The bible is creations legend.

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by bricklayer, May 26, 2019.

  1. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But even in our time period some people are shown aspects of history and pre-history during near death experience accounts or other similar experiences so even if the Mesopotamians wrote something similar first........... Moses could well have been taken back in time somehow and shown the aspects of the beginning that he was supposed to work with....... That was relevant for him and his students all down through time......

    https://www.near-death.com/experiences/exceptional/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a05
    The writings of Moses are major league......

    Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
    Mal 4:5

    Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
    Mal 4:6

    And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019
  2. Dissily Mordentroge

    Dissily Mordentroge Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,690
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Biblical apologetics has always a somewhat absurd exercise, sometimes camouflaged in pseudo-intellectual academic gobbledegook, but to suggest Moses was taken back in time to Mesopotamia is a downright dishonest and idiotic attempt to explain away claims for biblical authority.
    Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart. Ephesians 4:18.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  3. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So from this I can assume that you have never read anything about the Helen Wambach Ph. D. research?

    Now I am not saying that Moses was hypnotized.... I am sure that he was not..... I am just saying that Egypt was an astonishingly advanced civilization that may well have perfected a method of giving their Pharaoh's a near death experience so that they would be the type of person who would meet a Joseph / Yosef and immediately exalt him..........
    ... .but the Pharaoh of the time of Moses may have been such a tiny little guy...... that perhaps his mom
    just could not bear the thought of such a risk being taken with him......

    https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/77.htm
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019
  4. Dissily Mordentroge

    Dissily Mordentroge Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,690
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have. I’ve even attempted to digest Barbara Theiring’s ‘Jesus The Man’ and a number of other peculiar tomes.
    I’ll stick with John Shelby Spong’s central ideas for now thank you. However at my age I’m beginning to think spending time struggling through the multitudinous, tangled, prolix and often totally irrational attepts to clarify scripture would best be spent on other reading.
    Cosmology, gardening and physics are taking up a large part of my aged attempts at learning. And no, I’m not in the least concerned about the eternal fate of my imagined soul. I’ll leave you to worry about yours. Please don’t bother praying for mine. It’s beyond redemption. Praise be.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2019
    DennisTate likes this.
  5. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually....... near death experience accounts seem to be the most likely fulfillment of this promise that
    I've found so far.

    John 16:25 "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father."

    And the evidence for the following is indeed impressive:

    https://www.near-death.com/experiences/exceptional/christian-andreason.html#a04h
    My impression is that Paul was too blown away perhaps by his own possible near death experience
    when he was stoned at Lystra and appeared dead to be able to elaborate on all that he had been shown in II Corinthians 12.

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/14/19/s_1032019

    Act 14:19 "And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.
    Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe."

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2co/12/1/s_1090001



    But I think by Romans 9, 10 and 11 he was getting pretty close to explaining what he had been shown:

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/11/1/s_1057001

    Romand 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

    27 For this is my acovenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

    28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

    29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

    30 For as ye in times past ahave not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their bunbelief:

    31 Even so have these also now not abelieved, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

    32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
     
  6. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One need not observe the making of a thing to recognize it as a made thing. As creative beings, as makers of things, humans recognize created things. The most common observation throughout human history is that this did not happen by chance. It has been self-evident to the vast majority of humanity that this did not happen by chance. This material world is a created thing. It is a creation.

    Perhaps the second most common observation made by human beings is the fact that chance is not a creative force.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  7. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They were "yoms". "Yom" has four literal meanings: some of the daylight hours, all of the daylight hours, a twenty four hour period, or a long but finite period of time. A literal reading of the Genesis narrative would indicate the second, all of the daylight hours. The third, a twenty four hour period, has been the traditional translation. Given the balance of the geological, astrological and anthropological evidence, I am left to believe that the fourth, a long but finite period of time, is the proper translation.

    Biblical Hebrew contained only three thousand nouns. All of those nouns had multiple literal meanings that were to understood from context. One can only assign the twenty four hour translation to the yoms of Genesis quite apart from, and is contradiction to, the balance of creation. In other words, they can only be considered twenty four hour periods completely out of all material context.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  8. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now you just have the ten million reasons for said creation to get to the one you want to accept. Is the Earth simply the by-product of another creation? Is life on Earth the creation of a different creator than the Universe? Was that creator created by another creator - or race of creators? Did the creator create humans to feed his worms because he likes to fish?
     
  9. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not an all-or-nothing kind of guy. I do not suppose that I can know everything and therefore do not equate limited knowledge with ignorance. Not-all is not nothing.

    Material, spatial and temporal contingency is empirical evidence of necessary being.
     
  10. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dunno about that. Joshua understood enough to make the Sun stand still in the sky, and he didn't have the Bible.
    Which doesn't have a damn thing to do with what he said, obviously.
     
  11. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can’t substantiate anything in this post.
     
  12. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not in any way you can demonstrate or support. Every time you’ve made this argument it’s been blown apart.
     
  13. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One need not see a thing be made to recognize it as a made thing. One need not observe the maker of a thing to know that it has a maker.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  14. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is a piece of volcanic rock a "made" thing? Yes it is. Does that prove a volcano is a sentiment being? No it doesn't. End of discussion.
     
  15. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps with you, but the rest of us will continue to discuss such things. There's just not much you can do about that, but your attempts to end such conversations are noted.
     
  16. Dissily Mordentroge

    Dissily Mordentroge Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,690
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for the lecture in Biblical hebrew. However I was refering to those who stick with a fundamentalist application of the Old Testament as the Word of God who are the last people who will bother with anything like biblical studies of any academic worth.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Common observation" is how we decided that the Earth was the center of the universe, how the purpose of the heart was to be a house for the "soul", how vaccines cause autism, and untold other craziness.

    Appealing to "common observation" is a cheap attempt to deny the very idea of science.

    Beyond that nobody has proposed that "chance" is a creative force. That is another attack on science from religion.
     
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet so many deny evolution, whereby both scientists and the general public may watch the creation of new things and see the evidence of how current things have been created.
     
  19. Dissily Mordentroge

    Dissily Mordentroge Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,690
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I trust you’ve informed St Peter.
     
  20. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ask them.
     
  21. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science is the process wherein doubt is removed by testing new and old ideas.
    Religion is the process wherein doubt is suppressed by resistance to testing new and old ideas.
    You seem far too religious for my tastes. If you want to believe in chance, have at it. If you want to believe that this all happened by chance, that's no skin off my teeth. It is however a "common observation" that chance is not a creative force.
     
  22. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's it? That's your response? How old are you?
     
  23. Dissily Mordentroge

    Dissily Mordentroge Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,690
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    73 and with sufficient experience and knowledge to know where your argument was heading, even if you didn’t.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  24. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My goodness. Age is no guarantee now is it? Well God bless you.
     
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Amen - religion already has its answers, so why would it NOT suppress new ideas regardless of their source?

    Again, your "common observation" appears to me as an appeal to ignorance of some sort. I'm not convinced by "common observation". Science progresses NOT by common observation, but by serious attempts at falsifying ideas of how this universe works.

    Your misunderstanding about chance continues. Apparantly you didn't read my whole post or chose just to ignore it.
     

Share This Page