Kneel!

Meriweather

Not all who wander are lost
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
5,981
Reaction score
678
Points
165
1. A common interpretation of the Biblical age of the planet is 6,000 to 10,000 years. If that is wrong, why is it wrong? How do explain a literal Genesis account? Is the Ark fable a literal account? How can the flood fable be a literal rendering of history when the facts of earth history don’t support the fable?
When did the "common interpretation" of six to ten thousand years begin? Right--less than two hundred years ago.

How do I explain a literal account of Genesis? I don't. The push for everyone to take the Bible literally is even younger than the six thousand year old Earth interpretation. Evangelicals began that push in the 1970s--about fifty years ago.

Hebrew is not a literal language, is is a language of pictures. For example, a literal translation of 'anger' is flaring nostrils. Most languages--English chief among them, are subjective. Hebrew uses pictures. The story of Noah and the flood is written to convey and present a truth. This truth is presented in story form. The story was not written to report a literal account of a natural disaster. Who taught you that the Biblical account of the flood is literally true? I was not taught that, and I suspect I am much older than you.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
19,401
Reaction score
895
Points
190
So what does that copy&paste have to do with our Constitution? Anything at all? :dunno:
I must keep you posting: you are my best weapon against what Democrats/Liberals are.
So you don't know either. Got it.

I love it.

I point out that Liberals/Democrats have only two modes:

Ignorance or lying.

And you prove it.


Don't ever change.
You can never explain anything. You're like a 10 year old. I feel sorry for you.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,338
Reaction score
3,651
Points
1,130
1. A common interpretation of the Biblical age of the planet is 6,000 to 10,000 years. If that is wrong, why is it wrong? How do explain a literal Genesis account? Is the Ark fable a literal account? How can the flood fable be a literal rendering of history when the facts of earth history don’t support the fable?
When did the "common interpretation" of six to ten thousand years begin? Right--less than two hundred years ago.

How do I explain a literal account of Genesis? I don't. The push for everyone to take the Bible literally is even younger than the six thousand year old Earth interpretation. Evangelicals began that push in the 1970s--about fifty years ago.

Hebrew is not a literal language, is is a language of pictures. For example, a literal translation of 'anger' is flaring nostrils. Most languages--English chief among them, are subjective. Hebrew uses pictures. The story of Noah and the flood is written to convey and present a truth. This truth is presented in story form. The story was not written to report a literal account of a natural disaster. Who taught you that the Biblical account of the flood is literallytrue? I was not taught that, and I suspect I am much older than you.
I’m not clear on your issue with the Biblical age of the planet being interpreted from 200 years ago. If you have a more accurate interpretation, I haven’t seen it. Of course, all is supposition and interpretation as it relates to the Genesis fable. Odd that the writers of the Genesis account would be so brief regarding the beginning of all creation.

Regarding taking the Bible literally, if not taken literally, all is interpretation and speculation.
According to the text that introduces you Christian theism, once you abandon a literal reading, everything else is revisionism and wishful thinking.

That would be proceeding on speculation and it doesn't make sense to:

A. Use the Bible as the source from where you heard about creation, Jesus and God and salvation in the first place

only to

B. Dismiss what the Bible says about creation, Jesus and God in favor of something you'd like it to be instead of what it says it is.

I believe the NT was written largely in Greek. But that doesn’t address the larger issue which is the moment you break from the literal descriptions of Biblical events you fall into the circular loop of interpretation and what, if any, is the real interpretation. Which means, we’ve looped back to the issue of interpretation and translation but then we’d get in the problems with shoddy translation and why the gods would allow that.
 

Meriweather

Not all who wander are lost
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
5,981
Reaction score
678
Points
165
’m not clear on your issue with the Biblical age of the planet being interpreted from 200 years ago. If you have a more accurate interpretation, I haven’t seen it.
That is because I have specifically stated more than once that the Bible itself makes no mention of the age of the planet. It does not address the issue, and it was less than one hundred fifty years ago it was made an issue by a calculation done by someone who wasn't even familiar with the Hebrew language.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
124,056
Reaction score
11,998
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Horrors! This must mean when I told students a common superstition in the late 1800s and early 1900s was if you found a hairpin they would get a buggy ride. Who knows how many twenty-first students ran out to find hairpins in order to get their buggy ride. I suppose post itself holds enough weight for you to start searching for hairpins?
Uh, your superstitions are a lot more serious than that... you go around scaring people into compliance.

Go for it. However, it will be important to include when Atheists started up with these interpretations. (Answer: Nineteenth and twentieth centuries, again thousands of years after the accounts were written as seen through the eyes of another culture and language.)
Actually, this is where you are confused.

let's take our friend, Jephthah.... the Revisionism is when Funditards started claiming that he didn't butcher his daughter, it meant he CONSECRATED her to a life of Virginity serving the Lord.

