[teholbeddict]

True one family does not make a nation and math is not my strong point. However.... I find it particularly difficult to work through as there is never a mention of female couter parts for any of these long lists of sons. If I count correctly Noah had 3 sons and 16 grandsons. So each wife of the Noah's sons gave birth to an average of 5.3 male children. Well we know these male children could not have gone on to reproduce on their own. Supposedly everyone else has been wiped off the face of the earth. So do we assume then that there would be a female counterpart born for each of these males? Which would bring the total of grandchildren up to 32, so now we're looking at 10.6 children per wife of the sons of Noah? Those were some pretty good wives those men had to go through child birth that many times, without even the benefit of an epidural! Of course I'm assuming no children were lost during the birthing process, or to infant fatality of any sort. If you factor that in the numbers are really unbelievable. Poor ladies, you would think they would warrant a bit more attention for their part in populating the planet!

[Terez]

I definitely wouldn't assume they only had one wife apiece.

[SiriusL]

Tonight on PBS (in the US): The Bible's Buried Secrets. I was reading some of the online info about this program, including Writers of the Bible, which sheds some interesting light on the Documentary Hypothesis.

Quote

Q: What is the Documentary Hypothesis?

Coogan [Professor of Religious Studies at Stonehill College and Director of Publications for the Harvard Semitic Museum]: The Documentary Hypothesis is a theory to explain the many repetitions, inconsistencies, and anachronisms in the first five books of the Bible. In its classic form, it says that underlying the Bible are several different ancient documents or sources, which biblical writers and editors combined at various stages into the Torah as we have it today.

(title and emphasis mine)

Part of the site notes that the Flood story is generally thought to be a combination of two different stories (which explains the continuity problems like "two-by-two" vs. "seven pairs").

[teholbeddict]

I wonder if it will be playing on PBS here in Canada? If its on I'll try to watch it. Thanks for the heads up!

[frookenhauer]

 teholbeddict, on Nov 18 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

...Poor ladies, you would think they would warrant a bit more attention for their part in populating the planet!

Apart from a few notable examples in history such as Joan of Arc, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, Isabella of Spain...Marie Curie, its getting tough to find more names...I'm afraid us blokes have been literally on top of things and one of the greatest tools for keeping you down were biblical traditions, your job was essentially baby making according to the bible, which is crapola as far as I'm concerned cos that is quite simply a waste of resources, long live the two income family and what else may have been discovered if society allowed women to pursue science earlier. Hence the lack of mention of the heroic efforts of those ladies, a minimum of 10 kids per woman, in a word...OUCH! Baby making factories? So that's how they did it

 Terez, on Nov 18 2008, 07:50 PM, said:

I definitely wouldn't assume they only had one wife apiece.

Multiple baby making factories? If statistics are anything to go by...more women are born than men, so this could well have been the case. I'm glad I am not one with the stories contained within the bible, sometimes they leave a bad taste in the mouth.

Anyway....Okay historical comparison over for now, lets hope there are some tasty morsels in...Chapter 11:

Quote

1 And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another: 'Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly.' And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. 4 And they said: 'Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.' 5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the LORD said: 'Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is what they begin to do; and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do. 7 Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.' 8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore was the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth; and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. {P}

10 These are the generations of Shem. Shem was a hundred years old, and begot Arpachshad two years after the flood. 11 And Shem lived after he begot Arpachshad five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. {S} 12 And Arpachshad lived five and thirty years, and begot Shelah. 13 And Arpachshad lived after he begot Shelah four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters. {S} 14 And Shelah lived thirty years, and begot Eber. 15 And Shelah lived after he begot Eber four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters. {S} 16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begot Peleg. 17 And Eber lived after he begot Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters. {S} 18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begot Reu. 19 And Peleg lived after he begot Reu two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters. {S} 20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begot Serug. 21 And Reu lived after he begot Serug two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters. {S} 22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begot Nahor. 23 And Serug lived after he begot Nahor two hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. {S} 24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begot Terah. 25 And Nahor lived after he begot Terah a hundred and nineteen years, and begot sons and daughters. {S} 26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. 27 Now these are the generations of Terah. Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begot Lot. 28 And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. 29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. 30 And Sarai was barren; she had no child. 31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there. 32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years; and Terah died in Haran. {P}

Oh! So that's how we all speak different languages, God gets annoyed that men want to build something fantastic, to show off their prowess, make a name for themselves, in another one of his petty and jealous fits decides that it is a good idea that every one speak a different language, it seems we are not really allowed to make anything of ourselves unless it be for the glory of God...Most parents would be proud to know that their progeny were capable of so much. Interesting fact, in England a separation of 200 miles west of London gave birth to the Welsh language, 400 miles North and you get Scottish, cross a tiny strip of sea west of Scotland you have Irish. All that's needed to make different languages is isolation and time. And Babel was the domain of Nimrod, the supposed grandson of Ham who also features quite heavily in other cultures as a mighty hunter (I'm sure he's not as mighty a hunter as Mezla)...

