[Terez]

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

Also, thanks for having my back, Terez.

No prob - you're far from the first to fall victim to Gem's assumptions (she seems to skim through people's posts looking for bits that she finds offensive, ignoring all qualifying phrases that might make those bits less offensive). And sorry for mistaking you for a male - it's an easy thing to do on this testosterone-overload forum.

[frookenhauer]

Anyone call? Testosterone filled male stepping forward

Hi Dreamz! Thanks for your input earlier, I almost missed it with all the massive posts that have recently gone in. It seems Gem cannot stay away even if she refuses to debate directly with me (I'm saddened by this, but hey, such is life). Would like to hear any views you have on the interpretation sides of Genesis which is what I'm going to try to stick to...

With regards to your statement on the chosen people, does it not seem highly unlikely that there should be so many peoples and cultures who are not of the chosen people. I've been paying a hell of a lot of attention to the structure of Genesis and God is there at almost every turn and it seems difficult to envisage people turning away from god in the times of the miracles. Do you know what I mean?

This post has been edited by frookenhauer: 27 November 2008 - 12:59 AM

[Terez]

frookenhauer, on Nov 26 2008, 06:42 PM, said:

With regards to your statement on the chosen people, does it not seem highly unlikely that there should be so many peoples and cultures who are not of the chosen people. I've been paying a hell of a lot of attention to the structure of Genesis and God is there at almost every turn and it seems difficult to envisage people turning away from god in the times of the miracles. Do you know what I mean?

I do. It seems even now that all who claim to be religious, when it comes to debates like these, always say that they have had some sort of experience that the rest of us have not had, and this is their reason for believing. They will toss around all sorts of other reasons, along the lines of "there are some questions that science cannot answer". That's another one I don't get. Just because there are questions that can't be answered by your personal definition of science doesn't mean that some sort of supernatural element is implied. The proof is in the pudding. There are as many theologies as theists, as many philosophies as people, because each individual perceives the world differently, and each person is capable to an extent of discerning between right and wrong and choosing wisely, and each person is also capable to an extent of wrongly justifying his actions.

Where does the supernatural come into all of that?

The answer to that question is easy - the fear of death creates the need for the supernatural, and also, the fear of life (the fear that our actions are futile, and our lives meaningless, struggles against the world with fleeting moments of happiness).

These fears are understandable, even valid, but it does not seem that these fears are enough to substantiate a belief in the supernatural. All of this "evidence" of the supernatural that we hear of is untestable, only valid to the person that has experienced it, if such a person indeed exists (this is certainly unconfirmed).

Additionally, it does not seem that religion, whether organized or individual/personal, has served us very well in conquering these fears, or addressing them in a manner consistent with the philosophy that we do not know if there is life after death, and our the impact of our efforts is most evident when we focus them on that which we can know, and that which we can do in the here and now.

[Dreamz]

frookenhauer, on Nov 26 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

Anyone call? Testosterone filled male stepping forward

Hi Dreamz! Thanks for your input earlier, I almost missed it with all the massive posts that have recently gone in. It seems Gem cannot stay away even if she refuses to debate directly with me (I'm saddened by this, but hey, such is life). Would like to hear any views you have on the interpretation sides of Genesis which is what I'm going to try to stick to...

With regards to your statement on the chosen people, does it not seem highly unlikely that there should be so many peoples and cultures who are not of the chosen people. I've been paying a hell of a lot of attention to the structure of Genesis and God is there at almost every turn and it seems difficult to envisage people turning away from god in the times of the miracles. Do you know what I mean?

I understand what you mean but its not a matter of 'likelihood'. Look at the final clause of 12:3: "all people on earth will be blessed". Yes, God narrows his redemptive focus on one man, one nation, but his ultimate purpose is the redemption of all creation (through Jesus Christ). And like I said earlier its not unfair that God only chose Abraham and his descendants when there were so many other peoples and cultures because they had all rejected God in one way or another already (most importantly through the fall).

As far as the miracles go most people attributed all natural phenomena to their various gods and goddesses. If they witnessed a miracle they would acknowledge God for sure, but just add him to their own pantheon. God didn't talk to very many people, and rarely revealed himself to very many people outside Abraham's household. But i do know what you mean, I've wondered that myself, and people were probably converted at points, but not everything that happens is included. The story of Abraham encompassed decades. I don't know if I'm clear lol, cause trying to understand Genesis without taking the rest of the Bible into consideration is like studying only a small corner of a painting.

[Gem Windcaster]

Hey, let me first say that I find myself enjoying this discussion/exchange of thought I have with you, Epiph.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Literal: in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical.

