[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

frookenhauer, on Nov 12 2008, 12:01 AM, said:

So you see, the book, by claiming to be the truth has laid down a challenge for me, all I'm doing is stepping up to the plate, and so far its rather interesting. Do I have your permission to carry on?

The only thing I'll disagree with is blaming the book itself for whatever atrocities man commited. There's a saying that guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

In that sense ideology is something extremely dangerous, I agree, much like a gun and while you're obviously on the side of disarming the whole population I'm on the side of punishing the actual criminals.

You see the actual text in the gospel is completely irrelevant to the power plays of the church through the centuries. You can see that when you realize how much the gospel has been biased (fabricated if you will) by the church in order to make their totalitarian ways justified.

But you won't see that just by looking at the book itself. You'll see a story about a humble farmer here or a misguided son there because the influences are so basic and simple and in the end all the Pope needed to justify his action was a fitting quotation that didn't even had to address the matter directly.

And I'll agree with another thing that most of the architectural wonders created during the religious period were whilst inspired in some form by religion a product of their creators. Thus you can't really say that religion created something outside of the human mind - much like any other teaching it has a more profound influence on people's lives than the mere physical appearance.

And of course a great deal of those same artistic heritage was created, while being provided for by the church, in spite of the church's complete indifference towards it and often complete incompetence on the matter. Painters were often being underpaid or if the representative wasn't particularly fond of the artwork on say a chapel's roof they weren't paid at all...

Still religion even if it may be flawed like everything else in this imperfect world has a charm for me namely as part of our culture an inspiration for art and as one of many world-views throughout history. That's all there is to my sentiment towards religion.

I'll try to stick to the topic from now on. : )

Quote

Well to get to where we all are today, my great, great,...., great great grandfather Noah and his peeps must have been boinking like crazy...Don't laugh, he's your grandfather too...And all this happened approximately 1691 years after the birth of Adam, according to the bible. Awesome stuff.

Actually if I remember correctly the Bible said something about Noah throwing rocks behind his back and from each rock a human was created. That is to say how God made it possible for him to re-populate the earth. And mind you the Earth was a much smaller place back in those days. The people who recorded (wrote? fabricated?) the Bible were only aware of say... south and eastern Europe western Asia and the Arab lands.

Quote

Is it me or is the Ark thingy just a little shabby? If he wanted to do the big wipe, while protecting Noah and his peeps, he could have tried something like this. Picked up Noah and the family + animals and opened up Eden, "Here you go guys, this was where it all began, you'll love it here, Be right back..." Snap my fingers and the world is mankind free...Let people out and let them multiply...simple, like me smile.gif

Well it had to be a test like everything else don't you think? God never cut anyone any slack so why should he do so if he wants to make an impression. By letting them into Haven he might have put the completely wrong idea through - "Hey guiz do whatever you like if you ever f*ck up I'll be there with my foot aimed at the hardware-reset button to give it a real fly kick. AND those of you who're at least trying might get a free vacation in Haven, get to rebuild the world, and have a glimpse of the next world session."

If it wasn't long and dramatic how could it have transcended the lesson and how would God have came to the conclusion, if he hadn't seen all the death he created, that he should never again repeat that. And to the conclusion that the human imagination is malicious by nature. Though he still loved Noah for Noah was an example of true faith even if the individual may feel that he has been done wrong by God's trials on earth - Noah still had the presence of mind to light a fire in His name nevertheless. That's what the sacrificial altar represents in the story.

And mind you about God actually 'realizing' things, God is a developing character in the Bible no matter what the dogmas may have to say about omnipotence. Omnipotence is something the church used to stress on to instill fear into believers that God evidently hears their every word and every thought. And more recently omnipotence is something scientific minds tend to focus on cuz it damn well almost sounds like the ultimate superpower. Something Superman would have had, if only it wouldn't have made every Superman story unbelievably boring "Superman, halp!" *snap* "Thank you, Superman, you're the greatest... liek literary... liek - does anyone here have some firewood?".

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 12 November 2008 - 08:15 AM

[frookenhauer]

I think that the book and the religion are inextricably intertwined and may count as one, but it would be better to consider them separately, like you say. Good point, but I'm not out to get rid of guns completely, I merely want to reduce its effectiveness by poking a big hairy finger at it. Ah the great evil that is the Roman Catholic church rears its ugly head at last, I can see that you're a fan.

BTW we've actually created one thing that is perfect, you're going to love this...Mathematics. True, but totally beside the point . So by being flawed the religion itself gains merit? Purely because we live in a flawed world? Come on, that's too far a stretch...If you like its charm, I'm not going to make comment, we'll just have to amicably agree to disagree

Look I'm all for lessons that need to be learned and all that, but the whole flood thingy just smacks to me like some priest feeling the need to wow listeners by creating this awesome story of how god is so awesome in his awesomeness. And the people who died aren't really the guys who the lesson is aimed at, its for the survivors, and what is more amazing than being whisked off to Eden for a while and then getting sent back and finding that the Big Guy has wiped it out for real. I'd be impressed double quick time.

As for Noah lighting up that fire, this happens to be one of my biggest issues with the whole religion thingy. Why does God need for us kneel before him. As the grandmaster of the multiverse, what possible difference can us insignificants make to him? The whole need for people to be subservient to you is a human concept, and the Ultimate being should really be above it all...And what a waste of good flesh, I am absolutely convinced that god was 100% sure that Noah was chuffed at being the new father of Humanity, what a waste! And don't get me started on that this is all a test thingy...

And the whole idea that god is a developing character just lends credence to my idea that its all just a fabrication.

One thing that does surprise me, apart from you, there seems to be a distinct lack of Believers putting forth their points of view. I'm surprised. Oh well..."High Ho! High Ho!...Its off to work we go!" *whistles*

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Quote

Look I'm all for lessons that need to be learned and all that, but the whole flood thingy just smacks to me like some priest feeling the need to wow listeners by creating this awesome story of how god is so awesome in his awesomeness. And the people who died aren't really the guys who the lesson is aimed at, its for the survivors, and what is more amazing than being whisked off to Eden for a while and then getting sent back and finding that the Big Guy has wiped it out for real. I'd be impressed double quick time.

