John A. Broussard

My apologies. I assumed, very incorrectly, that you regarded the bible as something more than a work of fiction which included a few historically based tidbits (as in Shakespeare's historic plays).

I fully agree with you that the bible is part of human heritage, deserves analysis, and is clearly a collection of folktales and not a historically accurate record of anything.

Again, I'm sorry I misread you.

ARISCE

Bravo John. It takes a great person to admit he is wrong!:thumbs:

Sheshbazzar I went to the Assembly of Yahweh site. I am impressed. I may even order a Bible from the site. Keep up the good work.

John A. Broussard

Shucks!

You make me feel gooey all over.

Atticus_Finch

Have you read Bruce Waltke's commentary on Genesis? Although he allows for the author's use of source texts and the presence of some later editors, he persuasively argues for a single compiler of Genesis and rebuts the documentary hypothesis.

Regards,

Finch

jdeverse

Hello all and good day, I would like to offer my understanding of the Biblical flood account in relation to the wording of the Bible. I would classify the Bible as containing the word of God, and not having the absolute word for word dictation of God. This is clearly evident in the numerous translations and sources that exist for the stories contained within. Since the goal of the bible is spiritual salvation, then these stories must have a spiritual meaning. Even if some of the words are changed the purpose of using a story to relate a spiritual message is that the message can remain intact through the passing of time. However, this does not indicate that the base story is untrue, but some inconsistencies can creep in.
I am not Muslim, but I believe in the divine mission of Muhammad. His re-revealed message contains some differences from the biblical account - namely that the flood was a local event, occurring in a valley, and the punishment was meant for the people who rejected Noah and threatened him with harm. Noah is considered a messenger like Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, and Abraham.
The single change in the biblical account that creates the need for so many fantastic beliefs is that the entire world should be punished and therefore the flood had to be world-wide. Now, without a second Genesis how do you explain all life on the planet today? You need to explain it away with Noah taking every single animal with him and the boat must become enormous to carry such a load. The flood now has to span an entire year instead of days or months and in the duty to obey the law and continue the sacrifice you need enough clean animals to fulfill the obligation.

To rephrase the account in the Koran, the flood is a local event, the ship is of a different design, but not much larger than ships common at the time, the people who are punished are only those locally who rejected the word of Noah and threatened his followers. Most important is that within the story of Noah, the Koran states that God never sends a calamity without a messenger.

As for a spiritual meaning, I put forth the following thoughts. The ark as described in the holy text is the religion or revelation of Noah; those who accepted his message were saved from drowning in the waters of passion and self. The flip side of this is that when a messenger of God appears the outpouring of his knowledge and revelation is likened to water. This water of knowledge is life everlasting to the faithful and a river of fire to the heedless. This revelation covers even the highest mountains (human institutions that people thought would stand forever). In the Koran, Noah's son says he will save himself by going to a mountain, but even there he is washed away. The metaphorical understanding is really made clear. The resting place of the ark (Noah's religion) is placed among the mountains of Ararat, or Cudi Dag after its initial tumultuous beginning.

I hope you find this interesting, look forward to discussion.

Justin

Sheshbazzar

Although it would be much easier, it would intellectually dishonest for me to not address your apology John, because the above paragraph as written does not at all accurately reflect my views on the Bible.
In that I actually DO "regard the bible as something more than a work of fiction..."
I accept and receive the Bible as being "inspired", and as still being inspiring, although my understanding and definition of that inspiration is not at all in line with fundamentalist understanding and definition. (as to it being absolutely factual, literally true, and free from all error)

Expressing my own position in my own words, I find the Bible, with all of its perceived faults, to be the perfect vehicle for the accomplishing of the will of the Power that inspired it, that men react to it positively or negatively, is the evidence of it effectively accomplishing the purpose for which it was penned.

Therefor, if your apology be confined only to the premise of the OP, and the ensuing dispute over those three verses, then I graciously accept it.
Whereas I cannot rightly accept an apology based on any further serious misunderstanding of my thoughts and intents. Feel free therefor to retract any or all of your offered apology, as your conscience requires.
Respectfully, Sheshbazzar

Sheshbazzar

Thanks for the kind words. I'll take this opportunity to repeat an earlier statement;

The appellation "G-D" is not a translation of the original Name occurring within the TaNaKa, and is nothing more than a rank substitute, not containing the meaning inherent in the original Name.
That organized religion has thus far managed to "get away" with this substitution, is one of the main factors that has allowed them to -"pull the wool"- over peoples eyes, that is by the switching of names they are able to delude and deceive many people into believing that their modern beliefs and practices are similar to, or are supported by the text of the Scriptures.

Restoring the original Name and titles to the text forces present day "believers" to confront just how alien the actual belief system of ancient Israel was, and is, to their present practices.
A few may try to claim otherwise, but by firsthand experience I can testify how by simply employing the true Scriptural Name and titles, I was identified as an enemy to their popular religion, being first scornfully rebuked, then ridiculed, and finally shunned, all because of a Name, that supposedly - "doesn't make any difference".
I love it when atheists employ the correct Scriptural terms in their writings and conversations as it is the most effective way to wake people up from the "G-d spell" that has ensnared them, far more effective than attacking the silly beliefs that they have so willingly accepted.
Better to just let them know the truth of how the ancient manuscripts actually read, so they can perceive that popular religion has managed to pull the greatest con game in history on them.
So likewise the name "Yahshua the messiah" (or any similar spelling or pronunciation) has power to unveil the distortions of the JC freaks.

gregor

Atticus

I haven't read Waltke's book on Genesis. However from the amazon excerpts it appears he takes Adam and Eve as historical persons, the creation narrative as a historical event, and other items as true history (I apologize if the excerpt conveyed the wrong impression).

If accurate, I don't think it's worth the read, as I'm not looking for a handbook to sunday sermons.

John A. Broussard

Now I'm completely confused.

How can a piece of writing that is divinely inspired contain one, single, solitary error?

Please explain.

Thank you.

Asha'man

Actually, that's easy. It just means that the author is not a competant communicator, or that the message is not worth the effort to transmit correctly.

Any lesser divine being, or a malevolent one, would explain this perfectly. So, I suggest that the Bible must have been written by Satan. :devil3: