On The Reliability of The Old Testament

[Meriweather]

Studying the earth and heavens has never been, and is not now, a priority of the religion.

Didn't say it was. None-the-less educated people advanced studies of them. And in those days many of the people who were educated had careers in the Church.

 

[Hollie]

Who decides? Who is the tie-breaker in the battle that separates the various opinions of the various sects / subdivisions of christianity?

The individual decides. It is quite easy to trace who came up with the theory that the earth was only a few thousand years old. It is well-known how and why he made the calculations he did. Hebrew is a pictorial language with few words; English is subjective with many words. Easy enough to find material in the Bible where the words we translate as "son of" often indicates "descendant of" in the original Hebrew.

You mentioned God should edit. I say God gave each of us a mind, a brain. Those of us who are interested are well equipped to do our own study.

That’s fine to suggest that the individual decides as to the efficacy of religious truths but that means every subjective interpretation of supernatural events delineated in the Bible is as accurate as every other or that none are accurate. That’s hardly a standard to which one should entrust their life and “soul” in this realm and the eternal realm of “heaven”.

 

[Hollie]

Studying the earth and heavens has never been, and is not now, a priority of the religion.

Didn't say it was. None-the-less educated people advanced studies of them. And in those days many of the people who were educated had careers in the Church.

Educated people were often targets of Church oppression because they hoped to advance studies of the “heavens” and earth.

 

[norwegen]

No global flood ever happened. It's impossible, and it's not in the geological record.

A flood, however, well could have wiped out the world of the ancient Israelites. That is, when we know what their world was.

The Bible is truth to its adherents and in its proper contexts. Why Spaz or anyone else would carry on as if the entire Old Testament is about a literal worldwide flood is an argument that's just not worth entertaining.

There could have been global flooding events but not the entire world submerged in water. I believe the allegorical account of a world wide flood was an event that was cause by an asteroid strike in the polar region which was a global climate altering event which would have cause widespread rain around the globe that was so far outside of the norm of typical flooding events that it was noteworthy and that is the reason so many ancient cultures have an account of a flood.

Science | AAAS

advances.sciencemag.org

Does the rain from this asteroid strike that the ancient Near Easterners write about coincide with an intense downpour that the Egyptians write about? The Incas? The Chinese? Did an asteroid strike occur some 3.5 to 4 thousand years ago that flooded the earth? Is that what the evidence says?

The ancient Israelites cared not a whit about the Amerindians or the Aboriginals or the Pygmies, and didn't even know about them. Their world was Palestine, a disc that rested on pillars.

But more than geography, their world was covenant. Every time in their scriptures/history that God created a new heaven and earth, He did not create a new planet. Heaven and earth are people, the ruling places and the citizens, the altar and the sea.

The planet is immaterial, and so is science.

 

[ding]

No global flood ever happened. It's impossible, and it's not in the geological record.

A flood, however, well could have wiped out the world of the ancient Israelites. That is, when we know what their world was.

The Bible is truth to its adherents and in its proper contexts. Why Spaz or anyone else would carry on as if the entire Old Testament is about a literal worldwide flood is an argument that's just not worth entertaining.

There could have been global flooding events but not the entire world submerged in water. I believe the allegorical account of a world wide flood was an event that was cause by an asteroid strike in the polar region which was a global climate altering event which would have cause widespread rain around the globe that was so far outside of the norm of typical flooding events that it was noteworthy and that is the reason so many ancient cultures have an account of a flood.

Science | AAAS

advances.sciencemag.org

Does the rain from this asteroid strike that the ancient Near Easterners write about coincide with an intense downpour that the Egyptians write about? The Incas? The Chinese? Did an asteroid strike occur some 3.5 to 4 thousand years ago that flooded the earth? Is that what the evidence says?

The ancient Israelites cared not a whit about the Amerindians or the Aboriginals or the Pygmies, and didn't even know about them. Their world was Palestine, a disc that rested on pillars.

But more than geography, their world was covenant. Every time in their scriptures/history that God created a new heaven and earth, He did not create a new planet. Heaven and earth are people, the ruling places and the citizens, the altar and the sea.

The planet is immaterial, and so is science.

The strike occurred somewhere between 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. No one knows for certain that the accounts of ancient civilization weren't passed down orally for thousands of years before it was recorded so no one knows for certain when they claimed it occurred.