Well if you look at it that way if at some age say 7 God took us all on a field-trip to Heaven then whats the point in believing after you actually know for certain that Heaven exists. You don't believe in your kitchen table, you just know its there. There's no challenge to it whatsoever. Namely faith is something God uses to distinguish between good and bad people. That's what the church or even anybody who has read the book will tell you.

I find it a bit more comforting to believe there are other criteria besides the ability of perfect self-delusion (what you may rightfully call a blind belief for the sole purpose of believing), but hey that's me I use faith as a guideline whenever possible and am not afraid to be on the 'evil' side every now and again because I believe that God will see through it.

If all the people in this world were absolutely positively certain that God is there and He will eventually make things right then there's no point in living. That's one paradox the church foresaw long ago when it made suicide a mortal sin. ; ) The moral is that wherever you come to with your exploration of the gospel it should all be aimed at making this world a better place. Running away or even using religion as a consolation is not an option it's just a sign of weakness.

I don't know if I actually want there to be a God since I'm not that great a fan of Paradise, perhaps I lack the imagination or ingenuity of God and it's truly a marvelous place where everybody is happy forever. After death what I really want is nothingness - I want to experience nothing not even the knowledge of myself and that's comforting enough for me.

That's why I avoid talking about Heaven and Hell or retribution and holy judgment, because I believe that this life is much more important.

Quote

As for Noah lighting up that fire, this happens to be one of my biggest issues with the whole religion thingy. Why does God need for us kneel before him. As the grandmaster of the multiverse, what possible difference can us insignificants make to him? The whole need for people to be subservient to you is a human concept, and the Ultimate being should really be above it all...And what a waste of good flesh, I am absolutely convinced that god was 100% sure that Noah was chuffed at being the new father of Humanity, what a waste! And don't get me started on that this is all a test thingy...

It's a trust thing. After all the whole purpose of praising God is to make us better human beings so if praising God was merely a passive state of mind like it is today for the most part then we're obviously not doing anything with it. That's one thing that justifies performing a symbolic act in a book full of symbolism if only to stress on the importance of actually 'performing' meaningful (what a preacher may call righteous) acts as a whole.

Noah knew that the sacrifice pleased God in a sort of son/father relationship. You know how you sometimes have to agree to your parents even if you don't really have to but you do it anyway since you know that the argument is not as important as your love for them.

Here comes up the father figure that is God and that's where the trust thing comes up. It's the belief that no matter that you may blow off some much needed food on the winds (and quite literary so), He's gonna set things right as long as you go out of your way for Him in little symbolic gestures. It's totally illogical purely impractical and for the present day we live in it's definitely not about burning animal corpses in the streets.

And once again the whole thing is part of a lost culture where superiority in age and experience actually meant something if not everything. People at that time were wholly dependent for their lives on the leader so they could find food know when to plant crops avoid the yearly floods etc. etc. And their leader was a lot closer to them, which is my whole point.

You think that God wouldn't care about the little things, because today's image of authority is cold logical and to a great extent impersonal, while you forget that God is all about the little things (says it right there in the book) and He's in no way cold in logic. Actually He gets fired up quite easily in the Old Testament

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 13 November 2008 - 01:22 PM

[frookenhauer]

So what you're saying is that if I believe in God without proof, it will make me a better person in Gods eye? That, my dear Vico, is pure unfiltered crapola. It makes no sense, its so dumb sounding it should be an oxymoron . Another thing that bugs me is the fact that its okay for the people in the bible to be hand in hand with God on a day to day basis, but for us its just a case of the belief without proof and if you don't its the hellfire for ya.

You would prefer an end to it all? You've said this before and it surprises me, dissolution is not something I'm up for, but I am not one with the whole Heaven thing either...Oh well, just have to save that adventure for later

I get the meaning behind sacrifice as a whole, but I feel its a waste of time, God, in his infinite wisdom knows 'exactly' how much each of us really believe in him and love him and so on...

Its this whole omnipotence thing. I've been using it a lot to poke holes in the whole god argument. Seeing as most of the protagonists have left the field I might as well share this with you. Throughout the bible and in all parts of the scripture the Christians have seriously underused Omnipotence, while at the same time claiming it as Gods power. He has the power ability to create the universe, yet potters about for seven days...and it generally downhill from there

If you don't mind me saying Vico, it seems to me that you don't believe in god or even want god to exist, heaven or hell are probably not real and you are not really one with whats in the bible, that's mighty un-christian-like don't you think?

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

I was saying that believing in God makes me a more balanced human being. It's a part of what helps me put things in perspective and enjoy the moment.

You'll probably mind me saying that but still, you probably haven't read half of the Bible yet, you don't have the experience or life-perspective to comment on it in any other way than the plain superficial. And even in the best possible scenario you haven't had the time to develop a deeper understanding of the scripture. Hence why you only turn to comment on the little factualities that stick out on a first reading.

That also answers your question why there aren't many other people responding to your thread since most people would get offended or simply frustrated with what you're doing.

I'm not the typical christian, for one thing I'm orthodox and that makes a world of different, since the orthodox faith is a lot more liberal. That's part of the reason why I'm still here while most everybody else is not. I'm simply not that easily offended since my faith relies on more than superficial factuality : P

You should consider putting an end to personal remarks over my way of life and stick to challenging the scripture rather than me. And I'll answer to that as best as I can.

Quote

dissolution

Well isn't Heaven the true lack of definitive solution but merely extending life into eternity with added happiness. Or Hell for that matter.

