thejeff wrote:
Phil Collins wrote:Jeff, if God told you to sacrifice your son would you? Do you believe that happened to Abraham?
Yes or no please.
Yes. .......
I would think if a just God exists, he would send to hell any coward who agreed to kill their son in a case like this.
Bible is Fox News at its worst wrote:
I don't think anyone back in the day believed. If you got in a time machine and went back to the first century and asked, "Where is Jesus? I'd like to meet him." I think they would laugh in your face. These stories were just that-stories. Everyone knew that. They were obvious parables and fairy stories. They were just like the stories of the Greek gods. Read the Iliad sometime. It's the same dialogue. In the 4th century, these stories were cherry picked by men to form the Bible. Yes, the Bible is disgusting if taken literally but it does open a window into the culture of the time. For instance, if you study it you can learn why they made up the stories that they did. Most were for political reasons, not too different from the way Fox News makes up stories today.
Several pages back someone had brought up Bart Ehrman to debate the validity of the NT gospels. Ehrman is one of the most distinguished skeptical NT biblical scholars in the world today. He has authored over 25 books and 3 college textbooks. I disagree with Erhmann on just about everything he has written and debated, save for one significant item. He defends the historical evidence for Jesus.
Bart Ehrman:
"This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity....no scholar in a college or a university in the Western world who teaches ancient history, the classics, New Testament, early Christianity or related field does NOT doubt that Jesus existed. That in itself doesn't make it evidence just because 'everybody' thinks so.
"But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution vs the theory of creationism and 'every' scholar in every reputable institution in the world believes in evolution, doesn't make it evidence" either. But, if you have a different opinion, then you better have a pretty good piece of evidence yourself."
"The reason for Jesus existing is because he is abundantly attested in early and independent sources."
The authentic letters of the apostle Paul in the New Testament were written within a few years of Jesus' death and that Paul personally knew James, the brother of Jesus and also knew one of Jesus' disciples, Peter. Both James and Peter were eyewitnesses to Jesus. Ehrman dismisses the idea that the story of Jesus is an invention based on pagan myths of dying-and-rising gods, maintaining that the early Christians were primarily influenced by Jewish ideas, not Greek or Roman ones.
This "mythism" argument is readily used by most atheists and Ehrman concluded that it "makes them look foolish" to hold those views.
Sloetry in Motion wrote:
thejeff wrote:2. I didn't see a need to cite specific questions I have asked about sections of the OT possibly being allegorical; I was simply trying to relate to you be acknowledging that I have had some of the same questions that you have. Mine is not a "blind faith". Is it possible that Creation, Noah's Ark, and the Tower of Babel are allegorical? Yes. Are there circumstances in which those events could possibly be interpreted as literal? Actually, yes. I have no idea which is true, but more importantly, it doesn't matter, because neither affect the central message of the Gospels.
3. My dad looks just like Ned Flanders. True Story.
4. Thanks for calling me "polite". I will tell my mom that she and Ned did a good job :-)
Is there any way to determine if the stories are allegorical simply by examining the text itself? If not what is your method to determine if the stories are allegory?
From my viewpoint, it looks like one big no-lose situation you have to set up to maintain your beliefs. You say the entire Bible must be correct, so instead of concluding if the stories are true or false like you normally would, you switch the categories to true or allegorical. You set your claims in unfalsifiable terms so that there is no possible way for your beliefs to be in danger.
Here, have some Kool-Aid ;-)
Seriously, though, I was not always a Christian. I was very skeptical, and I am still skeptical of fundamentalism. My stance is that I do not think science and the Bible are at odds.
I really appreciate Strobel's definition of Biblical inerrancy: that God would look at the finished product of the Bible and say "that is exactly what I wanted to convey." Some folks think "inerrancy" must equal "perfection"... I do not. Instead, I believe that God used the gifts and talents of mortal men to convey his message. That means that there may be a grammatical error here and there. That means that the men may be limited by their experience and perspective. Did the whole world really flood? Or was it just the whole world known to the writer of Genesis? I personally believe the whole world DID flood (how DID those fish fossils end up in the Andes Mountains, anyway?), but my worldview would not change one bit if someone irrefutably proved that it was simply a regional flood, because it would take away nothing from the central message of the Gospels.