The bottom line is that every major ancient civilization has an account of a major flood in antiquity. It goes to reason that something happened on a world wide basis. An asteroid strike(s) in the polar region of the planet would explain it.

 

[norwegen]

No global flood ever happened. It's impossible, and it's not in the geological record.

A flood, however, well could have wiped out the world of the ancient Israelites. That is, when we know what their world was.

The Bible is truth to its adherents and in its proper contexts. Why Spaz or anyone else would carry on as if the entire Old Testament is about a literal worldwide flood is an argument that's just not worth entertaining.

There could have been global flooding events but not the entire world submerged in water. I believe the allegorical account of a world wide flood was an event that was cause by an asteroid strike in the polar region which was a global climate altering event which would have cause widespread rain around the globe that was so far outside of the norm of typical flooding events that it was noteworthy and that is the reason so many ancient cultures have an account of a flood.

Science | AAAS

advances.sciencemag.org

Does the rain from this asteroid strike that the ancient Near Easterners write about coincide with an intense downpour that the Egyptians write about? The Incas? The Chinese? Did an asteroid strike occur some 3.5 to 4 thousand years ago that flooded the earth? Is that what the evidence says?

The ancient Israelites cared not a whit about the Amerindians or the Aboriginals or the Pygmies, and didn't even know about them. Their world was Palestine, a disc that rested on pillars.

But more than geography, their world was covenant. Every time in their scriptures/history that God created a new heaven and earth, He did not create a new planet. Heaven and earth are people, the ruling places and the citizens, the altar and the sea.

The planet is immaterial, and so is science.

The strike occurred somewhere between 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. No one knows for certain that the accounts of ancient civilization weren't passed down orally for thousands of years before it was recorded so no one knows for certain when they claimed it occurred.

The bottom line is that every major ancient civilization has an account of a major flood in antiquity. It goes to reason that something happened on a world wide basis. An asteroid strike(s) in the polar region of the planet would explain it.

Did all these floods in all these major ancient civilizations happen at the same time? You have evidence for that?

And now, of course, we're off topic. The reliability of the Old Testament rests not in some geological discovery.

 

[ding]

No global flood ever happened. It's impossible, and it's not in the geological record.

A flood, however, well could have wiped out the world of the ancient Israelites. That is, when we know what their world was.

The Bible is truth to its adherents and in its proper contexts. Why Spaz or anyone else would carry on as if the entire Old Testament is about a literal worldwide flood is an argument that's just not worth entertaining.

There could have been global flooding events but not the entire world submerged in water. I believe the allegorical account of a world wide flood was an event that was cause by an asteroid strike in the polar region which was a global climate altering event which would have cause widespread rain around the globe that was so far outside of the norm of typical flooding events that it was noteworthy and that is the reason so many ancient cultures have an account of a flood.

Science | AAAS

advances.sciencemag.org

Does the rain from this asteroid strike that the ancient Near Easterners write about coincide with an intense downpour that the Egyptians write about? The Incas? The Chinese? Did an asteroid strike occur some 3.5 to 4 thousand years ago that flooded the earth? Is that what the evidence says?

The ancient Israelites cared not a whit about the Amerindians or the Aboriginals or the Pygmies, and didn't even know about them. Their world was Palestine, a disc that rested on pillars.

But more than geography, their world was covenant. Every time in their scriptures/history that God created a new heaven and earth, He did not create a new planet. Heaven and earth are people, the ruling places and the citizens, the altar and the sea.

The planet is immaterial, and so is science.

The strike occurred somewhere between 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. No one knows for certain that the accounts of ancient civilization weren't passed down orally for thousands of years before it was recorded so no one knows for certain when they claimed it occurred.

The bottom line is that every major ancient civilization has an account of a major flood in antiquity. It goes to reason that something happened on a world wide basis. An asteroid strike(s) in the polar region of the planet would explain it.

Did all these floods in all these major ancient civilizations happen at the same time? You have evidence for that?

And now, of course, we're off topic. The reliability of the Old Testament rests not in some geological discovery.

No. I don't. I am basing that on logical deduction. All major ancient civilizations recorded a flood that was deemed noteworthy enough that they passed that information down orally from generation to generation before it was recorded in writing. So it wasn't just some ordinary flood. It was something that was out of the ordinary. It was extraordinary. Otherwise we would have all kinds of account of other floods.