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer, I understand what the word means, but what does it mean in this context? What is this literal interpretation according to you? I'll explain more below.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Science, as I understand its laws, principles, and generally accepted as proven by time theories cannot coexist with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

You bind together the conclusions drawn and the scientific proven data then? I understand that we might be defining science differently. Maybe I am alone in defining science this way, and that is why science don't clash with my faith. To me science is neutral, not clogged by the conclusions drawn for the benefit of one single ideology. I realize it may well be a completely new way of looking at science, but I can't help but think I am not alone in this.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

I did the mistake of assuming I was getting that last time around. I am not making that mistake twice. Question: are you open to convinced of anything? Really, I'm here to share my opinions and enjoy an intellectual connection between people that don't have to think the same. I don't need you to be convinced of anything, I just want you to be able to bend your intellect so you can see how I think. As much as you can. As for me seeing what you see, I already do. I perfectly understand why and how you would say that science and the bible is two different things pertaining the genesis story.

I will always be swayed by a good argument, which is why I now count myself among the ranks of the atheists, agnostics, and non-believers of the world; Dawkins makes a good case. In any case, I have never been Christian, though I used to be deist, and I still greatly admire the faith and belief of religious people. Socrates seems to have been opposed to religious thought, while Plato thought that religion was useful in that it gave a populace a reason for morality, and Marx called it the opiate of the masses; and that's pretty much where I stand on religion. I only wish it were an opiate that worked for me.

I am not one of those people that wants religion for religions sake. I want the truth. I guess that's why I have no problem incorporating science in my worldview - it's a tool for truth and nothing else. As it happens I can't deny God any more than I can deny my bodily senses.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

Well, yes, that is part of my point. But does that mean it opposes science? Imo it doesn't. It opposes certain conclusions drawn from science, but that is another story altogether.

But many of those conclusions make up the body of scientific knownledge currently held to be true, which is what I think most of us mean when we say "science." Inaccurate terminology. I'll try to be more precise.

So yes, science to you seems to be what the majority of the scientific community holds as true, while I see science as a neutral force for truth. I think that makes me both more skeptical than the average scientist and more open to changes in my worldview at the same time.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

You have to elaborate on that, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis (The world was created in 7 days, in a specific order, and Eve was created from Adam's rib, and they were in a magical garden that they got kicked out of when they ate something they weren't supposed to, and all the masses of humanity are descended from that union a few thousand years ago), and then you say "That's true, but it is also true the universe is 15 billion years old, and homo sapiens sapiens have been around for 200,000 years, and evolved from apes, because God is omnipotent and can make that happen," well, I find that a weak argument. If God went to the trouble of laying out specific universal laws of physics and biology, why would he bother to just not use them?

Back to the literal discussion. My point here is that it's not so clear what exactly the bible means regarding certain points. For example. It says God created the world in 7 days. But what does that mean, practically? Was the time even the same? 1000 years is like one day for God, and one day is like 1000 years. Meaning, that likely the time frame of 7 days wouldn't make sense to us, here today. If we assume that light is linked to time, which Einstein hinted at, then at what point did God create time? Did he manage to create time before the sun? Or is the 'let there be light' phrase actually meant to indicate the creation of time?`The sun was created later, so there is some mystery what is really meant? Does it even matter? Each and every one of the phrases in the Genesis story can be dismantled in similar ways. Meaning science doesn't have enough data to compare to the bible story.
I know, it looks like cheating from my part, but I am honestly not trying to!

Using the word literal in this context doesn't help us at all, because there is no such thing as literal with large parts of the bible. It is simply not written for the purpose of us knowing everything. It tells us things on a need to know basis - and there can be tons of different reasons - among them that we simply wouldn't accept it or even understand it. I don't have the answer. Most Christians never really ponder on it, because all they really need is to trust God. But that doesn't mean that the answers doesn't exist, just that we might not get them. Yet. (I believe we will get them)

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

Quote

When something might seem obvious to you, we instead think: hey how does God think about that? what did He do? You can see how that changes how we look at the text - suddenly there's tons of more layers to work with.

Can you elaborate?

I could, but it's not part of this discussion, imo. You simply have to trust me on it.

If a part of your argument hinges on that aspect of your worldview, I think it's plenty relevant. If its personal, and you just don't want to share, that's fine.

It's not as much personal as it is a huge thing to cover, and I am afraid I was never very good at explaining.

---
To be continued - I had to split up the post.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 27 November 2008 - 02:26 AM

[Gem Windcaster]

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

Quote

To us it's more of a process of getting to know God and then interpret the bible through that. We also get to know God through the bible - it's its purpose.

I can see that being the purpose of the New Testament, but the Old Testament has always seemed to me to be written as a religious manual: Here is how God wants you to act.

I don't agree with you. To me both the old and the new testament points to the mercy and glory of God, both points to Christ.

I'm interested in how you see the mercy of God in the Old Testament...I suppose he does generally save his people after brutally testing them...

It's a matter of really digging into the text, I guess. Granted, the rules changed officially with the new covenant, and the old testament shows very clearly why the new covenant was needed at all. If you read the old testament as a story of 'how you should act' then I can see how it can be confusing. But in reality it is a history book, and if you read it as such, and objectively see what decisions the humans make and what God does, then it suddenly get very different.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

Summary: It's the conclusions drawn from science that can sometimes oppose the bible - i.e. evolution etc. But science in itself can only oppose the bible if it proves the bible is wrong, but it can't and won't, ergo it doesn't oppose the bible.