Now, if someone proved irrefutably that, say, Jesus never existed, then I would have a little problem on my hands :-)
Sloetry in Motion wrote:
thejeff wrote:2. I didn't see a need to cite specific questions I have asked about sections of the OT possibly being allegorical; I was simply trying to relate to you be acknowledging that I have had some of the same questions that you have. Mine is not a "blind faith". Is it possible that Creation, Noah's Ark, and the Tower of Babel are allegorical? Yes. Are there circumstances in which those events could possibly be interpreted as literal? Actually, yes. I have no idea which is true, but more importantly, it doesn't matter, because neither affect the central message of the Gospels.
3. My dad looks just like Ned Flanders. True Story.
4. Thanks for calling me "polite". I will tell my mom that she and Ned did a good job :-)
**Is there any way to determine if the stories are allegorical simply by examining the text itself? If not what is your method to determine if the stories are allegory?**
From my viewpoint, it looks like one big no-lose situation you have to set up to maintain your beliefs. You say the entire Bible must be correct, so instead of concluding if the stories are true or false like you normally would, you switch the categories to true or allegorical. You set your claims in unfalsifiable terms so that there is no possible way for your beliefs to be in danger.
I only responded to half of your post. Apologies.
I cannot answer your question about "examining the text itself". Hebrew is a pretty specific language, and what it lacked in punctuation, it made up for in word meaning. But, I do not know if there is a way to tell from the language, I am sorry.
As far as my method, I don't have much to offer there, either. A partially allegorical OT is a possibility, but FAR from a consensus. (I am sure some folks may even consider it heretical, lol.) Jesus' parables were given in general terms, such as "a man" and "his son", which makes them seem more generic, even though the stories he told were quite specific, as if they had actually happened. OT stories obviously include names; I don't know if that in and of itself is enough to make us conclude they are NOT allegorical. All I am saying is, while I think defending the historicity of the OT is an interesting exercise, I do not consider it a salvation issue. (See 1 Cor 15 for salvation issues :-))
thejeff wrote:
Sloetry in Motion wrote:Is there any way to determine if the stories are allegorical simply by examining the text itself? If not what is your method to determine if the stories are allegory?
From my viewpoint, it looks like one big no-lose situation you have to set up to maintain your beliefs. You say the entire Bible must be correct, so instead of concluding if the stories are true or false like you normally would, you switch the categories to true or allegorical. You set your claims in unfalsifiable terms so that there is no possible way for your beliefs to be in danger.
Here, have some Kool-Aid ;-)
Seriously, though, I was not always a Christian. I was very skeptical, and I am still skeptical of fundamentalism. My stance is that I do not think science and the Bible are at odds.
I really appreciate Strobel's definition of Biblical inerrancy: that God would look at the finished product of the Bible and say "that is exactly what I wanted to convey." Some folks think "inerrancy" must equal "perfection"... I do not. Instead, I believe that God used the gifts and talents of mortal men to convey his message. That means that there may be a grammatical error here and there. That means that the men may be limited by their experience and perspective. Did the whole world really flood? Or was it just the whole world known to the writer of Genesis? I personally believe the whole world DID flood (how DID those fish fossils end up in the Andes Mountains, anyway?), but my worldview would not change one bit if someone irrefutably proved that it was simply a regional flood, because it would take away nothing from the central message of the Gospels.
Now, if someone proved irrefutably that, say, Jesus never existed, then I would have a little problem on my hands :-)
Don't take this too harshly, but you are incredibly ignorant about science.
Have you not heard of plate techtonics? It is a well established scientific process that explains mountain formation and why sea fossils might end up there. As to a flood, let me be clear, there is no doubt whatsoever that a worldwide flood as portrayed in Genesis never occurred. This is fact. Good news for you is that you can simply move the flood narrative from the true to the allegorical bin.
As for the Bible not being at odds with science:
Ask a biologist about virgin births.
Ask a physician how to treat leprosy.
Ask an anthropolgist about the origins of humans.
Ask a liguist about the origin of languages.
The list goes on and on. It's not that the Bible is at odds with science, it's that the Bible is in direct contradiction with what science has shown to be true.
You still didn't answer if you have a way to determine allegory from fact in the Bible by using the text itself. If you don't, then by what method do you distinguish between the two?
thejeff wrote: All I am saying is, while I think defending the historicity of the OT is an interesting exercise, I do not consider it a salvation issue. (See 1 Cor 15 for salvation issues :-))
An interesting exercise? You said that if any part of the Bible was not true, then the entirety is not true (or something to that effect) and now determining it's validity is simply an "interesting exercise?" Do you not see this as a blatant example of goalpost moving?