PP: Oh btw I just got home after a 24 hour drinking fest ("birthday party") with a girl and a guy from uni, so I might be a little snap-ish from the hangover the lack of food for 12 of those 24 and having to deal with missing 6 hours of organo-chemistry in the morning, cuz all three of us were passed out on her bed at that time, over the phone. 8 bottles of Cabernet Sauvignon for three people over a single night. They actually ran out of it when we ordered their last bottle.

Oh, and Vic would be better.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 14 November 2008 - 07:02 PM

[teholbeddict]

Vicodin&FantasyBooks, on Nov 14 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

I was saying that believing in God makes me a more balanced human being. It's a part of what helps me put things in perspective and enjoy the moment.

You'll probably mind me saying that but still, you probably haven't read half of the Bible yet, you don't have the experience or life-perspective to comment on it in any other way than the plain superficial. And even in the best possible scenario you haven't had the time to develop a deeper understanding of the scripture. Hence why you only turn to comment on the little factualities that stick out on a first reading.

That also answers your question why there aren't many other people responding to your thread since most people would get offended or simply frustrated with what you're doing.

I'm not the typical christian, for one thing I'm orthodox and that makes a world of different, since the orthodox faith is a lot more liberal. That's part of the reason why I'm still here while most everybody else is not. I'm simply not that easily offended since my faith relies on more than superficial factuality

You should consider putting an end to personal remarks over my way of life and stick to challenging the scripture rather than me. And I'll answer to that as best as I can.

PP: Oh btw I just got home after a 24 hour drinking fest ("birthday party") with a girl and a guy from uni, so I might be a little snap-ish from the hangover the lack of food for 12 of those 24 and having to deal with missing 6 hours of organo-chemistry in the morning, cuz all three of us were passed out on her bed at that time, over the phone. 8 bottles of Cabernet Sauvignon for three people over a single night. They actually ran out of it when we ordered their last bottle.

Well you see I would tend to disagree with you here. I'm not one to be blindly led by faith, I like concrete factual evidence. If I'm going to live my life based on a belief system, I would rather it weren't full of holes. There are life lessons to be found in the bible, but then there are life lessons to be found in a lot of things. I also find it hard to reconcile myself to living by a book which we know to be grossly innacurate in many respects. I really tend to dislike hypocrisy and intolerance which seem to go hand in hand with many aspects of religion. I don't think Frook is challenging anyone's way of life. I took it more so as examining the veracity of something many take to be the absolute truth. I like that someone is able to take information and progress that we have today and re-evaluate something in a modern light. No one has been singled out and no single religion has been attacked.

This post has been edited by teholbeddict: 14 November 2008 - 07:55 PM

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

teholbeddict said:

...

I've mentioned before that I don't care about the facts or logic involved in the book and instead I care for the culture and history that it represents for the people that first recorded it. That's where we differ. And I don't involve my religion in my scientific studies in any way so where's the problem. I don't ask God about purification with calcium dichloride I ask my teacher, and I don't consult the vile of tri-benzochloride about it's life-lessons and general heritage on Earth.

Why is it so hard for you to distinguish one from the other. That's what I don't understand and what I suggested when I said that you're probably not comfortable with thinking outside of the scientific because that's all you've been taught to do your whole lives.

I've been taught that life works out in more than one way. That most of those paths are not those of perfect happiness but all of them bring happiness to the individual for one because they're their own. That duality is only the ideological idealism of preachers and the world is not at all black and white.

What you call hypocracy was not uncommon mentality in those days and you make the observation based on our time our morality and our criteria which is purely unnecessary since nobody is forcing that mentality on you. You tend to think that if you met a religious person who acted out hypocritically because of his belief the best possible action is to challenge his belief? No, that doesn't work in real life and it hardly does in forums. People just tend to ignore you.

What you call scientific inacuracy is even more disturbing since nobody really uses religion for science anymore. Do you also think that a christian would be disturbed in his/her faith if you explain them the theory of evolutuon? They've heard it a thousand times and they don't care.

It's a scientific time we live in and some people tend to think that religion has no place in it or that it should be adapted of sorts. But if you change the scripture for our scientific standards you'll lose the moral standard that it carries from 2000 years ago. And morality unlike science is something we hardly excel in today.

So you see why I don't care about your arguments on science or your idea of hypocricy because they're not relevant to the time of the Bible and if you apply them to it you lose everything the Bible represents. I'd still be happy to answer your questions about specific verses. Please don't take this as my final words on the topic it's just that I normally don't involve myself in broad generalizations, what @frook sort of attempted earlier about me, and when I do it's not pretty for either party.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 15 November 2008 - 10:47 AM

[teholbeddict]

I'm really not interested in getting into an argument of any kind. I've said all I have to say. What I am interested in is getting back to the original thread and reading more of frook's breakdown on Genesis. I really believe alot of people are interested in what he's doing.
Keep up the good work frooky baby! I'm looking forward to your next installment.

[Terez]

I think Frookie won't mind if I continue this diversion for just a little bit.

Vicodin&FantasyBooks, on Nov 15 2008, 04:33 AM, said:

Why is it so hard for you to distinguish one from the other. That's what I don't understand and what I suggested when I said that you're probably not comfortable with thinking outside of the scientific because that's all you've been taught to do your whole lives.

Since you made it plural, let me just make it clear from the outset that I'm an atheist that was raised in a family where one side (my dad's) was very religious, and my mom's side religious only in the tenuous way of a great number of Christians who rarely go to church but still think of themselves as Christians. I was raised in one of the most religious areas of the US, and I thought of myself as religious until my late 20s (I'm 30 now).

Please forgive me for hacking most of your post and only addressing one bit (not the previous bit, but the next one). I feel like most of your post didn't say much that made any sense, but that's probably because I'm not really following this argument. But this bit caught my eye, most especially the bolded bits:

Vic said:

It's a scientific time we live in and some people tend to think that religion has no place in it or that it should be adapted of sorts. But if you change the scripture for our scientific standards you'll lose the moral standard that it carries from 2000 years ago. And morality unlike science is something we hardly excel in today.