And we got some of those lovely names and numbers sections which add authenticity to the bible like nothing else could, except maybe _ _ _ / _ _ _ _ _ !...Its really funny how in Chapter 6 god decides that man will never live for more than 125 years and yet we have these sons of Shem, who miraculously manage to push the boundaries of old age and are still humping in their fourth century, these guys are awesome. And the restriction of sex before your first century has finally been lifted, but we still get near enough 40 year old virgins...Eek. And we have another historical mention...Ur (and Harran, which still exists today) is another Assyrian city again around the 2nd Millenium BC. So these authors have most definitely entwined their stories around the histories of that time, which makes complete sense as the bible is the history of the world and its the facts that must be molded to fit the history . Okay time for some maths...The flood was 1961 years after the birth of Adam, 2 years later Arpachshad (what a thoroughly unfortunate name) was born...+..+..Abram and Nahor and Haran were born 1983 years after Adam (AA) Anno Adamini. This is a wild stab in the dark, but I'm going to guess that there is going to be some serious overlap the closer we get to Jesus' time.

All this is very interesting, if the ages and dates are anything to go by Adam was born possibly 4000 years before Christ...And the universe was created only a few years before that, so all those archaeological finds that people keep digging up with dates before 6000 years ago are just fiction? "Dem Bones Dem bones Dem Lying Bones!" . And lets not mention Dinosaur skeletons cos they are just bigger lies! Right?

Edit: Nice find Sirius, and I am very tempted to agree with these guys in thinking that the writing of the bible done about 1000 BC, but I'd probably be more likely to say it was collated at that time, rather than just written in one go, but I'm keeping an open mind about it all.

This post has been edited by frookenhauer: 19 November 2008 - 12:07 AM

[anakronisM]

 frookenhauer, on Nov 17 2008, 11:58 PM, said:

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...

It states that they will surely die, where does it state the same day? That is the consequence of their departure of eden and that they can't eat from the tree which gives eternal life - Death, adam now is mortal but still has much in him that is like the eternal state, but eventually he dies at 930 years of age.

 frookenhauer, on Nov 17 2008, 11:58 PM, said:

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:

Unless god himself and his glory was the light, which is clear if you know Theology (Revelations 22:5), (John 8:12)

 frookenhauer, on Nov 17 2008, 11:58 PM, said:

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.

no.

 frookenhauer, on Nov 17 2008, 11:58 PM, said:

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...

exactly.

[SiriusL]

[quote name='frookenhauer' post='470834' date='Nov 18 2008, 03:56 PM'][quote name='teholbeddict' post='470688' date='Nov 18 2008, 06:59 PM']All this is very interesting, if the ages and dates are anything to go by Adam was born possibly 4000 years before Christ...And the universe was created only a few years before that, so all those archaeological finds that people keep digging up with dates before 6000 years ago are just fiction? "Dem Bones Dem bones Dem Lying Bones!" . And lets not mention Dinosaur skeletons cos they are just bigger lies! Right?[/quote]
I don't remember specifics, but do we get a lineage directly from Abraham to Christ? I know Jesus was of the line of David (tangent alert: Jesus's father was God, so patrilineal descent is rather complicated), but I wonder if there are just some missing generations between Abraham (Abram) and David? Or rather, if one could argue that...


[quote]Edit: Nice find Sirius, and I am very tempted to agree with these guys in thinking that the writing of the bible done about 1000 BC, but I'd probably be more likely to say it was collated at that time, rather than just written in one go, but I'm keeping an open mind about it all.[/quote]Oh absolutely. Just like everything else, most of the mythical stories probably started out as oral traditions, and we have no way to date those. Unfortunately I only caught bits and pieces of the show last night, so I'll have to Wiki the blanks.

[Terez]

Mutt said:

I don't remember specifics, but do we get a lineage directly from Abraham to Christ?

