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 01-03-2004, 03:45 PM   #61
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Infidelettante
You are right Jmebob, religion is not needed for people to be good. But then I did not say it was. I said some religious thought encourages us to be better.


J
That's correct because without a mythology people would not even be. Good and evil are relative only in view of religion and out of this contradiction people are made.
 
Old 01-03-2004, 04:18 PM   #62
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: no where, uk
Posts: 4,677
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Infidelettante
The mythologies we call religion are collections of symbols and metaphors which still resonate in our unconscious mind. To discover and use them is to tap a source of human wisdom that may stretch back as far as 35,000 years.

Yes, I encourage you to reject religion if it does not work for you. I also encourage you to search out and employ those aspects of religion that do work.

JT
I'm sorry human wisdom in myths? Nice stories yes, symbolic and can be used to teach morals but where's the wisdom? Religions lead to bad thinking in people, not all but enough it's not healthy.
variant 13 is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 04:35 PM   #63
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ellsinore, Mo
Posts: 15
Default

Hey guys, I'm new here, but I am a Christian, and if you have any new questions/contradictions (because these older ones have been driven into the ground) I will try my best to share my veiws and you can tell me yours... ...I may be a little long getting back to you sometimes though... ...school and work may get in the way some times, but I will answer.
Picture is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 04:46 PM   #64
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 3,934
Default

Ok then Picture, how do you know that your version of Christianity is the correct one?
Ellis14 is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 04:51 PM   #65
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ellsinore, Mo
Posts: 15
Default

Oh, I saw this and had to say something:


However, Genesis 2:4-7 contradicts this order, as follows: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens - and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground - the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."


I don't know what translation this is, but in the King JAmes version, it says:

"4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God had made the earth and the heavens,

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground

7And 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."

That makes it sound like the plants grew not from man's work or because of rain, but from a mist that came out of the ground... ...but that's just me.
Picture is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 05:35 PM   #66
Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 10,056
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Picture
Oh, I saw this and had to say something:


However, Genesis 2:4-7 contradicts this order, as follows: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens - and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground - the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."


I don't know what translation this is, but in the King JAmes version, it says:

"4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God had made the earth and the heavens,

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground

7And 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."

That makes it sound like the plants grew not from man's work or because of rain, but from a mist that came out of the ground... ...but that's just me.
Lovely. But the question is not "how did the plants grow?" (although that is the basis of another whopper of a Bible creation contradiction, since plants are photosynthetic and the source for photosynthesis (the sun) had not yet been created). Instead, the question is why does Genesis 2 indicate that man was created at a time when there were no plants in the ground, while Genesis 1 says all plants were created on Day 3 andman was created on Day 6.

WMD
Wayne Delia is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 06:55 PM   #67
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 294
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
Why is it ridiculous? Because you don't agree with it? Your contradictions are pathetic attempts at convincing a Christian the Bible is errant.
Magnus, you aren't seriously suggesting that the bible is inerrant are you?


-mjbeam
mjbeam is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 07:12 PM   #68
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by mjbeam
Magnus, you aren't seriously suggesting that the bible is inerrant are you?


-mjbeam
I don't think translations are flawless, but yes I do think the original was inerrant, and translations are close enough.
Magus55 is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 07:17 PM   #69
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 294
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
I don't think translations are flawless, but yes I do think the original was inerrant, and translations are close enough.
Which original would that be?

-mjbeam
mjbeam is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 07:24 PM   #70
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by mjbeam
Which original would that be?

-mjbeam
The original scripture by the authors of the Bible. I'm fully aware that requires faith since those copies don't exist anymore, but you can't get any more accurate copies than the Bible has. No other work in history has been preserved as well as the Bible.
Magus55 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:41 PM.

Top

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