[quote]thejeff wrote:
I personally believe the whole world DID flood (how DID those fish fossils end up in the Andes Mountains, [quote]
Sea levels have fluctuated and mountains get pushed up over time.
When do you think the flood happened?
Sloetry in Motion wrote:
thejeff wrote:Here, have some Kool-Aid ;-)
Seriously, though, I was not always a Christian. I was very skeptical, and I am still skeptical of fundamentalism. My stance is that I do not think science and the Bible are at odds.
I really appreciate Strobel's definition of Biblical inerrancy: that God would look at the finished product of the Bible and say "that is exactly what I wanted to convey." Some folks think "inerrancy" must equal "perfection"... I do not. Instead, I believe that God used the gifts and talents of mortal men to convey his message. That means that there may be a grammatical error here and there. That means that the men may be limited by their experience and perspective. Did the whole world really flood? Or was it just the whole world known to the writer of Genesis? I personally believe the whole world DID flood (how DID those fish fossils end up in the Andes Mountains, anyway?), but my worldview would not change one bit if someone irrefutably proved that it was simply a regional flood, because it would take away nothing from the central message of the Gospels.
Now, if someone proved irrefutably that, say, Jesus never existed, then I would have a little problem on my hands :-)
Don't take this too harshly, but you are incredibly ignorant about science.
Have you not heard of plate techtonics? It is a well established scientific process that explains mountain formation and why sea fossils might end up there. As to a flood, let me be clear, there is no doubt whatsoever that a worldwide flood as portrayed in Genesis never occurred. This is fact. Good news for you is that you can simply move the flood narrative from the true to the allegorical bin.
As for the Bible not being at odds with science:
Ask a biologist about virgin births.
Ask a physician how to treat leprosy.
Ask an anthropolgist about the origins of humans.
Ask a liguist about the origin of languages.
The list goes on and on. It's not that the Bible is at odds with science, it's that the Bible is in direct contradiction with what science has shown to be true.
You still didn't answer if you have a way to determine allegory from fact in the Bible by using the text itself. If you don't, then by what method do you distinguish between the two?
If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe that there are instances where the laws of physics can never be broken. In otherwords, there is no such thing as miracles or supernatural events in your eyes. God is not limited to the laws of physics or time or even this dimension. He created all that for us and HE exists outside of that.
Bible and slavery wrote:
Sloetry in Motion wrote:Don't take this too harshly, but you are incredibly ignorant about science.
Have you not heard of plate techtonics? It is a well established scientific process that explains mountain formation and why sea fossils might end up there. As to a flood, let me be clear, there is no doubt whatsoever that a worldwide flood as portrayed in Genesis never occurred. This is fact. Good news for you is that you can simply move the flood narrative from the true to the allegorical bin.
As for the Bible not being at odds with science:
Ask a biologist about virgin births.
Ask a physician how to treat leprosy.
Ask an anthropolgist about the origins of humans.
Ask a liguist about the origin of languages.
The list goes on and on. It's not that the Bible is at odds with science, it's that the Bible is in direct contradiction with what science has shown to be true.
You still didn't answer if you have a way to determine allegory from fact in the Bible by using the text itself. If you don't, then by what method do you distinguish between the two?
If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe that there are instances where the laws of physics can never be broken. In otherwords, there is no such thing as miracles or supernatural events in your eyes. God is not limited to the laws of physics or time or even this dimension. He created all that for us and HE exists outside of that.
Yeah, but you don't actually KNOW that. We're trying to isolate verifiable facts here.
thejeff wrote:
Phil Collins wrote:Jeff, if God told you to sacrifice your son would you?
Yes or no please.
Yes. That being said, I would make darn skippy sure I was clear that it was God. (Don't let that freak you out; there is no need for you to call DHR on me...If God showed Himself to you in all of His glory, so would you. Make sure you understand what you are asking!)
Well, this if full of all sorts of goodies. And for what reason would you choose to do whatever he asks?
This guy wrote:
thejeff wrote:Yes. That being said, I would make darn skippy sure I was clear that it was God. (Don't let that freak you out; there is no need for you to call DHR on me...If God showed Himself to you in all of His glory, so would you. Make sure you understand what you are asking!)
Well, this if full of all sorts of goodies. And for what reason would you choose to do whatever he asks?