Morality is something that has evolved light years over the course of the last 2000 years.

Our true moral standards have in no way derived from the Bible. One clue that they have not is that there are several cultures independent of the influence of Judaism and Christianity that have developed their own moral standards in a way that is similar, and similarly flawed.

Theocracy was the way of things back in the day, when our beliefs about the supernatural were tied up with the laws of the land, in many different ways. Humans made the laws because they were capable of seeing the difference between right and wrong, whether in the far east or in the new world before it was "discovered". The laws were flawed because humans have ever been willing to ignore an injustice here and there when we have the power to get away with it.

But there seems to be a suggestion in your post that we, as a society, were somehow morally better off 2000 years ago? Are you serious? I just went off on a guy not long ago for suggesting that we were morally better off 100 years ago, because look at how far we've come since then! Just 50 years ago there were many places in the US, including where I live now, where the rape of a black woman by a white man would have gone unpunished!

So, undoubtedly we do not "excel" in morality. But have we ever? I do not believe that we have. Advances in morality on the societal scale have always occurred in the midst of injustices yet to be recognized, much less overcome.

The same goes for science, by the way. We hardly "excel" at science either. Yeah, we're better off in terms of scientific knowledge than we were 2000 years ago, just like we've come a long way in terms of morals, often against religious opposition. But there is still so much we do not know, and being proud of how far we've come in no way negates the fact that we still have a long way to go.

So, I don't see any reason to believe that the Bible carries a moral standard that is still relevant in today's society. I'm not saying that there aren't things in it that are relevant. I'm saying we don't need the Bible for those things. I can understand this, from the beginning of your post:

Vic said:

I've mentioned before that I don't care about the facts or logic involved in the book and instead I care for the culture and history that it represents for the people that first recorded it.

That makes sense. It represents the history of the Jewish people, some of the history of Christianity, in the same way that Gilgamesh represents the history of the Sumerians. The Old Testament and Gilgamesh are probably equally accurate. The details in the New Testament are probably somewhat more accurate.

But you went further in your post to suggest that it also had some sort of moral code without which we would be somehow less. I don't think this is the case. And I don't think that Frookie's point for making this thread is that he wants anyone to change the scripture. By all means leave it like it is. He's just questioning the logic behind the idea that the beliefs about the supernatural that are outlined in the Bible are taken seriously.

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Terez said:

...

For one thing taken seriously is another product of examination, something that requires both personal experience and knowledge. For different people the Bible certainly means different things. While there are those who are in awe of the ghost-stories there are others who look for the underlying idea. For me the ghost story is just the method to putting the idea through and while I don't regard it in it's literal meaning as something serious I at least respect the author for his ingenuity and then I celebrate him for his wisdom when I eventually come to my conclusions about the real meaning.

Now there are people who stop at the level of the ghost story and love it and there are others who mock it. Neither reach to the point where they understand it.

Again the individual reading varies with the individual's personal experience and so forth the experience varies. My comments so far have been directed mostly towards the people who get no experience out of it whatsoever.

Terez said:

...

Morality is something that defines human interaction for the benefit of the group and since the time we negotiated that killing each other was generally counter-productive that adultery lead to unhappiness etc. etc. we've certainly came a long way with abolishing of slavery legalization of same sex marriage and even managed to upgrade adultery into divorce.

We're gathered here on this Earth in this day concerned very much with the little things, doing up the final touches of a perfect society (however far we may be off of perfection we are in the final stages) and we sometimes tend to lose track of it all. We've actually made law into a profession that requires long years of study a judge a jury precedents, and it's definitely a long development from tribal law. For one thing we've made law impersonal to fit our need for mass production. And that's a good thing.

While we may be more advanced than the people who made the Bible and while the Book itself is not the sole origin of morality we're not better than those people purely by living two thousand years later. There is no such thing as passive progress. Each generations stands on trial by history for it's own reality. So each of us individuals can only strive towards being on the same level as the one who first stood up against a death sentence and ultimately this world is build upon the effort of those individuals.

That book (wether recorded fabricated or even derived directly from God) was the effort of such exceptional people who intentionally or not set the scene for everything that happened in the next 2000 years and still have an effect on us. So when you inevitably look down on them, since you were born and raised in this particular generation, take some time off and actually walk down and when you're there try to imagine how it would feel to walk up again.

Terez said:

...

In conclusion I was raised by fairly un-religious people if you'll accept that term, since from the earliest time of memory they showed me what religion was like on the surface. That is going to church to light candles in memory of lost relatives (orthodox, remember ), and left me explore it on my own later in life when lighting candles was starting to get quite monotonous for me and they simply didn't want to put me off religion, no matter how they might have felt about religion themselves.

There was of course a Bible in our library and eventually I just worked my way to it. There was also Klaus Kinski's autobiography which would have made @frook reconsider his definition on 'being on the side of the serpent' if only he'd have the presence of mind to go through the first 20 pages without closing the book and locking it away someplace nobody would ever find it.

So I may say that in life I have never been pushed towards neither direction by either my parents or my teachers or other people I might have met along the way.

Terez said:

...

And now I in turn wish that you would forgive me for taking your post and replying to every point in reversed order. I thought it'd be more structurally sound to address the latter problems first. ; )

I didn't think too much of it when I made that word plural. On the off hand it's a mistake I don't regret since I'd like more people to get involved in the topic since me and @frook, we'll both eventually burn out, get on each others' cases and then that will probably end the whole thing. Keep it on.

I hope that @frookie won't mind as well.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 15 November 2008 - 09:46 PM

[frookenhauer]

I really really hate it when people take a perfectly good thread that I have spent time on and take the conversation in a direction that, while fascinating is essentially tangential to the topic...NOT. You do not need my permission to have a good old argument, because I'm not the boss of you . I'm hoping that we keep things 'COOL' (and we're doing admirable so far), because the subject matter is a little hot and I'd hate to have the inquisition come down on us .