Either the bible is too vague or science is to vague. Admittedly I can't generalize like that - we'd need specifics to get anywhere with this, and admittedly I am not nearly enough educated on the details to 'battle' with you. biggrin.gif But, this is how I see this.

But when the conclusions drawn from science that oppose the Bible, with evolution being the obvious example, are generally held by the entire scientific community as true, then it really just seems like blindness, or discarding evidence you don't like, as if I were to see the deer prints and the deer scat in my garden and decide that it was evidence that unicorns were real. Just like my best friend's daughter decided, against the evidence of the mouse in the house, that it was, instead a brownie. It is the difference between fact and faith. I have no problem with faith, but there are just sometimes when they clash.

If there really were proof, I wouldn't discard it, but there are no proof, so you argument is moot. Theories are not proof - and just like I choose to believe most scientific theories, because I have nothing better to offer, and because it makes sense, I choose to discard those theories that I don't think make sense. I don't see how this is non-scientific. A bit opportunistic maybe, but I don't have a problem with that.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

I am not saying science should be a religious tool. I am saying that science is being used as a tool for certain anti-religious ideologies. If you call it humanistic or otherwise doesn't matter to me. What I mean is that certain anti-religious ideologies claim science to be their own, and anyone that try to make science neutral from any ideologies is called non-scientific. Simply that.

Well, yes. Religion uses faith as a tool to turn people to God, and atheists/agnostics/non-theists use science to point to the lack of evidence that there is a God. Just as a missionary feels he or she is doing good by helping people find God, atheists/agnostics/non-theists see all the harm that has been perpetrated in the name of religion and think they are doing good by logically eliminating the possibility of God's existence. So, of course anti-religious ideologies use science to make their point: it's all they have or need (which is, in part, their point).

Yes, exactly, but science belongs to all, not just non-religious ideologies. I don't expect them to admit that any time soon, they're far too busy riding their high horses. I know, there are religious people that are riding high horses too, and I don't like them a bit more.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Science, as a whole, is separate from any ideology...because science is simply the study of the laws and principles of the physical world. The only way science is tied to religion is in the belief that God created it and has laid out rules for how to interact with it.

My point is that you can't blame "anti-religious" ideologies for having scientific dogma.

I completely understand why they do and say what they do and say. But I believe in the ultimate choice if the human mind, and that everyone can free themselves from their own intellectual frames, if they so choose. Do you choose the redpill or the bluepill, that is the question.

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

Why not? Genesis is really vague on the point when earth was created. The how even more so. The old earth thingy I never had any problem with fitting into the Genesis story.

The key word that you keep missing is "literal," meaning "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical." A revisionist view of Genesis, taking it as symbolic or however you want to interpret it, can jive quite well with the generally accepted scientific creation story, but a literal view of Genesis, where each day mentioned is a 24 hour solar cycle, and the date of creation is determined using the family trees laid out in Genesis cannot coexist with the generally accepted scientific creation story.

As I said before, literal in this context becomes meaningless, due to the inherent nature of the story described. Even without science, I wouldn't dare begin set interpretations in stone regarding these recounts. Only a non-religious scientist would need to set it in stone, so to speak, for without doing that it can't be disproved.

Having a theory is fine, it's the nature of science, but disregarding the lack of data is not scientific.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 27 November 2008 - 02:25 AM

[frookenhauer]

Terez, if I applaud your words too much it will seem as if we are in collusion, but that was a very good argument and one that our dear friend Nietzsche would have been proud of you . Its a good description of how primitive cultures would have would have developed their gods, fast forward a few 100 000 years and some of this information is coded into our genes, and as we become more sophisticated the more depth and power we expect from our gods...and that will always terminate on the point at which we apply omnipotence to Gods power, can't really do better than all powerful, or can you?

Cheers dreamz, your answer has just raised more questions, because if I can summarise Gods goals, they would be to make sure humanity is fruitful and that they worship and be thankful to him. After the flood, when all that was left behind was Noahs family and a ship full of animals. Weren't they all gods people at that point? If we ignore how long the creation of the universe took and just concentrated on the time of Adam the flood receded in 1691 from Adams birth. we've already figure out that Abram was born in 1983 AA and this time is roughly 2000 BC (archaeological and creationist timeline ). So in a little over 350 years mankind has spread across the face of the Earth and speaks many different languages and worships different things. Its too much of a stretch because not enough time has elapsed for this to be feasible.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on Nov 27 2008, 01:31 AM, said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

Also, thanks for having my back, Terez.

No prob - you're far from the first to fall victim to Gem's assumptions (she seems to skim through people's posts looking for bits that she finds offensive, ignoring all qualifying phrases that might make those bits less offensive). And sorry for mistaking you for a male - it's an easy thing to do on this testosterone-overload forum.