Yup, we get two contradictory ones. Some people think that one lineage is Mary's and the other Joseph's, but that hardly makes sense, since Joseph supposedly wasn't his father. Even the Mary lineage is strange since no one thought the mother's line was important then.

Bible said:

Matthew 1
The Genealogy of Jesus
1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.[b]

Bible said:

Luke 3

The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus
21When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

[frookenhauer]

Hi Doxa: One word answers do not an argument make . Point of Fact: Those archaeologist know EXACTLY what they are talking about, if you refute their evidence, its simply a case you of sticking your head in the sand, because they have proof, evidence and the righteous power of science . By all scientific accounts, the Earth has been around for a cool 4 billion years, a hell of a lot longer than the roughly 6000 that the bible points to. These are of course rough estimates, but I wouldn't really begrudge them a few million years either side. Also the Authors have tied in their past to the Mesopotamian cities and cultures, but evidence shows that these people are idolaters, which must have been difficult because god was more than willing to show his face during those times, and as the jealous god wouldn't he have been smiting left right and center so all and sundry get that "There can be only one!"

Quote

Unless god himself and his glory was the light, which is clear if you know Theology (Revelations 22:5), (John 8:12)

Oh! So God is the light, that explains it all perfectly...except we have a little problem: The earth is in orbit around the sun and the moon is in orbit around the earth. The model of our solar system clearly requires that the sun needs to be created first, then the earth and then the moon. If the authors of the bible had any idea this model was how it really is, they would have made damn sure that the sun was put in place first, because that is the necessary order, or are you trying to say that the Earth can perform orbits around a point in space without the gravity of the sun to keep it there. One of the reasons why the church was so ready to set fire to Copernicus' head was for his blasphemy regarding the solar model. Here is what Martin Luther had to say about it all:

Quote

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

I have a genuine fondness for Martin Luther, he's so funny, who is the fool now ? The passage in the bible he refers to is Joshua 10: 10-15. Nice huh? Luther is very clever, he knows that for Copernicus to be correct, the Bible must be wrong, and he would never countenance that so he refutes Copernicus, which is easily done in those days...

Quote

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.'

The key words to consider is the "In the day that thou eatest thereof" In the day, it seems quite plain that God meant that Adam would die in the same day, but I'll grant you that there is sufficient wiggle room for you to interpret it in another way, but the most straightforward way would be to accept the statement at face value, but wiggle away by all means if that is what you need.

Hey Sirius In terms of a family tree I found this: Biblical Family Tree But it does not go as far as Jesus, but I haven't yet tracked back from Jesus, and for him we'd need to go from Marys father to get correct lineage. It does sound interesting... Any thoughts regarding the show that you want to share?

Edit: Well done Terez That was fast! Or was I slow?

This post has been edited by frookenhauer: 19 November 2008 - 11:16 PM

[Terez]

Well, I knew exactly where to find those genealogies, cause they're often referred to in the argument against Biblical literacy. So it was a quick easy post.

[SiriusL]

 frookenhauer, on Nov 19 2008, 03:14 PM, said:

Hey Sirius In terms of a family tree I found this: Biblical Family Tree But it does not go as far as Jesus, but I haven't yet tracked back from Jesus, and for him we'd need to go from Marys father to get correct lineage. It does sound interesting... Any thoughts regarding the show that you want to share?

Not a lot that pertains to Genesis. There are is archaelogical evidience supporting, for example, the Davidic dynasty, and some supporting the migration of nomads out of Egypt into Canaan. There is also evidence that there was a nation called Israel known to Egyptians in 1208 BCE, but some scholars think it grew out of a Canaanite class struggle, not from Moses guiding the Hebrews back to the Promised Land.

One of the more interesting things I do remember is a theory that the predecessors of the Israelites may have adopted YHWH from a people called the Shasu. It was known from Egyptian texts that the Shasu lived in a place south of Canaan called YWH, which may have been named after their patron god. This is in the same general area (Midian) where Moses is supposed to have encountered the burning bush that told him to go free his people. The idea is that refugee slaves left Egypt, passed through the Shasu's region on their way to Canaan, and adopted their god. Those people then went on to become the Israelites.

It's just a theory, of course.

[teholbeddict]

 doxa, on Nov 19 2008, 02:47 PM, said:

 frookenhauer, on Nov 17 2008, 11:58 PM, said:

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...

exactly.