Cheers Tehol By your command: Chapter 9

Quote

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all wherewith the ground teemeth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all. 4 Only flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man. 7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; swarm in the earth, and multiply therein.' {S} 8 And God spoke unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying: 9 'As for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the fowl, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that go out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11 And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.' 12 And God said: 'This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I have set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring clouds over the earth, and the bow is seen in the cloud, 15 that I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.' 17 And God said unto Noah: 'This is the token of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is upon the earth.' {P}

18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth from the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and of these was the whole earth overspread. 20 And Noah the husbandman began, and planted a vineyard. 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him. 25 And he said: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said: Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be their servant. 27 God enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be their servant. 28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died. {P}

And God in his infinite wisdom allows mankind to eat meat, but not blood (Kosher and Halal food is drained of blood), which is very interesting because archaeological evidence points to the fact that we were hunter gatherers and meat was an essential part of our diet, I mean where's the sport in hunting apples down with spears? Never mind...And a life for a life is the new law...So where does that place you oh Lord with the whole flood thingy? Actually I'm sure the Law is not retroactive, one of those from now on thingies. And he tells the Lads to get busy boinking mankind into existence. This is interesting because from a base of 4 men, one of whom is possibly a bit gay (well get to that shortly), we get all the diverse peoples that populate this planet...The mind boggles, does it not? And then God invents the naturally occurring phenomenon, the rainbow, just to make sure that he remembers not to kill off everything in the world...again. Nice touch.

Anyway Noah 'invents' wine and gets pissed and passes out naked and Ham goes in and has a look see and tells his brothers, who decently cover up their father. Ham gets cursed by Noah for seeing his father in his nakedness, which is all very odd, maybe its all in the telling and what he actually said to his brothers was "Pops is in there with his whanger out and he's pissed, I'm off to Canaaan, cover the geezer up before he catches cold." But to get cursed for that? Or maybe he admitted that he was drawn to the sight and got cursed for being gay...I'm sure it will all be explained. But the fact of the matter is that if Noah hadn't got drunk and lost his pants, none of it would have mattered, poor Ham.

Anyway Wine was invented roughly 5000 years ago and if we ignore some of the blunders with iron making early on in Genesis, that's a hell of a lot of boinking to get us to our present population...Still want to know how Noah + God combo managed to get all of us to look so different in the short space of time we got, must be some sort of selective breeding program going on followed by a diaspora, it would have to be religiously enforced and the different tribes settled in just the right places for maximum impact. And also how they managed to cross the Atlantic/Pacific to populate the Americas would be nice to know. If I remember correctly the American people (the original lot) are similar to the Mongol tribes and there was a land bridge in the last ice age and they might have made it across about 10 000 - 15 000 years ago, which kind of kills the Bible story, unless there was an Ark 2, but where did they find a new Gopher wood supply? If the Ark was as watertight as Genesis, none of us would have been here today, cos Noah would have been shark bait

[Terez]

Vicodin&FantasyBooks, on Nov 15 2008, 02:40 PM, said:

Morality is something that defines human interaction for the benefit of the group and since the time we negotiated that killing each other was generally counter-productive that adultery lead to unhappiness etc. etc. we've certainly came a long way with abolishing of slavery legalization of same sex marriage and even managed to upgrade adultery into divorce.

This is, admittedly, a problem, that we still have serious issues across the world when it comes to family-making, and long term relationships. And that same-sex marriage is, across the board in the US and in the world, still not legal for the most part. I think that the sole cause of the problem is sexual repression. Sexual repression is the reason that kids aren't educated about the consequences of sex; sexual repression is the reason why it's not easy in most places to get birth control or condoms; sexual repression is the reason why we forge relationships through immature sexual hysteria rather than through friendship; sexual repression is the reason why people believe that homosexual parents would inflict upon their children lasting psychological damage; this preconception that sexuality is sinful prevents us from addressing the real problems of sexual behavior rather than the superficial ones.

Vic said:

While we may be more advanced than the people who made the Bible and while the Book itself is not the sole origin of morality we're not better than those people purely by living two thousand years later.

I'll never say that we are - just that I do not believe that the wisdom of 2000 years ago is as relevant as the wisdom of today. We, as a society, are better off that we were then, and though the Bible was one of many influences that helped us progress over time, it was also one of many influences that seriously held us back, and still holds us back today.

Vic said:

That book (wether recorded fabricated or even derived directly from God) was the effort of such exceptional people who intentionally or not set the scene for everything that happened in the next 2000 years

I believe that you give the authors too much credit here. Were they exceptional people? Some probably were; some were decidedly under the influence of something hallucinogenic. They might have set the scene for many things for the next 2000 years, but for one, we shouldn't ignore other influences, and for another, the net influence is neither negative nor positive, and I don't believe that the range of its influence makes its moral message relevant.

Vic said:

and still have an effect on us.

It still has an effect on us, but this, I think, is precisely the problem.

Vic said:

So when you inevitably look down on them, since you were born and raised in this particular generation, take some time off and actually walk down and when you're there try to imagine how it would feel to walk up again.

Why would you assume that I have not already? I'm not in the business of judging long-dead storytellers. I'm in the business of questioning why we believe the things that we believe today.

[teholbeddict]

This also begs the question was Ham cursed the minute he walked throught the tent flap and saw his dad in the bluff? Seems like it was and accident. Or is it more because he didn't cover him up as his brother's did? Poor guy didn't have a chance. Perhaps Noah was embarassed by the fact that he got wated, lost his clothes, passed out and was found out. Is there no penalty for that indecent behaviour?