For the record, I never skim. Sometimes it might seem like that, because I rarely just quote a piece of a post just to say, "I agree" or "that's what I think too" or some such. Sometimes I ignore the parts I either have nothing to say about or I think is beside the point. I tend to go straight to the point, so to speak.

And I could say the same thing about you, you know, that you skim text and ignore the parts I think matters.

Also, I never find things in posts offensive, I simply disagree. Of that I am guilty.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 27 November 2008 - 02:36 AM

[Dreamz]

frookenhauer, on Nov 26 2008, 09:29 PM, said:

Cheers dreamz, your answer has just raised more questions, because if I can summarise Gods goals, they would be to make sure humanity is fruitful and that they worship and be thankful to him. After the flood, when all that was left behind was Noahs family and a ship full of animals. Weren't they all gods people at that point? If we ignore how long the creation of the universe took and just concentrated on the time of Adam the flood receded in 1691 from Adams birth. we've already figure out that Abram was born in 1983 AA and this time is roughly 2000 BC (archaeological and creationist timeline ). So in a little over 350 years mankind has spread across the face of the Earth and speaks many different languages and worships different things. Its too much of a stretch because not enough time has elapsed for this to be feasible.

Ahh yes, Biblical genealogies. Incredibly boring, not studied often, but if you do, you end with the numbers you have, which I admit don't make sense. But the one thing you should realize is that genealogies in those days were missing gaps, on purpose as the purpose of the genealogies was to prove tribal heritage. I'm not sure which version of the Bible you're reading from but the original Hebrew would say something like "Adam had a son named Seth who lived blah blah.." or "Noah's father was Nahor" etc. The Hebrew word for father, Ab, also referred to grandfather, greatgrandfather, and ancestor. The Hebrew word for son, which i can't remember, also meant grandson, greatgrandson, and descendant. See what I'm trying to say? The genealogies left names out on purpose for the sake of brevity, while the words 'father' and 'son' had more meanings than our English translations. Confusing eh?

[Aleksandrov]

D: First of all, I'll have to say I'm sorry I can't follow all the arguments. My computer just died on me yesterday when I went to Silencer's to read this thread. It's taken me about 30 minutes just to load Page 6 of this thread when Virtual memory shut down on me. So I'll answer the Arguments on Page 6, and if God willing ( ), I can take a turn on Page 7 tomorrow if I can get this junk to work. So I apologise in advance if I double post or more importantly, repeat someone else's argument already refuted or emphasised.

Epiph said:

First of all, for the purposes of this discussion... <words>

I've been to careless of the word so I'll admit my mistake here, but I'm sure you all know what I meant. Afterall my argument is based on "fact" and "faith" and so on and so forth. "Belief" to a scientist would have to be backed by facts and hard evidence. This as you have just mentioned is the "theorises" or "postulates" or "proves" and the like. Now that misconception is placed, let us continue.

Epiph said:

Paradoxically, any proof of God's existence... <words>

I won't define the Religion's point of view; however but you can tell most Theologians try to prove God's "work", whether through so-called miracles, or through archaeological evidence in the Israel area, and through certain Biblical events.

Epiph said:

To be perfectly fair... <words>

Modern yes, but the ancient "Greek Humanists" would not be considered really modern Humanists by far. Certainly, they were philosophers, mathematicians and scientists, but their worldly views were nearly thoroughly mixed by religion. They may not believed in organised religion, but a lot believed in their "Old Gods" or at the very least, Naturalists (not to be confused with nudists ). Even people like Socrates and Pythagoras believed in a sense religion/a deity comes into Science and the like. (Granted there were also people like Aesop who distrusted religion.) Of course, we must respect these early scientists for leading humanity in a "right" track.

Epiph said:

I totally disagree. Fact and faith do not necessarily clash... <words>

The word "believe" I think has been covered by my first paragraph. Again I apologise my careless use of the term. But yes, what you are saying is true in that regards. But in this regards, it is only "wise" to see a certain proportion of today's scientists "believe" or as you say it "accepts" certain unproven hypotheses. From this, I thought it would be wise to use the word "believe" rather than "accepts"; for as you said, you would accept hard evidence and once beyond that it would be beyond "believe".
I must respectably thoroughly disagree with your unicorn analogy, I "believe" in a probability scale of events (mentioned previously). From the level of hypothesis, facts and evidence thrown around, I would have labeled it on a 1 - 10 scale of probability. That the Universe, or whatever, is 15 billion years is more probable than the of the literal meaning of Genesis. If further evidence supports either or, one can adjust the scales to "believe" or "accept" which one (or neither).

