FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-07-2011, 11:01 AM   #121
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,305
Default

Rhutchin is ignoring the fact that the Mesopotamian king lists ascribe fantastically long lives to people before the flood. Like much in the Old Testament, the Hebrews copied this idea from someone else.

Enoch lived for 365 years. Can anyone seriously doubt that this is a symbolic number?
bacht is offline  
Old 06-07-2011, 11:33 AM   #122
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullwind View Post

Why do you assume they are different?
Assume nothing; allow for everything.
You are assuming that the way I read it is different from what the text means. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullwind View Post
So far you have completely ignored the fact that the text gives ages for each individual at each point, but focused instead on the possibility that the relationships were not father/son. When the text says someone was 90 years old when someone else was born, what do you think that actually means? And if that second person was 80 when the next person came along, do you think it reasonable to conclude that the first person would be 170 at that point?
That is just one way to look at it. It may be the purpose of the text to establish the lineage of the person named.
Thats what a geneology does.

Quote:
We read this:

And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. [Genesis 11:26]

Would you conclude from this that triplets were born to Terah when he was 70?
Not necessarily triplets, but it would be reasonable to conclude that one of the three, probably the first one named, was born when Terah was 70.

Now stop dodging the question and answer this: if it went on to say that Abram lived 80 years and begat Shem, that it would be reasonable to conclude that we are now talking about a time roughly 150 years after the birth of Terah?
Gullwind is offline  
Old 06-07-2011, 11:57 AM   #123
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bacht View Post
Rhutchin is ignoring the fact that the Mesopotamian king lists ascribe fantastically long lives to people before the flood. Like much in the Old Testament, the Hebrews copied this idea from someone else.
Perhaps the Mesopotamian copied it from the Hebrews.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bacht View Post
Enoch lived for 365 years. Can anyone seriously doubt that this is a symbolic number?
OK. Symbolic of what?
rhutchin is offline  
Old 06-07-2011, 12:04 PM   #124
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullwind View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post

Assume nothing; allow for everything.
You are assuming that the way I read it is different from what the text means. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked.
No. You read the text different from the way that I read the text. I don't think we have agreed on what the text actually says and could then determine who is reading it different from the text.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullwind View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
We read this:

And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. [Genesis 11:26]

Would you conclude from this that triplets were born to Terah when he was 70?
Not necessarily triplets, but it would be reasonable to conclude that one of the three, probably the first one named, was born when Terah was 70.
Interesting twist that you throw into the pot. What would make you want to do that? Are you being consistent with the argument you have been making?

So, would you conclude that Abram was born to Terah when Terah was 70?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullwind View Post
Now stop dodging the question and answer this: if it went on to say that Abram lived 80 years and begat Shem, that it would be reasonable to conclude that we are now talking about a time roughly 150 years after the birth of Terah?
Sure reasonable according to our western way of thinking. Not necessarily true or reasonable according to the Hebrew way of thinking.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 06-07-2011, 01:08 PM   #125
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
No. You read the text different from the way that I read the text. I don't think we have agreed on what the text actually says and could then determine who is reading it different from the text.
Right. I'm reading what it actually says, you're speculating on what it might possibly have meant in order that your preconceptions might be right.

Quote:
Interesting twist that you throw into the pot. What would make you want to do that? Are you being consistent with the argument you have been making?
Yes. Can you show differently? Given the rarity of triplets it seems reasonable to conclude that the three were born within a few years of each other.

Quote:
So, would you conclude that Abram was born to Terah when Terah was 70?
Thats what I would take from it. But I'll bet you think you have a clever reason to conclude otherwise.

Quote:
Sure reasonable according to our western way of thinking. Not necessarily true or reasonable according to the Hebrew way of thinking.
So all you have to do is come up with some actual evidence that what the bible actually says isn't what it means. Funny how you accuse "evolutionists" of using just-so stories, but they work just fine for supporting your particular interpretation of the bible.
Gullwind is offline  
Old 06-07-2011, 05:11 PM   #126
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunawalk View Post
I don't believe it because there is no evidence of moses being raised to life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
[What's the "Moses being raised to life" thing? The Bible says no such thing (unless you are referring to the general resurrection of the elect when Christ returns to judge the world)
I thought you were in favor of Moses' resurrection. I am not refering to the resurrection of the elect. The bible does refer to Moses's resurrection in Jude 1:9

Quote:
Jude 1:9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you
.I think this is tne verse Philo was refering to.
The other verse is Mark 9:2-4
Quote:
.Mark 9:2-4 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

3And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.

4And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunawalk View Post
I ask again if I say JFK is still alive according to the word of the LORD. is that statement true if not why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
[All it means is that you claim that JFK was among the elect saved by God. That could be true but would not necessarily be true.
I think you misunderstood me.If I say JFK survived his assassination and still alive today according to the word of the LORD. Would you believe that statement?
Lunawalk is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 11:15 AM   #127
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunawalk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunawalk View Post
I don't believe it because there is no evidence of moses being raised to life.
I thought you were in favor of Moses' resurrection. I am not referring to the resurrection of the elect. The bible does refer to Moses's resurrection in Jude 1:9

