Jack the Bodiless

<edited by moderator> That is not a better translation from the original Hebrew (can you demonstrate that it is? I thought not), nor is it a better translation of the intent of the author. It is a more convenient interpretation by Ed. You twist the Bible without a twinge of conscience, secure in the delusion that anything you imagine is "official".

I suspect that this sort of delusion is essential for organized religions to exist at all. It begins when somebody starts inventing nonsense and asserting that it's the "Word of God".
We KNOW what the Hebrews thought it was! It was a great crystal dome!

And English speakers use "expanse" to refer to a surface. Your own native language is... ?
The phrase "he lay hold of her" is the Biblical indication of rape. Furthermore, I have already pointed out that this verse does NOT refer to consensual sex, because that's already been covered in Exodus 22:16-17.
There was NO death penalty for rape.

This is clear from the fact that the rape of a betrothed handmaiden is considered OK if the rapist gives a sacrificial ram to the priest: "and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him" (Leviticus 19:22). So even adulterous rape is a minor misdemeanour if the victim is a betrothed handmaiden rather than a free woman!
<edited by moderator>
Yes, it does. <edited by moderator>

The ONLY reason you call these references "allegorical" is because you know they're not true. There is absolutely no scriptural basis for this assertion.
No such post exists. Anyone can check that.
...Which, of course, describes a flat Earth covered by a Firmament dome to which the stars are attached.

Ed, you still haven't explained the PURPOSE behind these obviously and blatantly false statements. You're trying to make Christians look dumb? I still don't get it.

lpetrich

Ed:
In the case of speeding God uses His natural laws. In case of David he supernaturally tells him why his child died.

So if god slacks off in deciding who will die, we will become indestructible. We will be able to survive superfast collisions because god is too lazy to make us die as a result of them.

ng: The only people you will ever convince that the Bible is consistent are people who are totally ignorant of what it says or people like you Ed, who deny what is written so as to preserve the safety and comfort of your faith

Faith in the true God is not safe or comfortable. Read about the apostle Paul's life.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

Jack the Bodiless

...Hmmm. A moderator has edited out my reference to your tactics as "lying".

However, this can be easily settled. I'll use this example:
I say that there is no such "contextual evidence".

You say there is.

So provide it.

Starboy

Jack, the moderators appear to be cracking down perhaps too much. If I were to call a poster a murderer or a philanderer without anything to back it up, well then they would have a point. But this thread is more than enough evidence for me to conclude that Ed is at least lying to himself, if not to everyone else.

Starboy

NOGO

The absurdity of this statement should not escape anyone except you, Ed.

God uses his natual laws ???
That is like saying that if you drop a grand piano it will fall.
And if someone happens to be in the way he will be killed.
So God produces accidents to kill people.

Thabsurdity of this idea is obvious.
First there is no correlation between accidental death, diseases etc and good and bad people. If you can demonstrate that only bad people get killed in accidents then you may have a point. That is this wrong should be apparent to even to you, Ed.
If evil people died more often than good people we would be living in a much better world. The only possible conclusion is that accidental deaths are random. If they are not please provide evidence of the contrary.

This also contradicts the fact that the innocent should not suffer or die for the sins of their fathers. If a just God wishes to punish a person he should punish that person not punish him by killing his son. Simple morality which you are forced to deny simply to defend the Bible in the absurd way that you have chosen to defend it. I doubt that a majority of Christians would agree with you on this. Then again fundamentalists think that they are the only true Christians but they are an abomination.


There is a lot you do not understand.




Based on observation.


You ultimate problem with this is as follow.
The bible only mentions one reason that the Amalekites were massacred. The stated reason will always outweigh any unstated reason. Otherwise why state only this one reason. The only reason you look for other reasons is that you cannot live with the stated reason.

When the reason is stated clearly why look around for contextual evidence to come and contradict the clearly stated reason?
I will come back to this below.


My interpretation is not bizarre, it is obvious.


Strike three, you're out.
1) John 3:16 does not link salvation to the Garden of Eden and
2) contradicts Mt15:24 and
3) finally this statement is not from Jesus.

This is so typical of people like you, Ed.
When the Bible contradicts you think that you have a choice and take whatever preserves you faith. With the Amalekite massacre obviously it contradict the image that this stated reason gives of Yahweh. So you reject the stated reason as unimportant and look for something else.

here agan Jesus himself says that he is only there for the Children of the House of Israel. You do not like this statement so you prefer the statement of someone else who implies that Jesus was there for everybody. But this statement may have been formulated later when non-Jews began to be converted to the faith. What Jesus said should outweigh anybody else's opinion.