Epiph said:

Again, what is wrong with revisionist religious beliefs? ... <words>

I have not said there were anything wrong with Revisionist Beliefs, Au contraire, all I have mentioned is that Gem is using a slightly omitted sense of history to prove his point, in which she merely points to the modern, rather than seeing the effects of Religion over the entire human time line. I have mentioned previously (pg 5 for reference) that people are more "liberal" in the sense of revisionism. It is only progress after all. Sooner or latter, religion will progress out of religion itself.

Epiph said:

Honestly, <words>

Again, I think you misunderstood me here. The key would I should have mentioned was probability and probable, used in Gem's phrase. I was thinking of how interesting Gem started to deal with the improbable, of probability which I "believe" is more scientific than the black and whites. There is a degree of grey area within.
Now this may seem contradictory with my previous arguments and I will explain thus: "Faith" and "Fact" will always clash because the evidence supporting "faith" is little or none, but "fact" will always been evidence-driven. If "Faith" were given evidence, then it would be "Fact" would it not? Such as it is, the probability of "Fact" of being "true" will be greater than that of "Faith" as one is based on evidence while the other not.

Hello Gem, good to see you here. I apologise if I don't address all of your arguments here, I believe some would apply on Epiph's arguments against me.

Gem said:

But I don't need to prove my faith... <words>

Faith does need proof, if not why is there Biblical theologians throughout history and today, using "evidence" to try and prove their faith? Gem, I believe you will counter again with, "they are they, I am I". Science and ourselves is logic, rationality, probability-driven. We crave a rational basis (usually evidence-driven) to prove ourselves. We either change our "beliefs" or we utterly reject the improbable. Science and Religion cannot reside in one's mind as it is totally opposing one another if you say "Faith" needs no proof. Beliefs cannot survive unless we put them in one's reality so to speak.

This is ironic indeed. As Epiph has said before "there is nothing wrong with revisionism" as we can see that "religion has progressed" and that they disregard certain parts of the Bible as wrong. If their faith needs no proof... However, back in the Middle Ages and before, if you asked a person for proof of their "faith"; they would, like Gem, say "My faith demands no proof". But as you move towards the revisionism and apologetics of today, you get less and less people saying "My faith demands no proof" but rather more theologians seeking to "prove" their "faith".

Epiph said:

Well, yes. Religion uses faith as a tool to turn people to God, and atheists/agnostics/non-theists use science to point to the lack of evidence that there is a God. Just as a missionary feels he or she is doing good by helping people find God, atheists/agnostics/non-theists see all the harm that has been perpetrated in the name of religion and think they are doing good by logically eliminating the possibility of God's existence. So, of course anti-religious ideologies use science to make their point: it's all they have or need (which is, in part, their point).

I disagree, only Anti-Religious Ideologies use science to prove the Absence of God and the irrelevance of religion. However, I'm sure most A-Theists/Agnostics and the like do use the lack of evidence that there is a God. The "harm that has been perpetrated...", I'm against thinking the most majority of "us" think like that. It is a purely scientific reason, and the first if enough, Epiph. The majority of people would rather "prove" the lack of an Almighty from a purely ignorant-to-"enlightenment" knowledge rather than a "Get back at religion for killing all of us and keeping us in the dark" kind of all. We've progressed to pure science, with no emotions or the like of revenge in a motive to show "God" does not exist after all.

EDIT1: Sp33lings
EDIT2: Got Epiph's name wrong
EDIT3: Wrote Gem as a woman, rather than a man. D:

This post has been edited by Aleksandrov: 27 November 2008 - 07:46 PM

[Aleksandrov]

@Frook: Genesis gets a bit more boring, (funner than Numbers though) after they start repeating all the people's names and where they go and where and when they die and where their sons and daughters get married (or sold) to and when they die... and so on and so forth. Much more fun latter when God smites some poor Sodomites.

@Dreamz: I hate Biblical geneologies, blasted things are so long. And the names often contradict each other from the King James and other versions of the Bible. The damn things were almost as confusing as the first time I read Das Kapital.

This post has been edited by Aleksandrov: 27 November 2008 - 07:56 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Aleksandrov, on Nov 27 2008, 08:40 PM, said:

Hello Gem, good to see you here. I apologise if I don't address all of your arguments here, I believe some would apply on Epiph's arguments against me.

Gem said:

But I don't need to prove my faith... <words>

Faith does need proof, if not why is there Biblical theologians throughout history and today, using "evidence" to try and prove their faith? Gem, I believe you will counter again with, "they are they, I am I". Science and ourselves is logic, rationality, probability-driven. We crave a rational basis (usually evidence-driven) to prove ourselves. We either change our "beliefs" or we utterly reject the improbable. Science and Religion cannot reside in one's mind as it is totally opposing one another if you say "Faith" needs no proof. Beliefs cannot survive unless we put them in one's reality so to speak.