The only cause that I can find that would have done this would have been an asteroid strike in the polar regions of the planet. The only one we know about since humans existed is the Hiawatha crater(s).

I am not questioning the reliability of the OT. I am actually proving its reliability by providing the explanation for a great flood which would have been global in nature. Flooding would have occurred all around the globe. The rain events and the level of flooding would have been out of the ordinary.

The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 800 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning. Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong. Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom. Shame on us.

 

[Meriweather]

That’s fine to suggest that the individual decides as to the efficacy of religious truths but that means every subjective interpretation of supernatural events delineated in the Bible is as accurate as every other or that none are accurate. That’s hardly a standard to which one should entrust their life and “soul” in this realm and the eternal realm of “heaven”.

We would have to go through the supernatural events one by one. However, in reading any Biblical account, what is its purpose? For example, was the purpose of telling the story of the Great Flood to instruct people of that time that water covered the planet? Or, was there another purpose?

 

[Meriweather]

That’s hardly a standard to which one should entrust their life and “soul” in this realm and the eternal realm of “heaven”.

No one is taught to entrust one's soul to belief in a physical event. The soul is entrusted to how we choose to live life and how we treat one another.

 

[Meriweather]

Educated people were often targets of Church oppression because they hoped to advance studies of the “heavens” and earth.

Nonsense.

 

[Hollie]

Educated people were often targets of Church oppression because they hoped to advance studies of the “heavens” and earth.

Nonsense.

Galileo, for one example, was persecuted by the church. That’s not nonsense, it’s the historical record.

 

[Hollie]

That’s hardly a standard to which one should entrust their life and “soul” in this realm and the eternal realm of “heaven”.

No one is taught to entrust one's soul to belief in a physical event. The soul is entrusted to how we choose to live life and how we treat one another.

Can you define this “soul” thing? Something other than flowery notions of some “life essence”. Something demonstrable and rational would be great.

 

[Meriweather]

Galileo, for one example, was persecuted by the church. That’s not nonsense, it’s the historical record.

The only reason Galileo was in trouble with the Church is because he wanted to change the Bible to reflect his new discoveries, and the Church said no. As I've said before, at the time the Bible was the book so Galileo thought it should be correct. The Church thought it should stand as written.

Now, of course, there are more science book than Bibles, so it turned out well for both sides.

 

[Hollie]

That’s fine to suggest that the individual decides as to the efficacy of religious truths but that means every subjective interpretation of supernatural events delineated in the Bible is as accurate as every other or that none are accurate. That’s hardly a standard to which one should entrust their life and “soul” in this realm and the eternal realm of “heaven”.

We would have to go through the supernatural events one by one. However, in reading any Biblical account, what is its purpose? For example, was the purpose of telling the story of the Great Flood to instruct people of that time that water covered the planet? Or, was there another purpose?

If you would care to pick a supernatural event, that would be great. I‘ll note that there is no evidence of an alleged Biblical flood so to claim that is a supernatural event is not a strong argument.

How about creation of the universe 6,000 years ago?

 

[Hollie]

Galileo, for one example, was persecuted by the church. That’s not nonsense, it’s the historical record.

The only reason Galileo was in trouble with the Church is because he wanted to change the Bible to reflect his new discoveries, and the Church said no. As I've said before, at the time the Bible was the book so Galileo thought it should be correct. The Church thought it should stand as written.

Now, of course, there are more science book than Bibles, so it turned out well for both sides.

I think you’re unwilling to admit that Galileo, along with others in the period, were presenting ideas utterly contrary to Church doctrine. The Church mounted a ruthless attack on Galileo and others because rhere was a developing sense that laws of science must be based on actual observation of the facts rather than on Church traditions:

 

[Meriweather]

Can you define this “soul” thing? Something other than flowery notions of some “life essence”. Something demonstrable and rational would be great.

The teaching is that a human being is made up of body, mind/brain, spirit/soul. The mind (or brain) is what gathers knowledge that presents the person with options/choices. The spirit (or soul) is the part of human make up that makes these choices and directs how one lives his/her life.

Many atheists believe that humans are made up only of body and brain/mind. The mind argues with itself and presents its own self with its decision.