This post has been edited by teholbeddict: 16 November 2008 - 06:36 AM

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Quote

Still want to know how Noah + God combo managed to get all of us to look so different in the short space of time we got, must be some sort of selective breeding program going on followed by a diaspora, it would have to be religiously enforced and the different tribes settled in just the right places for maximum impact. And also how they managed to cross the Atlantic/Pacific to populate the Americas would be nice to know. If I remember correctly the American people (the original lot) are similar to the Mongol tribes and there was a land bridge in the last ice age and they might have made it across about 10 000 - 15 000 years ago,

The hindu have an interesting theory about how life is preserved on Earth and the human race in particular after an event of a great disaster. They say there's a few masters of meditation in caves in the mountains in India that possess all the genetic information - namely genetic diversity - of the human race. They stay there in a state of nirvana where their metabolism is so slow that they can last for centuries and virtually achieve immortality.

Now hindu is a lot more logical as you can see it's a bit more commercial and it's obviously been update through recent years for genes and the fact that it uses at least Mendel's laws on gene adherence says a lot about the scripture actually being biased in order to fit modern day scientific standards.

The question is wether you'd really prefer that over ye olde christianity for the sake of at least what is a modest attempt for scientific accuracy. I personally wouldn't and I'm interested to see what you would think about it.

Would you take it up as a challenge to find the inacuracies in Hinduism as well like you do with Christianity or will you be compelled to settle with whatever accuracy is already available.

***

To answer a previous point made about God actually messing around for seven days and then some more while he was still getting the feel for creating humans: ...

Once again God is a lot more human and acts quite personal in His affairs than you'd expect from an omnipotent being the way we see omnipotence these days as the ULTIMATE POWER OF EVERYTHING. God actually enjoyed creating the world in seven days he liked to get involved and when things really got out of hand the first time he actually repented in a way and made a pact with humans to never strike upon them again. That from now man should be judged and punished by man on this Earth. God actually gave us the liberty to be free and redefine society the way we see it and the way we want it.

And just as we're created in His image he apparently carries some of our traits as well for better or worse. That's the true retroactive idea that the Bible is trying to put through - that no matter that God is the ultimate judge of things and he may act even against his own laws he's a lot closer to us and the problems of our life than say Buddha immobilized in his eternal blissful slumber.

Later on Jesus is the ultimate proof for God's preoccupation with the well being of the human race. And the ultimate proof for my point in this particular argument.

PP: status update - reading Bible verses goes together quite well with Sunday early morning coffee and biscuits and listening to old Red Hot Chilly Peppers albums. Well, whaddaya know : D

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 16 November 2008 - 08:40 AM

[anakronisM]

Sorry to interrupt

frookenhauer, on Oct 31 2008, 05:43 PM, said:

As you can see, it was the serpent that did it for Adam and Eve. But rather than hating the serpent, I've become a huge fan. The reason is simple. None of us would have been here if Adam had not been turfed out of Eden. In fact Eve only became able to conceive children after tasting of the fruit, when God decreed that she would only be able to bring forth children in pain.

The fall of Adam and Eve didn't kick off humanity, the first command ever given was to be fruitful and fill the earth as it is. That happened a long time before the fall.
Genesis 1:28 "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it"

Aptorian, on Oct 31 2008, 06:01 PM, said:

Third is the thing I never got. Supposedly Adam and Eve joined some tribes when they came down on earth or went outside the garden or what ever. Where the hell did they come from? Where they all the other Adam and Eves that didn't do as god said?

1. God commanded them to be fruitful and fill the earth,that was their original job (Genesis 1:28) that means they had alot of kids around the earth.
2. Adam and Eve was created in the image of God himself, pure and so close perfection that they had eternal lives. Their kids would be the same cuz the fall of man hasn't happen yet. The closer the beginning the less DNA defects you will find, it didn't matter if their kids had kids with each other and so on.

Genesis 1:26-27 "Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them. "

Genesis3:21-22 "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

This post has been edited by doxa: 16 November 2008 - 09:12 PM

[frookenhauer]

It seems Noah, with his pure love for god (returned) is allowed a little discretion in the case of getting plastered and passing out naked on the couch, Tehol. I'm still trying to figure out what Ham did to deserve the curse, I've been looking around about this story and for some reason what he did was deplorable, despicable, I must admit to some confusion...I'm sure its all part of his great plan. The Ham issue is but one of the many minor unsavoury stories that abound in the book. The pettiest thing by far, for me, was gods treatment of Cain and the snubbing of his offering, which led to Abel's murder at the hand of the furious Cain. There will be plenty others I'm sure...

@Vic (I prefer Vico BTW, sounds cooler somehow, but...) Regarding Post 45...Apologies for getting personal, I was merely summarizing some of the points you have made with regards to your beliefs from previous posts, and found it intriguing, I was attempting to dig a little deeper, but could have framed it a little better, actually a lot better . One thing from that post that did stand out was "superficial factuality", I get your meaning, but facts are hardly superficial, and seem pretty rock solid due to their very nature . As for people getting frustrated or offended by this thread, I am merely surprised that more people have not come to defend what they believe in. If the Truth contained within the book was...truthful , then there would be no offense, for I would have nothing to work with, nothing to question, and I would become a devoted servant of God and spread the word of God as a sacred duty, but things being what they are, i am doing...this...BTW I was going to do the Koran after this, the Bhagavad Gita is going to have to wait, unfortunately I have a full time job that requires me to actually participate. If they wheel out one of these mystic nirvana chaps, I might be interested.