That faith doesn't need proof is exactly why they can coexist. Other than that I don't even understand your argument - both you and me make decisions on other things than science on a daily basis. That I base much of my lifestyle on things that can't be proved doesn't mean that I don't base a single thing in my life on science. I love science, that's why I don't want to give it up just because someone tells me I shouldn't be able to mix the unprovable and the provable. Besides I don't discard anything that is actually proven. Your argument doesn't hold water because it has nothing to do with me. Not everything we do is logical. We use language, which is not logical. We love, which isn't logical either. Both are can be explained by science, but there's much that science can't explain, and I'd say that science has yet much to do regarding love and language. But you won't just claim they don't exist just because of that, would you?

Aleksandrov, on Nov 27 2008, 08:40 PM, said:

This is ironic indeed. As Epiph has said before "there is nothing wrong with revisionism" as we can see that "religion has progressed" and that they disregard certain parts of the Bible as wrong. If their faith needs no proof... However, back in the Middle Ages and before, if you asked a person for proof of their "faith"; they would, like Gem, say "My faith demands no proof". But as you move towards the revisionism and apologetics of today, you get less and less people saying "My faith demands no proof" but rather more theologians seeking to "prove" their "faith".

I don't need to prove my faith, but I need to explain it. There's a huge difference. I would never use the word proof as flippantly as you do. I work to explain my faith, and grow it - it's an ever changing process of bettering my belief system - to get closer to the truth. Neither my faith nor science are static.

Aleksandrov, on Nov 27 2008, 08:40 PM, said:

EDIT3: Wrote Gem as a woman, rather than a man. D:

But I am a woman!
That's why it says Mme Chair of LHTEC under my avatar...

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 27 November 2008 - 09:31 PM

[frookenhauer]

Heehee! We know you're a woman Gem!

And so we continue with Genesis...We've had thrills and spills and a handmaids tale too, which is very interesting. And onto Chapter 17 which has made me laugh out loud, its simply too funny:

Quote

1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him: 'I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be thou wholehearted. 2 And I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.' 3 And Abram fell on his face; and God talked with him, saying: 4 'As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee. 6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.' 9 And God said unto Abraham: 'And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.' {S} 15 And God said unto Abraham: 'As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. 16 And I will bless her, and moreover I will give thee a son of her; yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her.' 17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart: 'Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?' 18 And Abraham said unto God: 'Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!' 19 And God said: 'Nay, but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thou shalt call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee; behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But My covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.' 22 And He left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham. 23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. 24 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 26 In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. 27 And all the men of his house, those born in the house, and those bought with money of a foreigner, were circumcised with him. {P}

This is interesting, Abram is walking with God again, rather than having visions. And god now renames him Abraham and promises him the world! But God want s a piece of him! A piece of foreskin to seal the covenant between them! Hahahahaha! What is the point? How decidedly odd! But in there somewhere God shows his sinister side. He is allowing for slavery. And in fact gives his blessing, just as long as the slave boys that Abraham buys are circumcised he is completely fine with that...Damn! Slavery is fine, that is a revelation and not a good one.

He also grants Sarai a son for the future, zap have some God power Sarah, your son shall be as a king and lets not forget Ishmael the bastard son of Abraham who is half Egyptian, he gets to start a dynasty too. One thing surprises me, Abrahams grandfather lived to be about 500 or so, If I remember correctly, why is he so surprised that he is going to be giving birth so late. Anyway God goes away and Abraham has an orgy of chopping off foreskins, bet he never thought he would ever have that much dick in his face in one day...Eugh...Yuck! LoL! Also I bet the screams could have been heard from miles...*snigger*

Hey Aleksandros...This was not boring, this was hilarious! Except that part about slavery, its okay to have slaves?!?

@Dreamz. Hi pal, I'm using the 1917 Translation of the Torah as my reference and the genealogy sections are fairly straightforward. It is a simple case of X begot Y at M, followed by Y begot Z at N...Which was very efficient and very clear. Here is the link to my reference > Link < , I think its excellent and thanks to Bubba whenever I find anything too weird I look at the NIV Bible and use that as well as Wiki, which is the best thing since sliced bread. How do you feel about slavery being okay? And the whole circumcision thingy?

[Dreamz]