I was hoping he might have said he would ask why but apparently just the mere splendor of the Lord would make him have at his son.
Of course I'm picturing The Lord vanishing in a puff of dust leaving jeff standing there bloody with the wail of sirens rapidly approaching.
quote]Jeff Wigand wrote:
I've read the Bible several times. As far as I know, there is NOTHING that is true in the Bible. The earth is not flat. The earth is not 6,000 years old. It's not good to kill people. Man was not created from a pile of dirt and a lot of incest. A global flood did not occur. Giants did not roam the earth. There was no golden calf. There was no Tower of Babel. There was no ark. And on and on and on. To presuppose a god is one thing but to presuppose a god based upon the Bible is to be a moron. Surveys have shown that even clergy doesn't believe the Bible is historic.
Jeff,
I take issue that NOTHING? is true in the Bible. I will select the most controversial topic, flat earth. I will gladly discuss it on one condition. Watch this video put together by Mark Sargent. Get back to me in a couple days. Deal? I encourage everyone to watch. I will wait until Wed to give people time to watch, thanks.
I will be happy to discuss only after any of you watched it. Remember what Albert Einstein once said: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance"
I meant to say Thurs, not Wed. A couple days. Goodnight
Bible and slavery wrote:
I meant to say Thurs, not Wed. A couple days. Goodnight
Don't sleepwalk off the edge if you live near it!
Bible and slavery wrote:
Sloetry in Motion wrote:Don't take this too harshly, but you are incredibly ignorant about science.
Have you not heard of plate techtonics? It is a well established scientific process that explains mountain formation and why sea fossils might end up there. As to a flood, let me be clear, there is no doubt whatsoever that a worldwide flood as portrayed in Genesis never occurred. This is fact. Good news for you is that you can simply move the flood narrative from the true to the allegorical bin.
As for the Bible not being at odds with science:
Ask a biologist about virgin births.
Ask a physician how to treat leprosy.
Ask an anthropolgist about the origins of humans.
Ask a liguist about the origin of languages.
The list goes on and on. It's not that the Bible is at odds with science, it's that the Bible is in direct contradiction with what science has shown to be true.
You still didn't answer if you have a way to determine allegory from fact in the Bible by using the text itself. If you don't, then by what method do you distinguish between the two?
If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe that there are instances where the laws of physics can never be broken. In otherwords, there is no such thing as miracles or supernatural events in your eyes. God is not limited to the laws of physics or time or even this dimension. He created all that for us and HE exists outside of that.
Yes, but breaking the laws of physics (which happens numerous times in the Bible) is, by definition, at odds with science which is in direct contradiction to what thejeff said.
Bible and slavery wrote:
Jeff,
I take issue that NOTHING? is true in the Bible. I will select the most controversial topic, flat earth. I will gladly discuss it on one condition. Watch this video put together by Mark Sargent. Get back to me in a couple days. Deal? I encourage everyone to watch. I will wait until Wed to give people time to watch, thanks.
I will be happy to discuss only after any of you watched it. Remember what Albert Einstein once said: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance"
http://youtu.be/StXi8cKj5uE
OMG!
OMG! ^ 1000!
Holy $H1T!!!!!!!
Am I really reading this? This is not some sort of joke?
(OMG ^ 1000!) ^ 1000!
thejeff wrote:
a la cartesian wrote:You've "asked biblical scholars" questions, but you say nothing what those questions were and what they said in response, and you continue to depend on the literal truth of every story in the bible. How strong is the possibility that some parts of the old bible are allegorical? And why do you nonetheless continue to believe that none of them are?
You keep saying this is a good discussion, and that people are asking good questions, but your own contributions to it are increasingly weak, and your answers to the many "good questions" wholly selective and evasive. I'm beginning to fear that you just like the attention. If you're actually trying to shore up the credibility of bible-based Christianity, perhaps even with the intent of gaining a few new believers, you're not doing such a great job. Quite the opposite, in fact. I expect you've done rather a lot to create more atheists, and confirm others in their view that there's not much to see in the whole Christianity thing, which you make look like an elaborate and willful kind of stupidity, devoid of any social redeeming quality beyond, perhaps, politeness. There's not even a trace of the beauty one sometimes finds in genuine, tragic expressions of religious faith and wonder. Again, I think only of more sophisticated Ned Flanders when I hear you speak about your faith.
I am sorry you feel that way.
There is a big difference between me not answering your question and you not liking or accepting my answer.