.I think this is tne verse Philo was referring to.
The other verse is Mark 9:2-4
Paul says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinth 5:8). So, any person whom God has saved goes to be with God on death. This applied to Moses as it does to all others. However, I don't think this is the resurrection that the Bible speaks of at the end of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunawalk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
[All it means is that you claim that JFK was among the elect saved by God. That could be true but would not necessarily be true.
I think you misunderstood me.If I say JFK survived his assassination and still alive today according to the word of the LORD. Would you believe that statement?
Only if you could substantiate your claim by proper reference to the Scripture. I am not now aware of anything in the Bible that addresses JFK and suggests that he is alive today (except that he could be alive and in heaven).
rhutchin is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 11:32 AM   #128
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullwind View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
No. You read the text different from the way that I read the text. I don't think we have agreed on what the text actually says and could then determine who is reading it different from the text.
Right. I'm reading what it actually says, you're speculating on what it might possibly have meant in order that your preconceptions might be right.
What you are reading is a translation that you then understand according to your 21st century mindset. I am reading the text to be consistent with everything else I find in the Bible. We use different methods to understand what the Bible is saying. You are not just reading the text. You are reading the text and then telling what you think it means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullwind View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
Interesting twist that you throw into the pot. What would make you want to do that? Are you being consistent with the argument you have been making?
Yes. Can you show differently? Given the rarity of triplets it seems reasonable to conclude that the three were born within a few years of each other.
So, that which is "reasonable to conclude" is the test that you think we should apply. How do you think we could determine that which is "reasonable to conclude" over that which is not "reasonable to conclude"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullwind View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
So, would you conclude that Abram was born to Terah when Terah was 70?
Thats what I would take from it. But I'll bet you think you have a clever reason to conclude otherwise.
Well, elsewhere we are told that Terah died at the age of 205 and that Abraham then left to go to Canaan. In addition, Abraham is described as being 75 years old at that time. Thus, we would conclude that Terah was 130 when Abraham was born (Gen 11-12). Should we incorporate this information into out understanding of Gen 11:26 or just go with your gut, 21st century take on the verse? I don't know if this is "clever" but it is a different way of looking at the situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullwind View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
Sure reasonable according to our western way of thinking. Not necessarily true or reasonable according to the Hebrew way of thinking.
So all you have to do is come up with some actual evidence that what the bible actually says isn't what it means. Funny how you accuse "evolutionists" of using just-so stories, but they work just fine for supporting your particular interpretation of the bible.
How about if we treat each the same. Collect all the information that the Bible offers on an issue and try to understand the issue based on all that information. Similarly, collect all the information that biology offers on an issue and do the same regarding the claims of evolutionists.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 12:15 PM   #129
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
What you are reading is a translation that you then understand according to your 21st century mindset. I am reading the text to be consistent with everything else I find in the Bible. We use different methods to understand what the Bible is saying. You are not just reading the text. You are reading the text and then telling what you think it means.
Which is exactly what you are doing. You just think you have more justification for your opinion. You're still ignoring the ages given, you're just assuming it means something else because otherwise you would be wrong.

Quote:
So, that which is "reasonable to conclude" is the test that you think we should apply. How do you think we could determine that which is "reasonable to conclude" over that which is not "reasonable to conclude"?
Oh, I don't know. How about just going by what the text says?

Quote:
Well, elsewhere we are told that Terah died at the age of 205 and that Abraham then left to go to Canaan. In addition, Abraham is described as being 75 years old at that time. Thus, we would conclude that Terah was 130 when Abraham was born (Gen 11-12). Should we incorporate this information into out understanding of Gen 11:26 or just go with your gut, 21st century take on the verse? I don't know if this is "clever" but it is a different way of looking at the situation.
Oh, yeah. I'd forgotton about that little contradiction. No wonder you brought up that specific case. Well, my 21st century take is that one contradiction doesn't mean all the other ages must be wrong too. If you saw a hundred clocks, 99 of which said the same time, would you assume the one oddball is right? Seems like that is what you're doing.

Quote:
How about if we treat each the same. Collect all the information that the Bible offers on an issue and try to understand the issue based on all that information. Similarly, collect all the information that biology offers on an issue and do the same regarding the claims of evolutionists.
Sure. Shall we apply the same standard to the Iliad? How about Beowulf? The Ramayana?

You are assuming the biblical accounts are true when that has not been accepted. Whether the bible says the earth is 6,000 or 15,000 years old has nothing whatsoever to do with the literal mountains of evidence that thay are both wrong.
Gullwind is offline  
Old 06-08-2011, 02:03 PM   #130
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunawalk View Post

I thought you were in favor of Moses' resurrection. I am not referring to the resurrection of the elect. The bible does refer to Moses's resurrection in Jude 1:9

.I think this is tne verse Philo was referring to.
The other verse is Mark 9:2-4
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
Paul says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinth 5:8). So, any person whom God has saved goes to be with God on death. This applied to Moses as it does to all others. However, I don't think this is the resurrection that the Bible speaks of at the end of time.
I was not talking about the resurrection at the end of time. The Bible appers to be saying Moses was resurrected according to Jude 1:9 and in Mark 9:2-4 where it has Moses and Elijah speaking to Jesus at the tranfigration. it it implying Moses was resurrected at an earlier time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunawalk View Post
I think you misunderstood me.If I say JFK survived his assassination and still alive today according to the word of the LORD. Would you believe that statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
[Only if you could substantiate your claim by proper reference to the Scripture. I am not now aware of anything in the Bible that addresses JFK and suggests that he is alive today (except that he could be alive and in heaven).
1.Let me try again lets say A reporter writing for the NY Times wrote this statement Acorrding to the word of the LORD, JFK HAS surrivived his assassination and is still alive today. would you believe that statement?
2. If I can prove my claim that there is a prophesy in the bible about JFK surrviving his assassination and the still alive today, why would you still believe it desite evidence of the film of his death funernal and burial?
3. why is any claim in the bible like Noah 's Ark true?
Lunawalk is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:08 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.