@Doxa - So are you implying with this answer that archeological finds and scientific progress are somehow false or useless as they don't correspond with the findings of the bible? I just want to make sure here because that's quite the statement. If you do believe this, then how do you explain the concrete evidence behind said scientific finding/advancements? I can understand not believing in something such as the big bang theory but to discount historical fact is a bit of a stretch.

This post has been edited by teholbeddict: 20 November 2008 - 01:04 AM

[frookenhauer]

It seems you've been in the trenches for quite some time, Terez

Sirius: I'm going to assume by Egyptian text you mean Hieroglyphics . I've got some way to go before I get to Exodus, but I'm certainly looking forward to talking about the whole episode, but for now....

Episode 12...sorry...Chapter 12

Quote

1 Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee. 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing. 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' 4 So Abram went, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him; and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. 5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came. 6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem, unto the terebinth of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. 7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said: 'Unto thy seed will I give this land'; and he builded there an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him. 8 And he removed from thence unto the mountain on the east of Beth-el, and pitched his tent, having Beth-el on the west, and Ai on the east; and he builded there an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the name of the LORD. 9 And Abram journeyed, going on still toward the South. {P}

10 And there was a famine in the land; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was sore in the land. 11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife: 'Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon. 12 And it will come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they will say: This is his wife; and they will kill me, but thee they will keep alive. 13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister; that it may be well with me for thy sake, and that my soul may live because of thee.' 14 And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. 15 And the princes of Pharaoh saw her, and praised her to Pharaoh; and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. 16 And he dealt well with Abram for her sake; and he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels. 17 And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said: 'What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 Why saidst thou: She is my sister? so that I took her to be my wife; now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.' 20 And Pharaoh gave men charge concerning him; and they brought him on the way, and his wife, and all that he had.

This is a weird chapter, I'm wondering if this Abram is the same as Abraham, actually the bible family tree reckons he is and calls Sarai, his wife, Sara. God who is still about and happily talking to people and generally getting his hands dirty decides that he finds Abram and his barren wife to be cool people so he decides to grant them lands...Seeing as they have no kids, they take Lot with them. Anyway God gives them Canaan to deal with as they please, but he must have wondered off coz a great famine hit the land, why grant them a land of their own only to let famine hit it? Beware of Gods bearing gifts! Anyway after that he decides to head further south and ends up in Egypt. What happens next is truly bizarre, he makes Sarai declare him her brother and parcels her off to the pharoah, who being a randy idolater takes her into his house and furnishes Abraham with lots of male asses and she asses, a thoroughly indecent proposal. Anyway God learns that the pharoah is boinking Sarai and decides to send forth some plagues. Abraham lets his wife marry the pharoah? He should really had more faith in the Lord. Who else finds this a little distasteful? Where is the vaunted biblical morality? And does anything happen to Abraham for pulling such a dozy stunt? And wonder of wonders the Pharoah lets them go, and lets them keep the asses, male and female . For someone who walks hand in hand with God why does he worry so much about his mortal soul? Or is he partial to a bit of wife swapping? God does not really keep very savoury company...

[teholbeddict]

Well it appears wife swapping is perfectly acceptable, but as evidenced earlier on seeing your drunk naked father is not. The morality standards are definitely slipping here!

As a side note I went out today and bought a copy of the Bhagavad Gita. Looks like I may have a bit of an easier job than yours, as it's significantly shorter.

[frookenhauer]

Look forward to your rendition of the B.G. Tehol, good luck with it

[SiriusL]

 teholbeddict, on Nov 19 2008, 05:33 PM, said:

Well it appears wife swapping is perfectly acceptable, but as evidenced earlier on seeing your drunk naked father is not. The morality standards are definitely slipping here!

Up until this point, we haven't had much of anything specific about morality, other than "God drowns the wicked" and the whole Noah molestation episode. It's not like Abraham (ahem, Abram) had the Commnadments or the rules of Leviticus and Deuteronmony yet. One could almost think God's rules seem a little arbitrary.

Quote

As a side note I went out today and bought a copy of the Bhagavad Gita. Looks like I may have a bit of an easier job than yours, as it's significantly shorter.

I haven't read it, but I've seen some parts. I think your job might not be as easy as you think, only because the text might be a little harder to dig into. But I'm excited that you're going to do it! Aren't there many Gitas?


@Frook re: Egypt--I believe archaeologits found inscriptions, and yes, I assume they were heiroglyphic.