Early church fathers all agreed, the bible says exactly what it said. Jephthah burned his daughter.

Of course, there is no interpretation on these stories other than the Bronze Age Savages saw God as every force of nature or fate they didn't understand, but needed to be constantly appeased, in this case, with a human sacrifice.

Of course, 12 years of Catholic Schools, never heard the name Jephthah once. I'm sure if I had, I'd have gotten rapped on the knuckles for asking about it, because that's how the Old Dykes in Habits handled such things.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
124,056
Reaction score
11,998
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
That is because I have specifically stated more than once that the Bible itself makes no mention of the age of the planet. It does not address the issue, and it was less than one hundred fifty years ago it was made an issue by a calculation done by someone who wasn't even familiar with the Hebrew language.
Actually, it was pretty clear... It was made 6 days before God Made Adam.

This whole, "Maybe God's days are different than our days" or other such nonsense is always amusing to watch.

1596307372448.png
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,338
Reaction score
3,651
Points
1,130
’m not clear on your issue with the Biblical age of the planet being interpreted from 200 years ago. If you have a more accurate interpretation, I haven’t seen it.
That is because I have specifically stated more than once that the Bible itself makes no mention of the age of the planet. It does not address the issue, and it was less than one hundred fifty years ago it was made an issue by a calculation done by someone who wasn't even familiar with the Hebrew language.
The age of the planet is a pretty important detail in connection with Biblical accounts of creation. There are those who will claim that science just recently discovered the science in the Bible; that the expansion of the universe is described in Genesis. That would indicate the Biblical age of the planet at 13.7 +/- billion years. That would suggest a pretty long period of time unaccounted for in Genesis. It raises some pretty obvious questions about the lack of any accounts of dinosaurs and early earth history.

What, exactly, do you take issue with regarding the interpretation of a 6,000 year old planet? It certainly is a better “fit” with Genesis and there are posters who have provided an exact date of The global flood and Noah’s pleasure cruise.
 

Meriweather

Not all who wander are lost
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
5,981
Reaction score
678
Points
165
Regarding taking the Bible literally, if not taken literally, all is interpretation and speculation.
According to the text that introduces you Christian theism, once you abandon a literal reading, everything else is revisionism and wishful thinking.
That thinking is based on modern reporting, textbooks, and Encyclopedias. These things did not exist during the times the Bible was written. Part of understanding the Bible is understanding the times and cultures in which it was written. There is nothing to revise, no need for wishful thinking.

Perhaps you are familiar with a couple of books in the Bible asking no one add to them, no one delete anything. While Genesis is not one of those, it is good advice all the same. Bishop Ussher in the late 1800s adding in the number of years to the account has caused nothing but dissension and people turning from the Bible because Bishop Ussher's math does not add up. It is probably a major reason why you reject the Bible, when all that was needed was to reject Bishop Ussher's well-meaning addition.
 

Meriweather

Not all who wander are lost
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
5,981
Reaction score
678
Points
165
That would be proceeding on speculation and it doesn't make sense to:

A. Use the Bible as the source from where you heard about creation, Jesus and God and salvation in the first place

only to

B. Dismiss what the Bible says about creation, Jesus and God in favor of something you'd like it to be instead of what it says it is.
In actuality it takes speculation out of the equation.
 

Meriweather

Not all who wander are lost
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
5,981
Reaction score
678
Points
165
I believe the NT was written largely in Greek. But that doesn’t address the larger issue which is the moment you break from the literal descriptions of Biblical events you fall into the circular loop of interpretation and what, if any, is the real interpretation. Which means, we’ve looped back to the issue of interpretation and translation but then we’d get in the problems with shoddy translation and why the gods would allow that.
The New Testament, yes, and it does not use the picture-language on which Hebrew is based. We are given much better information on what is parable. As far as God allowing what you think is a shoddy translation, it appears He has more confidence in humans than perhaps you have? The Bible, as written, is not that difficult to understand. Its simplicity is its strength.
 

Meriweather

Not all who wander are lost
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
5,981
Reaction score
678
Points
165
Actually, it was pretty clear... It was made 6 days before God Made Adam.

This whole, "Maybe God's days are different than our days" or other such nonsense is always amusing to watch.
Learn Hebrew if you wish to be more serious. I suspect you would rather be amused. :)
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,338
Reaction score
3,651
Points
1,130
Regarding taking the Bible literally, if not taken literally, all is interpretation and speculation.
According to the text that introduces you Christian theism, once you abandon a literal reading, everything else is revisionism and wishful thinking.
That thinking is based on modern reporting, textbooks, and Encyclopedias. These things did not exist during the times the Bible was written. Part of understanding the Bible is understanding the times and cultures in which it was written. There is nothing to revise, no need for wishful thinking.