Paul murdered Christians and was seeking forgiveness because he was afraid of eternal punishment.

Ed

This is not my criteria or the bible's criteria. It is the criteria of academia. Let a roman historian try to get published in a journal on ancient hebrew history.

Quote:

jtb: And, by exactly the same argument, it was still not connected until he had HIS son. Nor was it connected until HE had HIS son. And so on... Ed: Exactly. The age mentioned is when he had his first child that led to that descendant. jtb: No, because the chain is not established until the named descendant is born!

No, the chain is established when his direct ancestors are being born and living and having children.

Quote:

jtb: And there is plenty of EVIDENCE that there was no global Flood. But that's best dealt with in the Evolution/Creation forum. Ed: Given that the flood occured so long ago, ie 2 mya, it is expected there would not be much physical evidence, though there is a great deal of textual evidence. Most ancient societies have global flood stories. jtb: There would be overwhelming geological and biological evidence of a global Flood 2 million years ago if it happened, but there is not. There is no worldwide geological formation from this period, and there was no global mass-extinction event in this period.

Since it only lasted a year most of the evidence would be eroded away in 2my. Actually there is some indirect evidence that it may have altered the tilt of the earth because 2 mya is when the ice ages began.

Quote:

jtb: And Flood stories similar to the Genesis one are confined to the Middle-East. There are other Flood stories (without the Ark and so forth) from other cultures, but human civilizations arise on rivers, where there is sufficient water for irrigation. Rivers tend to flood, and flood plains are fertile farming land.

No, not all flood stories are confined to the middle east.

Quote:

jtb: No, you are lying AGAIN. There was NO death penalty for non-adulterous fornication. Ed: You are right in most cases. The man usually had to pay a dowry and then marry the girl. jtb: So why do you keep trying to pretend otherwise?

Some punishments depend on the situation and the ruling of the judge. Generally the bible mentions the maximum penalty and then the judge rules on a gradient relevant to the situation.

Quote:

jtb: You don't actually need MANY women to act as temple prostitutes. Even if only SOME women would be willing to do this, that is enough. Especially if they thought it was holy. People do lots of bizarre things if they think it pleases their deity. Ed: Most of the women that engage in prostitution voluntarily are psychologically vulnerable, ie deep seated insecurities and very poor self image so it would still be a form of psychological slavery. jtb: It only becomes slavery if they are FORCED to do it. That's what slavery MEANS. You have provided no evidence that temple prostitutes were slaves.

Not all of them were but many were psychologically slaves, thru the force known as psychological coercion.

Quote:

jtb: Furthermore, there is plenty of Biblical evidence that "handmaidens" were sex slaves. So you can't argue that the Hebrews were morally superior to other ancient peoples.

Where?

lpetrich

Jack the Bodiless:
Please cite either the Biblical verse which forbids Biblical scholars from learning about Rome, or a guide to historians which forbids them from studying the Bible.

Ed:
This is not my criteria or the bible's criteria. It is the criteria of academia. Let a roman historian try to get published in a journal on ancient hebrew history.

His Eddianness seems to be mixing up the two Testaments. The New Testament was written in the Roman Empire. The Old Testament ("ancient hebrew history") was not.

Ed on Noah's Flood:
Since it only lasted a year most of the evidence would be eroded away in 2my. ...

Except that it would leave behind evidence in the sediments of appropriate age.

Ed:
Generally the bible mentions the maximum penalty and then the judge rules on a gradient relevant to the situation.

Where does the Bible explicitly state this procedure? It does not say penalties of "at most" this, that and the other thing.

Jack the Bodiless

No, it is NOT "the criteria of academia". If a Roman historian also has knowledge of ancient Hebrew history, he can get an article published. There is no rule that disqualifies historians who ALSO have knowledge of Rome.

And you have failed to explain your choice of an astronomer to interpret Genesis.
Not possible, because it doesn't lead to YOU yet. You can't have it both ways. If the chain WILL lead to you, then this is equally true when the first ancestor was born.

Nor have you addressed the fact that this bizarre argument was invented solely to move the date of the Flood.
Flood stories similar to the Genesis one are confined to the Middle East.
Genesis 16:1-3, Genesis 30:3-4, Genesis 30:9. I suggest you also read the SAB's Insults to Women section for an overview of Hebrew "morality" in the treatment of women: I haven't even mentioned the offering of concubines and daughters for sexual purposes too.

