Jew or English.

 

[hobelim]

As I read the following verse 7.19 it says the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered.

In the bible high hills and mountains, like the stars of heaven, often represent big shots and fat cats that loomed above the landscape of the ordinary peon in the valleys.


The rising waters wouldn't have spared the local celebrities, in spite of their wealth, power, or lofty positions. It wouldn't have taken more than 10 -20 feet of running water above flood stage to have swept all of the high hills and mountains away.

 

[Kristian]

I have not visit church last 14 year. Yes, I am ateist. No belief.

 

[hobelim]

I have not visit church last 14 year. Yes, I am ateist. No belief.

 

[Meriweather]

As I read the following verse 7.19 it says the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered.

Genesis 7.19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

This book is supposed to be the infallible word of God, and the point of this thread is to show it is not.

In your interpretation the flood covered an entire universe or more. Do you truly believe the writer's intent was for this interpretation be given his account? Or, do you think he credited his readers with a bit of common sense?

I was taught the Bible was inspired by God--not that it is infallible. The Bible, inspired by God, written by fallible human beings and understood (or misunderstood) by even more fallible human beings.

As we all know, simply by writing our simple posts in a religion forum, much of what we say will be misinterpreted and misunderstood. This is a thread that consists of yours (and others) Biblical misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Those who wrote accounts that were collected in what we now call the Bible had a much different point to present than the point to which you now wish to now spin their message.

All I am trying to do is point back to the original intent and message.

 

[Meriweather]

Or the Bible is something which has grown into a thing that cannot be challenged because you have to believe in the first place to "understand", no belief, no understanding, therefore anyone who attacks it has not belief therefore cannot "understand it" therefore all criticism will be rejected out of hand.

So convenient.

Interpretations of the Bible can always be challenged--and have been since the very beginning. Ask any Rabbi.

Even a book on gardening will be received differently by those who enjoy gardening and those who believe it is a waste of time. Those of you who believe the Bible is a waste of time are going to go straight to the points that you believe supports your view point. Those of us who believe the Bible contains revelations of God and His relationship with His creation are most interested in the points that cover this.

The Bible is interesting history, and provides us with great insights on ancient thought. The wisdom it contains is classic and true for every age. The poetry is beautiful, the insights into God and mankind, often brilliant.

 

[Dajjal]

I was taught the Bible was inspired by God--not that it is infallible

So just how much fiction can be in a book inspired by God? In any case the whole story of the flood caused by God to wipe out people, both man and beast is insane. Any God who would do this is a monstrous bungler.

 

[Dajjal]

Those of us who believe the Bible contains revelations of God and His relationship with His creation are most interested in the points that cover this.

Like the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah. Some relationship God has with humans. He wipes them out.

 

[Meriweather]

So just how much fiction can be in a book inspired by God? In any case the whole story of the flood caused by God to wipe out people, both man and beast is insane. Any God who would do this is a monstrous bungler.

Ancient cultures held the belief that nothing happened without God's knowledge and permission. It's kind of like we can not think of--or do anything--without brainwaves. It is human to try to figure out and understand why bad things happen. Their conclusion is plainly written in the accounts. They admit humans were behaving badly and deserved to be wiped out. I see it differently. Obviously there were signs that a good man attuned to God heard/read/figured out. Anyone else could have taken a page from Noah's book/attitude, but instead they preferred to jeer at a fellow human.

Some choose to look at God as a monstrous bungler, but isn't the opposite true as well? That no catastrophe is so great that God cannot recover and continue on with His work.

 

[Meriweather]

Like the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah. Some relationship God has with humans. He wipes them out.

God calls them to Him, He directs them to safety...but how many listen and respond?

 

[Dajjal]

Like the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah. Some relationship God has with humans. He wipes them out.

God calls them to Him, He directs them to safety...but how many listen and respond?

So you are making excuses for God to behave like a sadistic psychopath. Drowning people and burning them.

 

[Meriweather]

So you are making excuses for God to behave like a sadistic psychopath. Drowning people and burning them.

I am saying a physical universe has built-in physical tragedies that are simply a part of it. Those tragedies do not faze God because as He well knows, there is something greater beyond mere physical existence. We can all handle what the physical universe dishes out. I prefer that universe to a universe where we are all wrapped in cotton batting and set carefully on a shelf to live out our physical existence in a sterile environment.

 

[Penelope]

Only about 9-10 billion people have believed.

Flood myths are common in old texts, The epic of Gilgamesh found written on stone tablets, is from earlier than 2000 bc it tells of the search for immortality and of a great flood.

Of course the flood story is common. We are all descendents from those who survived it.

And God saved a drunk and his family. If indeed it was a global flood no one survived. but the nile flooded every Spring , like most rivers. They depended on this and it was a celebration as it made the ground fertile.