Perhaps you are familiar with a couple of books in the Bible asking no one add to them, no one delete anything. While Genesis is not one of those, it is good advice all the same. Bishop Ussher in the late 1800s adding in the number of years to the account has caused nothing but dissension and people turning from the Bible because Bishop Ussher's math does not add up. It is probably a major reason why you reject the Bible, when all that was needed was to reject Bishop Ussher's well-meaning addition.
I’m not sure why you take issue with the math. If we look at AIG, we have a clear timeline from Bishop Ussher providing the exact date.


Ussher also argued that Day 1 of creation was October 23. On the surface, this does seem a bit extreme to suggest such a specific date—but when one studies what Ussher did, one quickly realizes he was a brilliant scholar who had very good reasons for his conclusions concerning the date of creation.

Studying Ussher’s line of thinking as he arrived at his conclusion—creation on October 23, 4004 BC—provides food for thought to this very day.



The above makes sense that creation would happen on a pleasant, pastoral fall day. It would have been nice to go for a drive and see the landscape of brightly colored leaves.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,338
Reaction score
3,651
Points
1,130
I believe the NT was written largely in Greek. But that doesn’t address the larger issue which is the moment you break from the literal descriptions of Biblical events you fall into the circular loop of interpretation and what, if any, is the real interpretation. Which means, we’ve looped back to the issue of interpretation and translation but then we’d get in the problems with shoddy translation and why the gods would allow that.
The New Testament, yes, and it does not use the picture-language on which Hebrew is based. We are given much better information on what is parable. As far as God allowing what you think is a shoddy translation, it appears He has more confidence in humans than perhaps you have? The Bible, as written, is not that difficult to understand. Its simplicity is its strength.
I think the gods erred in that the simplicity tends to yield a lot of errors and omissions.

I would first make the point that we have to question why the gods would allow their holy word to be mismanaged by the corruptible hand of man. Why couldn’t the gods make final edits to the books written about them so that their directions yo humanity could be clear and unambiguous?

I must note that within a historical context, among of the most terrible purveyors of conquest and death were the religious entities with Christianity among them. The legacy of conquest, rapine and murder is undeniable. The religious wars of aggression were largely about expansion of the religion and the material rewards of conquest. The religious perspectives were inclusive of their behavior, be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc. No one can simply dismiss any and all religious connotation to these acts, I incorporate them and do so fairly. These religious cultures had religion and it didn't stop them from their conquests, and indeed it motivated them.
 

Meriweather

Not all who wander are lost
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
5,981
Reaction score
678
Points
165
What, exactly, do you take issue with regarding the interpretation of a 6,000 year old planet?
Asked and answered. The Bible does not address the age of the planet.
 

Meriweather

Not all who wander are lost
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
5,981
Reaction score
678
Points
165
I’m not sure why you take issue with the math. If we look at AIG, we have a clear timeline from Bishop Ussher providing the exact date.
I am merely pointing out Bishop Ussher is not the author of Genesis or any book in the Bible.
 

Meriweather

Not all who wander are lost
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
5,981
Reaction score
678
Points
165
I think the gods erred in that the simplicity tends to yield a lot of errors and omissions.
Shrug. Many humans at that time agreed with you. Ten simple Commandments apparently were too complex. It took over five hundred more of man's commandments to simply the original Ten. And we are still working on that. I am fond of pointing out a Rabbi who said, The Law can be boiled down to love God, love your fellowman. The rest of the Law and scripture is mere commentary.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,338
Reaction score
3,651
Points
1,130
I’m not sure why you take issue with the math. If we look at AIG, we have a clear timeline from Bishop Ussher providing the exact date.
I am merely pointing out Bishop Ussher is not the author of Genesis or any book in the Bible.
I would point out that the authors of the various parts of the Bible are unknown.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,338
Reaction score
3,651
Points
1,130
I think the gods erred in that the simplicity tends to yield a lot of errors and omissions.
Shrug. Many humans at that time agreed with you. Ten simple Commandments apparently were too complex. It took over five hundred more of man's commandments to simply the original Ten. And we are still working on that. I am fond of pointing out a Rabbi who said, The Law can be boiled down to love God, love your fellowman. The rest of the Law and scripture is mere commentary.
I wouldn't say the ten commandments were too complex, it just took longer than expected to distill and translate the earlier Egyptian commandments.
 

Meriweather

Not all who wander are lost
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
5,981
Reaction score
678
Points
165
Seems like something of a dilemma if you want to use the Bible in history classes in public school.
I do not wish to use the Bible in history classes. Haven't a clue where you came up with that. In public schools, history classes cover World History (Bible does not cover World History) and US History (something else the Bible does not cover.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top