This post has been edited by SiriusL: 20 November 2008 - 05:06 PM

[teholbeddict]

 SiriusL, on Nov 20 2008, 11:02 AM, said:

Quote

As a side note I went out today and bought a copy of the Bhagavad Gita. Looks like I may have a bit of an easier job than yours, as it's significantly shorter.

I haven't read it, but I've seen some parts. I think your job might not be as easy as you think, only because the text might be a little harder to dig into. But I'm excited that you're going to do it! Aren't there many Gitas?

I have quickly realized that it's not going to be easy. I'm not sure how many Gitas there actually are. I do know the it Bhagavad Gita is known by many names but most commonly referred to as just the Gita. It is also described as the basis of Hinuduism and one of the most important religious classics of the world. There are many versions of the Gita, very much like the Bible. The one I picked up is supposed to be a pristine, unbiased translation from Sanskrit to English and includes the Sanskrit on each page.

This post has been edited by teholbeddict: 20 November 2008 - 05:28 PM

[anakronisM]

 teholbeddict, on Nov 20 2008, 02:02 AM, said:

@Doxa - So are you implying with this answer that archeological finds and scientific progress are somehow false or useless as they don't correspond with the findings of the bible? I just want to make sure here because that's quite the statement. If you do believe this, then how do you explain the concrete evidence behind said scientific finding/advancements? I can understand not believing in something such as the big bang theory but to discount historical fact is a bit of a stretch.

I believe in the big bang, just not that it came out of nothing, everything that begins to exist has a cause. "ex nihil nihil fat" - "from nothing comes nothing"
The word "Let there be light" can simply suggest the big bang explosion.

 frookenhauer, on Nov 20 2008, 12:14 AM, said:

Hi Doxa: One word answers do not an argument make . Point of Fact: Those archaeologist know EXACTLY what they are talking about, if you refute their evidence, its simply a case you of sticking your head in the sand, because they have proof, evidence and the righteous power of science . By all scientific accounts, the Earth has been around for a cool 4 billion years, a hell of a lot longer than the roughly 6000 that the bible points to. These are of course rough estimates, but I wouldn't really begrudge them a few million years either side. Also the Authors have tied in their past to the Mesopotamian cities and cultures, but evidence shows that these people are idolaters, which must have been difficult because god was more than willing to show his face during those times, and as the jealous god wouldn't he have been smiting left right and center so all and sundry get that "There can be only one!"

my answer was no to those questions and statements

Not all agree on 4 billion, some say 20 billion, some say 30 billion bla bla. Just say some large amount of years that will suffice, often this is used to make people think the impossible to be possible.

The lineages point to about 6000 bc but there's fully possible when looking to genesis that the age of the universe and the earth is older. The point of saying that the sun was created on the fourth day is simply that the first three days wasn't necessarily "days". The references of time might have been billions etc in those three days. When referring to our "day" we must have the 12 hour of light and the 12 hour of darkness which is created first on the fourth day.

 frookenhauer, on Nov 20 2008, 12:14 AM, said:

The key words to consider is the "In the day that thou eatest thereof" In the day, it seems quite plain that God meant that Adam would die in the same day, but I'll grant you that there is sufficient wiggle room for you to interpret it in another way, but the most straightforward way would be to accept the statement at face value, but wiggle away by all means if that is what you need.

The things to consider is also the fact that the story tells us adam dies later, the story shows a process of dying, if you would try to stay continous to the story you wouldn't get stuck at most things.
The Hebrew word for day is here "yome" which can also mean "time" or "ever" or "continually".

1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

So you see the story says that they doesn't die that day, and the word for day used here can mean a longer time reference.
My point is that there are no continuity error. My point is also that if you discard the context which the words are written you won't go further towards understanding the bible.

[Terez]

 doxa, on Nov 20 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

Not all agree on 4 billion, some say 20 billion, some say 30 billion bla bla.

The earth is 4.6 billion years old. The universe is 13.5-14 billion years old. The vast majority (like close to 100%) of experts agree on this.

[Aptorian]

Still Terez, there is a good rule to follow when dealing with science. It's still not a sure thing no matter what National Geographic says. Anything we're told by a scientist should still be taken with a grain of salt. The earth is not 4,6 billion years old. Scientists estimate earths age to be 4,6 billion years old. But i'm sure that this age can change according to what ever information and material you're working with. Modern people spend so much time critizising the blind faith of christians, muslims, etc. but forget to take a look at their own scientists credibility.

Like Harry Dresden says, Science was the biggest religion of the 20th century.

The bible is not something that should be taken litterally, math, physics and chemistry is.