@frook

"The word >ebed, however, denoted not only actual slaves occupied in production or in the household but also persons in subordinate positions (mainly subordinate with regard to the king and his higher officials). Thus the term >ebed is sometimes translated as “servant.” Besides, the term was used as a sign of servility in reference to oneself when addressing persons of higher rank. Finally, the same term was also used in the figurative meaning “the slave (or servant) of God.” Thus, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, prophets, David, Solomon and other kings are regularly called slaves of Yahweh (Exod 32:13; Lev 25:55; 1 Sam 3:9; Ezra 9:11, etc.). Similarly, all the subjects of Israel and Judah are called slaves of their kings, including even wives, sons, and brothers of the latter (1 Sam 17:8; 29:3; 2 Sam 19:5, etc.; cf. also Gen 27:37; 32:4). Addressing Moses and prophets, the Israelites called themselves their slaves (Num 32:25; 1 Sam 12:19, etc.). Ruth refers to herself as a slave girl of her relative Boaz (Ruth 3:9). Being a vassal of the Philistine king Achish, David called himself his slave (1 Sam 28:2). It is natural that the same vague and inexplicitly formulated social terminology characteristic of the ANE is also used in the Bible in relation to the subjects of foreign rulers. For example, courtiers of an Aramean ruler or the soldiers of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II were considered slaves of their monarchs (2 Kgs 6:11; 24:10–11). It is natural that kings of Judah depending on more powerful rulers of neighboring countries were considered their slaves. Thus, Ahaz is referred to as a slave of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 16:7). In modern translations of the Bible >ebed/doulos and several other similar terms are rendered “slave” as well as “servant,” “attendant,” etc. Such translations, however, might create some confusion and give the incorrect impression that special terms for the designation of servants and slaves are attested in the Bible…However, selecting the proper meaning from such a broad metaphorical application of the term designating a general dependence rarely presents great difficulty. For example, Abimelech, king of Gerar, called up his slaves and told them his dream (Gen 20:8). Apparently, these “slaves” were royal courtiers and officials. Abraham gathered 318 of his slaves, born in his household, in order to recover his kinsman Lot who had been captured by Chedorlaomer and three Mesopotamian kings (Gen 14:14). At least, a part of these persons constituted freeborn members of Abraham’s family. Upon ascending the throne of Judah, Amaziah executed his slaves who had murdered his father, the former king (2 Chr 25:3). These slaves were certainly royal dignitaries. When Josiah, king of Judah, had been killed at Megiddo, his body was taken in a chariot to Jerusalem by his slaves (2 Kgs 23:30). It is quite evident that these slaves were royal soldiers. In a number of cases, however, the interpretation of the actual meaning of the ambiguous >ebed may be disputed. For instance, the steward of Abraham’s household who was in charge of all his possessions is called his slave (Gen 24:2). His status can only conjecturally be interpreted as an indication of actual slavery and, of course, he could have been a freeborn person." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]

Above taken from here

And I'm not sure what you're asking me about circumcision. What do I think about it? I dunno, baptism replaced it in the New Testament. It was a sign of the covenant. Yes its a little strange lol.
About the genealogies, what I said is the generally accepted view by most biblical scholars.

[frookenhauer]

Hey Dreamz. Your link does not work BTW

So, slavery is okay? They way I looked at is that people who are bought and payed for are slaves and it is that practice that should be abhorred. I am just surprised that god would be totally okay with people being bought and paid for. Where is the love? Slavery is not something that should be lauded, because bad things happen when some people are given power over others.

I can see where you're coming from with you know the whole "its okay to be a slave" thing, because that was what it was all about in those days, but God should know better and he should have said. "Abraham! Once you have chopped of their foreskin I want you to free them, no man should be a slave to another! You are all mine!" Do you see where I'm coming from. I was actually hoping for a lead by example thing from God, but it seems he's more than willing to turn blind eye to all sorts of terrible stuff.

Here's a thought with regards to the genealogies, maybe it is the accepted thought because it allows the water to be muddied. You've got the straight forward version which gives a certain figure and then you've got the revisionists who are more than happy for people to just use the bible for its spiritual message, which non believers cannot get by dint of being non believers. I've just had a look at the NIV bible as well and it too is laid out in the same order as the Torah translation. Which version are you using and is there a copy on the net?

[Dreamz]

First let's make it clear that I'm not defending Christianity, I'm merely giving you the interpretations of Genesis that I was taught growing up. I wish I had my old professor on hand, he is one of the 'keepers' of the Dead Sea scrolls and has made extensive research on them, and could give you more insight based on the Hebrew translations.

Ok, the reasons why I posted that link containing the Hebrew word for 'slave' was not to defend slavery but to point out that even translating from Hebrew to English meanings and connotations get lost. Same with the genealogies. Whether it says 'begat' or 'father' or 'son' the word doesn't necessarily have the same meaning that we associate with the word.

It's not about letting the 'water be muddied'. Believers and non-believers alike make study of the Bible and come to these conclusions. Genesis was written 3500 years ago, and any translation is going to suffer. Moses didn't think the same way we do, and he wasn't thinking of us when he wrote it. In this light you have to take it within its context, and interpret it accordingly.

I know its easy to be sarcastic about it. As I said in my first post, my earlier studies of theology disillusioned me to Christianity, and this whole slavery, mistreatment of women, and other OT 'issues' have alot to do with it. Scholars can explain away and to a large degree I agree with their conclusions. I can see that you would think they look for what supports their preconceived conclusions and ignore the rest but in my experience it hasn't been so. Its not that they ignore or revise texts to fit their views, its usually they other way around.

I use the NIV and New King James.

[frookenhauer]

Hi Dreamz! Is he a Malazan fan? Slip your professor Gardens of the moon and the Malazan Empire link and let the chips fall as they may I'm mostly kidding. In terms of Interpretations of the bible and all that. Fact is without learning ancient Hebrew and actually getting a hold of a really old Torah or old king James Bible and learning Latin and all that...We just got to work with the materials at hand. And that's pretty much it I'm afraid, I'm only using the materials at hand.