Hi Doxa, its interesting you should bring up this subject about being fruitful. On day five god created all the animals and sea monsters and created man on the sixth day to be fruitful and command. Yet in chapter 2 it clearly states that he created Adam before there was even a shrub upon the earth and he gets to name all the creatures as god made them, which by the sound of it was one hell of a laborious job, I mean there are roughly 20 000 different types of fish, 6000 types of reptiles, 9000 types of birds, 1000 amphibians and 15 000 different types of mammals, oh and about 1000 000 different types of insects with probably another 1000 000 waiting in the wings to be discovered. That must have taken forever, but that's beside the point. There seems to be a continuity error, did he create man first or did he do things in the order stated in chapter 1? For arguments sake, I'm going to go with chapter 2 on this one, because the whole seven days thing is a bit weak, if you've got omnipotence baby, then who needs seven days? Infinity is held within a second and a second lasts infinity to one of such power, and why an omnipotent being that is everywhere at once has a form such as this, which coincidentally looks like it could POSSIBLY (I'm afraid my jury is still out on this) have evolved from monkeys given the numerous links and many skeletons showing the links...Its still not conclusive, but Neanderthal skulls do speak volumes. Anyway he creates Adam and then eve, but there is no mention of children, none whatsoever, and when finally my good buddy the serpent, convinces Eve to eat and then share the apple, which, while it is quoted to be from the tree of knowledge, merely lets them know that they are naked, how crap is that? Anyway it is then that god decides that Eve will henceforth give birth, they are kicked out of Eden and Humanity is kick started into being. All Hail the Serpent Still a Fan! Its also interesting that you mention the Tree of Life, you state that they are so close to perfection that they have eternal life and yet God wishes to prevent them from being immortal by eating the fruit, which they do not need, because they are perfect. Interesting, no? BTW welcome to the debate

Terez, cheers for the support and I particularly like the ideas regarding morality and how different cultures have their own moral codes similar to ours, to use one example God let it be known that "Thou shalt not kill", which in even early societies was deemed to be very unsportsmanlike and that's just one example. The moral code held within the bible is essentially past its sell by date and in this day and age its services are no longer required.

[anakronisM]

frookenhauer, on Nov 17 2008, 04:21 AM, said:

Hi Doxa, its interesting you should bring up this subject about being fruitful. On day five god created all the animals and sea monsters and created man on the sixth day to be fruitful and command. Yet in chapter 2 it clearly states that he created Adam before there was even a shrub upon the earth and he gets to name all the creatures as god made them, which by the sound of it was one hell of a laborious job, I mean there are roughly 20 000 different types of fish, 6000 types of reptiles, 9000 types of birds, 1000 amphibians and 15 000 different types of mammals, oh and about 1000 000 different types of insects with probably another 1000 000 waiting in the wings to be discovered. That must have taken forever, but that's beside the point. There seems to be a continuity error, did he create man first or did he do things in the order stated in chapter 1? For arguments sake, I'm going to go with chapter 2 on this one, because the whole seven days thing is a bit weak, if you've got omnipotence baby, then who needs seven days? Infinity is held within a second and a second lasts infinity to one of such power, and why an omnipotent being that is everywhere at once has a form such as this, which coincidentally looks like it could POSSIBLY (I'm afraid my jury is still out on this) have evolved from monkeys given the numerous links and many skeletons showing the links...Its still not conclusive, but Neanderthal skulls do speak volumes. Anyway he creates Adam and then eve, but there is no mention of children, none whatsoever, and when finally my good buddy the serpent, convinces Eve to eat and then share the apple, which, while it is quoted to be from the tree of knowledge, merely lets them know that they are naked, how crap is that? Anyway it is then that god decides that Eve will henceforth give birth, they are kicked out of Eden and Humanity is kick started into being. All Hail the Serpent Still a Fan! Its also interesting that you mention the Tree of Life, you state that they are so close to perfection that they have eternal life and yet God wishes to prevent them from being immortal by eating the fruit, which they do not need, because they are perfect. Interesting, no? BTW welcome to the debate

Consider this:

1.Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened.
2.Gen. 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first five days of creation.
3.Gen. 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in the Garden of Eden.

The trees described in Genesis 2:8 are only in the Garden (the rest of the world is already full of trees from day 3). The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world. Notice that the second creation of trees was still on day 6 and was only those trees that are "pleasant to the sight and good for food."

The birds created out of the ground on day 6 are only one of each "kind" so that Adam can name them and select a wife. The rest of the world is full of birds from day 5.

Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them (Gen. 2:19) and select a wife (Gen. 2:20). Adam, not finding a suitable one (God knew he wouldn't), God made Eve (Gen. 2:21-22).

There are no contradictions in these two chapters so if your are going to discard the first chapter with its clear statement about adam and eve filling the earth, i would call that a serious continuity error.

Genesis 5:4 explains how Adam lived 800 years and had sons and daughters, surely they had alot of children cuz of their commandment to fill the earth.
Genesis 5:5 says he died at age 930

To respond to the seven days idea I would like to point out that the sun was created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19), if the sun wasn't created on the first days then there is a possibility that the first days was much longer than just days.

They couldn't eat and remain perfect cuz god had decreeded that they would die if they did so. ,(Genesis 2:17) "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

God wished them to be immortal, but when they disobeyed him they couldn't remain in his presence.

This post has been edited by doxa: 17 November 2008 - 12:33 PM

[teholbeddict]

Well I haven't read the Bhagavad Gita but I would be willing to. If you want I could do something akin to frooks breakdown of the Bible. Be warned though I'm nowhere near as funny as frookie. Let me know if you guys want me to have a go at it.

[frookenhauer]

teholbeddict, on Nov 17 2008, 04:29 PM, said:

Well I haven't read the Bhagavad Gita but I would be willing to. If you want I could do something akin to frooks breakdown of the Bible. Be warned though I'm nowhere near as funny as frookie. Let me know if you guys want me to have a go at it.

I never read the bible until I started this, and I got to admit its tough going sometimes especially when it comes to clarifying some points, but deeply satisfying for some strange reason...And I am not really that funny, ask Gem she'll fill you in . Basically what I'm saying is go for it, and I for one look forward to reading your exploits

Quote

Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them (Gen. 2:19) and select a wife (Gen. 2:20). Adam, not finding a suitable one (God knew he wouldn't), God made Eve (Gen. 2:21-22).

If we ignore the continuity error for a moment and concentrate on this for a moment, because it is truly awesome. So god did a rendition of all the beasts so Adam can name them, which would have taken forever BTW, and was also expected to find something attractive in there? Selecting wives from a bunch of animals is hardly dignified, and you are probably right God probably did guess that Adam would not be enthralled with having a chimp as his boink buddy . And what is the actual point of Adam naming the animals? It seems irrelevant, don't you think, no one these days speaks ancient Hebrew, so the naming of the animals is pointless.