 

[Meriweather]

I think you’re unwilling to admit that Galileo, along with others in the period, were presenting ideas utterly contrary to Church doctrine. The Church mounted a ruthless attack on Galileo and others because rhere was a developing sense that laws of science must be based on actual observation of the facts rather than on Church traditions:

And I don't think you have studied both sides of the entire issue. At the time, Galileo said outright his findings were a theory and presented the realities of why his theory made sense. The Church had no problem with this. The argument started over whether Galileo should be allowed to change the Bible. Galileo was adamant because it was practically the only book available at the time. The Church was adamant that the Bible wasn't going to be changed on Galileo's say so. At that time, the Church had more power and Galileo ended up under house arrest. And his theory did not make its way into the Bible. It did, however, make its way into works of science. The Church had no objection to this.

 

[Hollie]

Can you define this “soul” thing? Something other than flowery notions of some “life essence”. Something demonstrable and rational would be great.

The teaching is that a human being is made up of body, mind/brain, spirit/soul. The mind (or brain) is what gathers knowledge that presents the person with options/choices. The spirit (or soul) is the part of human make up that makes these choices and directs how one lives his/her life.

Many atheists believe that humans are made up only of body and brain/mind. The mind argues with itself and presents its own self with its decision.

I‘m still not clear as to what this soul/spirit thing is. Apparently, it’s not a question science can answer, or even understand. The "Soul" has doctrinal references in various religions, and appears as a philosophical term in various discussions, but no meaning at all in biology. Aristotle equated the “soul” to something of a "motivating force". He thought there was a rational soul, an animal soul and a vegetative soul. Even those attempts to define something indefinable have no scientific basis. There is just nothing in science to define souls and spirits.

it seems to me that atheists and religionists alike make decisions less on their soul / spirit impulses (at least I hope so), than they do on more tangible levels such as risk vs. reward, probable outcome, past experience, expected outcome, etc.

I still haven’t seen anything that defines this soul / spirit thing that is anything more than human emotion to which various religions have added their gods.

 

[Hollie]

I think you’re unwilling to admit that Galileo, along with others in the period, were presenting ideas utterly contrary to Church doctrine. The Church mounted a ruthless attack on Galileo and others because rhere was a developing sense that laws of science must be based on actual observation of the facts rather than on Church traditions:

And I don't think you have studied both sides of the entire issue. At the time, Galileo said outright his findings were a theory and presented the realities of why his theory made sense. The Church had no problem with this. The argument started over whether Galileo should be allowed to change the Bible. Galileo was adamant because it was practically the only book available at the time. The Church was adamant that the Bible wasn't going to be changed on Galileo's say so. At that time, the Church had more power and Galileo ended up under house arrest. And his theory did not make its way into the Bible. It did, however, make its way into works of science. The Church had no objection to this.

I don’t think you realize that it took the Chuch 400 years to reconcile the work of Galileo vs. their doctrine. Galileo’s heliocentrism and whether rabbits chewed their cud were both, in their day, equally controversial due to Biblical literalists at the time. in spite of the controversy surrounding Galileo, Newton and others during the Renaissance, efforts by the Church to suppress scientific investigations at best delayed the inevitable enlightenment. Eventually, believers had to rethink their theology in the light of new scientific discoveries.

 

[Meriweather]

I think you’re unwilling to admit that Galileo, along with others in the period, were presenting ideas utterly contrary to Church doctrine. The Church mounted a ruthless attack on Galileo and others because rhere was a developing sense that laws of science must be based on actual observation of the facts rather than on Church traditions:

And I don't think you have studied both sides of the entire issue. At the time, Galileo said outright his findings were a theory and presented the realities of why his theory made sense. The Church had no problem with this. The argument started over whether Galileo should be allowed to change the Bible. Galileo was adamant because it was practically the only book available at the time. The Church was adamant that the Bible wasn't going to be changed on Galileo's say so. At that time, the Church had more power and Galileo ended up under house arrest. And his theory did not make its way into the Bible. It did, however, make its way into works of science. The Church had no objection

it seems to me that atheists and religionists alike make decisions less on their soul / spirit impulses (at least I hope so), than they do on more tangible levels such as risk vs. reward, probable outcome, past experience, expected outcome, etc.

What part of you makes the decision?