 

[Penelope]

The biggest question is if there is anything that would make you believe?

If the answer is yes, what?
If the answer is no, you have a closed mind and are a waste of time.

Believe what, the bunk in the old testament? That says the world is flat and its six thousand years old and Jonah was swallowed by a whale, etc, etc. I hardly think so.

So you have a closed mind and chose to live in a bubble.

{click}

I happen to have some fairly controversial beliefs myself. Such as there probably is a God, and that we reincarnate many times on different planets. See my thread ' spiritual teachings'

But I am not about to believe anyone lived in a whale. Facts tell me it is not possible. For one thing there is only one whale with a throat wide enough to swallow a man and that is a sperm whale, and nobody could live in it's stomach. All other larger whales are plankton eaters with very narrow throats.

I think that comes from the belief that mean came from water and were once fish , which is still the thought today, so Jonah was like reborn, I made a post about this earlier. It was taught by Greeks and that is about the time it was wrote.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Or the Bible is something which has grown into a thing that cannot be challenged because you have to believe in the first place to "understand", no belief, no understanding, therefore anyone who attacks it has not belief therefore cannot "understand it" therefore all criticism will be rejected out of hand.

So convenient.

Interpretations of the Bible can always be challenged--and have been since the very beginning. Ask any Rabbi.

Even a book on gardening will be received differently by those who enjoy gardening and those who believe it is a waste of time. Those of you who believe the Bible is a waste of time are going to go straight to the points that you believe supports your view point. Those of us who believe the Bible contains revelations of God and His relationship with His creation are most interested in the points that cover this.

The Bible is interesting history, and provides us with great insights on ancient thought. The wisdom it contains is classic and true for every age. The poetry is beautiful, the insights into God and mankind, often brilliant.

The Bible isn't history at all.

Yes people can interpret it however they like, and many of the more fanatical of those who do will stand by their interpretation and say "it's the word of God", it clearly isn't.

The Bible was written by men. Supposedly only Jesus could talk to God, but these other guys then went and wrote stuff, and suddenly it's the word of God, how do you figure that one out?

If you believe, it's believing. It's not real, otherwise it wouldn't be called a belief, would it?

 

[Meriweather]

The Bible isn't history at all.

Samuel, Kings, Chronicles are a few of the historical books in the Bible.

Yes people can interpret it however they like, and many of the more fanatical of those who do will stand by their interpretation and say "it's the word of God", it clearly isn't.

People misinterpreting or misunderstanding the word of God doesn't make many parts of it any less the word--or revelation--of God. Much of it is about God's interaction with His creation, as seen through the eyes of observant humans.

The Bible was written by men. Supposedly only Jesus could talk to God, but these other guys then went and wrote stuff, and suddenly it's the word of God, how do you figure that one out?

Anyone can talk to God, and the Bible contains many incidents of those who did. Further, It doesn't begin to give accounts of all who spoke to and listened to God.

If you believe, it's believing. It's not real, otherwise it wouldn't be called a belief, would it?

Belief, like anything else, can be real--or not, correct or incorrect. The same is true of non-belief or unbelief.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Bible isn't history at all.

Samuel, Kings, Chronicles are a few of the historical books in the Bible.

Yes people can interpret it however they like, and many of the more fanatical of those who do will stand by their interpretation and say "it's the word of God", it clearly isn't.

People misinterpreting or misunderstanding the word of God doesn't make many parts of it any less the word--or revelation--of God. Much of it is about God's interaction with His creation, as seen through the eyes of observant humans.

The Bible was written by men. Supposedly only Jesus could talk to God, but these other guys then went and wrote stuff, and suddenly it's the word of God, how do you figure that one out?

Anyone can talk to God, and the Bible contains many incidents of those who did. Further, It doesn't begin to give accounts of all who spoke to and listened to God.

If you believe, it's believing. It's not real, otherwise it wouldn't be called a belief, would it?

Belief, like anything else, can be real--or not, correct or incorrect. The same is true of non-belief or unbelief.

What do you mean by "historical"?

I'd think a historical book is one that is written by someone who is using evidence to back up what they're saying. I don't believe there is any evidence of sources. It's merely what people believe happened, or what they decided to write. Rather than history.

People misinterpreting the Bible might not, in your view, make it less the word. HOWEVER, what they're SAYING is less the word of God as they're misinterpreting it and therefore it's simply not the word of God. Now, who interprets it correctly? Anyone? Is there a single person who interprets the Bible as GOD wanted it to be interpreted?

The simple answer to that is you don't know. Therefore we have to assume everyone is misinterpreting it.

Anyone can talk to God. Anyone can talk to a brick too. Doesn't mean either is actually going to respond, does it?

Sure, anything can be real or not real. However there's no basis for Religion to be real.