Both the NIV and the Torah translation I'm using have both come to the same conclusion with regards to the dates. From what I've read about the NIV, they are some seriously heavy guns in terms of how much effort put in and knowledge they possess. With the Torah translation, I'm just going to roll with it because it matches all the other versions online. From what you have been taught and what seems to be the accepted result of years and years of research, where do you stand? Personally, I'm going to side with the guys who've made a stand and stated the figures, but if they are right, things don't add up and there seems to be a discrepancy in the reporting of events. If we assume that they have come to the wrong conclusions, after years of studying the issue, then...what? We stand by the fact that there are no answers and things are too complicated to decipher? That's not too bright considering the kind of resources the Holy Roman Church and all the other interested parties command. The only people to benefit from saying that its too complicated to decipher are those who would prefer the water to remain muddy, because it makes Genesis itself look...weak? Wrong? Fabricated...Whatever. Just my thoughts

@ Gem you seem to have scared off Epiph, I think he took one look at your two page reply and thought Yikes!

[Terez]

SHE, Frookie. Epiph is a SHE.

[Dreamz]

Terez, on Nov 28 2008, 10:51 PM, said:

SHE, Frookie. Epiph is a SHE.

Hahaha, since joining these forums I've noticed the overwhelming trend of maleness...maleness-is that a word...it must be I just used it.... .

@frook no he is not a malazan fan. It would solve every problem, I know. But....he wore a fanny pack to every lecture I remember. In fact I don't think I've ever seen him without his fanny pack... No lie, Dr. Wolters was that brilliant.... but....ya the fanny pack. geez. professors.

Ok I know what I said 'bout genealogies is along scholarly lines... but nevertheless, its true. Having a hebrew translation or the oldest most accurate translation will still say "begat", or "son of" or "father of". It doesn't change the fact that these words have more than one meaning. Look at Matthew 1. I'm not sure what it says exaclty but something like: "Jesus, son of David, son of Abraham." correct me if I'm wrong, but these words, though written in Greek, were directed to the Jews of the time. The Jews would have known instinctively that Jesus wasn't a biological son of David, as that's impossible, but a ancestor. What I'm trying to say is that no matter the translation, the Hebrew have only one word to translate the meaning, but that one word has many connotations. Basically I'm trying to show you that Christians aren't stupid and have researched and studied these things before, and any attack on minute details like geneology and the treatment of servants have been covered.

I know you don't know latin or greek or hebrew. Neither do I. What a I hope to convince you is that, just like science (where one doesn't need to know every exact detail of an experiment or theory or whatever to believe that the proposition is true) you don't need to understand every aspect of Genesis to accept certain things as true. Leave that to the weirdo professors with fanny packs to write their dissertations. I'm not saying that to question or doubt is wrong, since you already have. But the genealogies.....stop using math and use language!!! Its not about who begat who.... or who long they lived (although 900 years is pretty nifty) think about begat as a term to encompass generations undefined. Thats what Moses is trying to tell the Israelites as they go into the promised land. That they are proven descendants of Adam and Abraham and Jacob. I don't know what else to say on it except.......the world is older that 4004 BC!!!!!!!!! LOL I'm pretty sure that's what you'll get if you do the numbers in Genesis. Adam dying a few hundred years before the flood and all that.

Just remember: Context and tone is key to understanding what the author is trying to say. The Bible is deeper than most people imagine for the simple fact that 1600 of authorship more or less align together over the generations. You can't understand Genesis without understanding Jesus and the NT. I know I know I'm one to talk, nevertheless I've been drinking and thinking, and thinking and drinking, and come to the question...why are you reading Genesis? If you've just been introduced to the bible Genesis is not a good place to start...I mean if in the long run you're looking to understand why Christians believe what they do

[frookenhauer]

Let me rephrase that...@ Gem, you seem to have scared Epiph away! She must have looked at one of your two page replies and pegged it! Well done ...Better? (Sorry Terez)

Maleness is definitely a word, I've used it on occasion . In terms of the genealogies...Not important there is so much else about Genesis that makes my eyebrows meet my hairline that its hardly the biggest issue. We'll leave this for the moment

As for why I started this thread. It all began...Kidding. I was having a very interesting conversation with Gem over in the Aliens and Religious doctrine thread, towards the end...(I've PM'd this part to you)...but it got me thinking, what did I really know about the whole story to be so critical, all I had was Religious education at school and TV, so this is an attempt to get to really know and poke a finger at the whole creation thingy. The second motivation is that I had an excellent idea for a book (watch this space) that hit me between the eyes towards the end of my 'discussion' with Gem and its all about God and heaven and hell and this is all research. Oh, and this is fun! And I am truly a fan of the Serpent and feel a certain kinship with Lucifer. I hope that clarifies