1. Pain and suffering are relative. What seemed horrible to us as three year olds isn't so bad now. What seems horrible now won't compare to what hell will be like. Yes, it is that simple. Cancer and ebola are horrible. Hell will be infinitely more so.
2. I didn't see a need to cite specific questions I have asked about sections of the OT possibly being allegorical; I was simply trying to relate to you be acknowledging that I have had some of the same questions that you have. Mine is not a "blind faith". Is it possible that Creation, Noah's Ark, and the Tower of Babel are allegorical? Yes. Are there circumstances in which those events could possibly be interpreted as literal? Actually, yes. I have no idea which is true, but more importantly, it doesn't matter, because neither affect the central message of the Gospels.
3. My dad looks just like Ned Flanders. True Story.
4. Thanks for calling me "polite". I will tell my mom that she and Ned did a good job :-)
I get that it must be a considerable strain to be able to UNDERSTAND the concepts of historical context and allegory, yet also need to believe in the literal truth of the bible, but you're verging on straight-up intellectual dishonesty here. A few pages ago you were actually musing on your loving god's possible motives for encouraging rape and infanticide (which a literal reading of the bible would require that you consider), and now you admit that important accounts in the bible, like the Flood, could be simply allegorical, AND, that it wouldn't matter to you if they actually were, because the MESSAGE would be the same!? You don't think you could have admitted at little earlier that some of things you were attempting to rationalize MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE LITERALLY TRUE, thus saving us all a little time and effort, to say nothing of saving the embarrassment making the rationalizations themselves (which you've just added to by referring to fish fossils at the top of mountains to support the theory of the Flood!). Again, if your mission in this thread has been to defend your faith against skepticism, you are failing rather spectacularly.
It's becoming pretty obvious exactly why atheism has been finally been making some serious inroads in a place as religious as the USA. Even its more intelligent defenders are apparently spectacularly self-deluded.
Bible and slavery wrote:
quote]Jeff Wigand wrote:
I've read the Bible several times. As far as I know, there is NOTHING that is true in the Bible. The earth is not flat. The earth is not 6,000 years old. It's not good to kill people. Man was not created from a pile of dirt and a lot of incest. A global flood did not occur. Giants did not roam the earth. There was no golden calf. There was no Tower of Babel. There was no ark. And on and on and on. To presuppose a god is one thing but to presuppose a god based upon the Bible is to be a moron. Surveys have shown that even clergy doesn't believe the Bible is historic.
Jeff,
I take issue that NOTHING? is true in the Bible. I will select the most controversial topic, flat earth. I will gladly discuss it on one condition. Watch this video put together by Mark Sargent. Get back to me in a couple days. Deal? I encourage everyone to watch. I will wait until Wed to give people time to watch, thanks.
I will be happy to discuss only after any of you watched it. Remember what Albert Einstein once said: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance"
http://youtu.be/StXi8cKj5uE
It took me a few seconds to get it. You are trying to make religious folks look really, REALLY bad, right? That way the mods will have to delete this thread, right?
Bible and slavery wrote:
quote]Jeff Wigand wrote:
I've read the Bible several times. As far as I know, there is NOTHING that is true in the Bible. The earth is not flat. The earth is not 6,000 years old. It's not good to kill people. Man was not created from a pile of dirt and a lot of incest. A global flood did not occur. Giants did not roam the earth. There was no golden calf. There was no Tower of Babel. There was no ark. And on and on and on. To presuppose a god is one thing but to presuppose a god based upon the Bible is to be a moron. Surveys have shown that even clergy doesn't believe the Bible is historic.
Jeff,
I take issue that NOTHING? is true in the Bible. I will select the most controversial topic, flat earth. I will gladly discuss it on one condition. Watch this video put together by Mark Sargent. Get back to me in a couple days. Deal? I encourage everyone to watch. I will wait until Wed to give people time to watch, thanks.
I will be happy to discuss only after any of you watched it. Remember what Albert Einstein once said: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance"
http://youtu.be/StXi8cKj5uE
I didn't write that. I don't know who did, but looking back in this thread, someone mixed that post up in a quote with something from me. The original post that it came from has been deleted, but you can look back at anything I've posted and I never wrote that.
I believe Jesus of Nazareth lived, was a rabbi, a preacher and was crucified. And not much else.
Looks like "very dumb book" accidentally added his commentary into a quote box with my name on it. So you can ask him to watch that video.