A reminder:

Quote:

Actually a better translation for "firmament" is expanse, which can mean open space in addition to something solid. The contextual evidence points to open space being the best translation.

I say that there is no such "contextual evidence".

You say there is.

So provide it.

Ed

Guess.

Quote:

Ed: Actually some of the beginnings of fossilization have been empirically observed so this analogy fails. jtb: Complete fossilization hasn't been observed, and fossilization of dinosaur bones has never been observed. Therefore, according to "Eddian logic", dinosaurs didn't exist. This refusal to extrapolate into the past is exactly what you do with the evidence for evolution happening in the present. Ed: Its been observed by dinosaurs. No, because even partial macroevolution has never been observed so extrapolating fossilization is more rational than extrapolatiing macroevolution in the past. jtb: "Partial macroevolution" is microevolution, and it has certainly been observed. We also have all those embarrassing transitional fossils showing stages of "partial macroevolution".

Fraid not.

Quote:

jtb: No now-living observer saw Mohammed Atta's men at the controls of the airliners that hit the WTC and the Pentagon. So it's an "unwarranted assumption" that they were deliberately crashed into those buildings? Ed: No, they were videotaped boarding the plane, ie empirical evidence, so this analogy fails miserably. jtb: Nobody doubts that those men were passengers. But "Eddian logic" allows us to say that the assumption that they flew the planes is unwarranted, despite all the clues pointing in that direction. Simply waving away vast amounts of empirical evidence is something you do a LOT of. Ed: The difference is that there are very few clues pointing to macroevolution. jtb: The depth of your self-delusion is fascinating. Surely you know there is FAR more evidence for evolution than for the "Atta theory"? Where are the charred skeletons of Atta's men in the flight-deck area of the planes (analogous to the fossil record)? Where are the fingerprints of Atta's men on the plane's controls (analogous to the DNA evidence)? Where is the video footage from inside other panes, showing other al-Qaida operatives hijacking them and flying them into buildings (analogous to the direct observation of evolution still happening)?

No, we have their diaries describing exactly what they were going to do, this is pretty close to something like having empirical observations of macroevolution.

Quote:

jtb: And what about the rival theories? The theory that the CIA or Mossad flew the planes by remote-control is technically plausible and doesn't require magic, unlike creationism.

What magic? It is simply an adequate cause producing an effect. We don't know exactly how he did it but that doesnt necessarily mean that he did it with what we would call magic, especially since magic implies an act of illusion.

Quote:

jtb: Even if magic is allowed, the theory that evil leprechauns caused the disaster is STILL better than creationism, because there is no evidence AGAINST the existence of evil leprechauns. There is no "Book of Leprechauns" stuffed with contradictions and bogus historical claims, and there are no scientific findings that contradict leprechaunism. It is hypocrisy of the highest order to claim "insufficient evidence" for evolution while accepting the MUCH more flimsy "Atta theory"!

No, evil leprechauns can be eliminated as the cause of the universe using laws of logic.

Ed

No, its just that most people treat it like any other book, ie they assume it is a unified whole and make up their mind about whether it came from God. Skeptics chop it up into out of context chunks.

Quote:

lp: Also, about that early-evolution stuff, I'm surprised that Ed has not commented on it. I have long been interested in evolutionary relationships, and I find work like this most interesting.

As I stated earlier, evolution does not have an explanation for the Cambrian explosion.

Quote:

lp: What is interesting is how some traditional views have survived, while others have not. Protostomia and Deuterostomia have survived, but Protostomia is now divided in two, into Ecdysozoa and Lophotrochozoa. Two phyla have long traditionally seemed very close, the Arthropoda and the Annelida, on account of their having segments and per-segment limbs. However, they are split up between those two superphyla. Annelids and mollusks may seem a less likely close relation than annelids and arthropods, but marine ones have very similar-looking "trochophore" planktonic larvae. Likewise, hemichordates and echinoderms may also seem like an odd couple, with hemichordates looking more than chordates proper than like echinoderms. But like A's and M's, H's and E's also have similar-looking planktonic larvae. One intriguing conundrum is how echinoderms had acquired their fivefold symmetry; why do starfish have five fat limbs?

Yes, there are no transitions showing a movement from bilateral symmetry to radial symmetry. This is another problem for evolution.