Quote

They couldn't eat and remain perfect cuz god had decreeded that they would die if they did so. ,(Genesis 2:17) "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

I'm fairly sure that the quotation states quite clearly that if Adam tastes the fruit he will die in the same day that he eats the fruit, but instead he gets kicked out of Eden, which just seems to be a garden with nice trees and plants, into the wide open world where he actually does begin to subdue the Earth, rather than tend a little patch of it. Like I said the Serpent rules, without him we would be stuck inside a garden and giving birth by donating ribs...which is another funny one, why does god need a piece of Adams rib to create Eve? The reason I ask this is because as The Great Lord God who has all knowledge he has the exact DNA profile to do the job and his command of matter and energy means he has the raw materials to fashion her from memory alone...Again and again those limited authors of the past just don't seem to understand how to wield omnipotence...

Quote

There are no contradictions in these two chapters so if your are going to discard the first chapter with its clear statement about adam and eve filling the earth, i would call that a serious continuity error.

No continuity errors? In Chapter one God decreed that "Let there be light", but it was only until day four that we had the sun and moon, which if our modern understanding of Physics is to be believed, can't really work:

Quote

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. {P}

And also there is the idea that heaven is actually in the sky or space, because we know that the sun and moon are in space, does that mean that all astronauts have been to heaven? In fact the whole way the earth and heaven is created is just so...lame. And in no way fits how the Earth in all likelihood formed and how the seas formed onto land once enough rain fell and so on...Mind you for villagers who were busy tilling the fields it must have been enough, I mean what do they know, they've never had an education and have never watched a science program, maybe it all really did begin over a load of water, or not as the case may (and probably is) be.

The reason why I pointed out the continuity error is simple:

Quote

4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; 6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9

So you see he created Adam before he created anything else, there were no shrubs, nothing. Immediately after creating Adam, he built Eden and describes where he placed it. Interesting fact: Between the rivers the Tigris and Euphrates lies the land of Ancient Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization...what a coincidence. Could Adam have decided to start Humanity there? Well unless Adam and his people became Polytheistic, then the answer is no. But it would have been nice to have some physical evidence of the beginnings of humanity that correspond to the bible version. Especially since they knew about bread and therefore agriculture and even fire as soon as they left Eden, which makes all those interesting archaeological finds kind of useless because we were never hunter gatherers and it never took ages to learn fire and we figured out farming as soon as we saw a patch of land, stupid archaeologists, all that scrubbing around in the dirt was a waste of time...

[frookenhauer]

Okay we are finally in the double figures...Chapter 10

Quote

1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood. 2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 3 And the sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. 4 And the sons of Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. 5 Of these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. 6 And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan. 7 And the sons of Cush: Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah: Sheba, and Dedan. 8 And Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; wherefore it is said: 'Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.' 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-ir, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah--the same is the great city. 13 And Mizraim begot Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim--whence went forth the Philistines--and Caphtorim. {S} 15 And Canaan begot Zidon his firstborn, and Heth; 16 and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite; 17 and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite; 18 and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite; and afterward were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad. 19 And the border of the Canaanite was from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, unto Lasha. 20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, in their nations. {S} 21 And unto Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, to him also were children born. 22 The sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram. 23 And the sons of Aram: Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash. 24 And Arpachshad begot Shelah; and Shelah begot Eber. 25 And unto Eber were born two sons; the name of the one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. 26 And Joktan begot Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah; 27 and Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah; 28 and Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba; 29 and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab; all these were the sons of Joktan. 30 And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest toward Sephar, unto the mountain of the east. 31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations. 32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations; and of these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood. {P}

Er, did anyone follow all that? I found my eyes closing after the first few lines of this...pretty much useless information, but there are a few interesting mentions in there amongst all those illustrious names. The first one is Nimrod, who according to the bible founded Babel, which is very interesting because that would have meant he was the father of the Babylonian civilization, who, funnily enough, are actually polytheistic and borrowed much of their religion from Sumerian mythology, with nary a room for a one God. Babel comes into the bible again at a later stage, so I'll leave it there. Nimrod is the grandson of Ham, so at least the apple fell far from the tree And Ashur built Nineveh, which is an Assyrian city, Assyrians are pre Babylonians, there is no mention of a son called Ashur, so it might be the Jewish term for Assyrians according to wiki and I agree. Therefore the mighty hunter also established Nineveh too. The Arabs also had a mythical hunter figure called Nimrod too. Its just a shame that even though barely a few generations after the flood some of his grandchildren take up polytheism. Or maybe the real story is just that the authors wanted to fit their version of events into real world history. which means that this particular account is guaranteed to be less than 4000 years old, evidence points to Babylon being founded at roughly 2300 BC, but I'm more inclined to believe its somewhat less than that due to the mention of iron worked tools early on in Genesis.

Another odd thing is that these people of the bible are doing things like no peoples ever have, they are spreading out once per generation, which just does not work. It seems to be some weak method to show that the people are doing exactly what god ordered and multiplying across the face of the earth. Sorry folks, One family does not a nation make. I'm sure that each expansion phase would have taken at least 3 or 4 generations before the need to expand came to pass, and also the ability to do do. Just think about it, you may have to travel hundreds of miles with a small tribe, enough supplies to last the trip, plus the method to start a a new farm, plus a load of semi domesticated animals...Or was it a case of single families moving out setting up a hundred miles up the road and being joined by other families...How sweet, until the raiders come and take it all away.

Face it, spreading the people across the face of the planet was not done by the methods shown in the bible. Especially not around 4000 years ago. Also unless Japeth was of African origin, an Aryan Ham and Shem was Oriental, there is no way that you are going to get that much diversity in so short a space of time. No humour on this one, but plenty to chew over and digest.