cjack

As to the standard of IIDB:

Magus, it says right on the front page that this is a place for people who reject the need for supernatural explanations. If you're going to get your panties in a wad over the fact that we don't accept your god, then that's your damage.

Your second statement says nothing more than "it is possible that I might be wrong, but I'm absolutely sure that I'm right."


Well its impossible to find the evidence to convince me God doesn't exist, and sorry if i'm not overwhelmed by the unconvincing evidence surround human evolution , abiogenesis, and the big bang. Just as you are not convinced of the evidence of the Bible or God (i know you claim there is no evidence, but archaeology has confirmed tons of events in the Bible). The validity of evidence is really in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure seebs would say something about evidence being based on individual perception.

As has been mentioned before, it is easy to believe that God exists, yet still realize that parts of the Bible are "just so" stories.

That's why I brought up Judaism earlier. My Jewish friend takes his faith very seriously. He believes just as strongly as you do in the God of Abraham. Yet he doesn't feel the need to take the Torah literally. He thinks such a notion is absurd! Like I said before, he (along with other Jews I've talked to) considers the historicity of the stories in the Torah to be of secondary importance. For them (and for a lot of people) its the message that matters.

The best part is that he doesn't push his faith on others or condemn other people who don't share it.



Well, there is room for the evidence to change in your case. The natural world is subject to study and change. The only way for my beliefs to be challenged won't happen until at death.


So why shouldn't the supernatural world be subject to study, or even change?

As for challenging your beliefs, what is so wrong about that? If your beliefs can't stand up to a challenge, then they aren't really that strong, are they?

Your "all or nothing" attitude gets in the way, of course. You've pretty much said that if you allow yourself to even THINK for one moment that even ONE WORD of the Bible might not be literally true, your whole belief system will collapse like a house of cards.

THAT is why you reject evolution. Not because the evidence is lacking, but because it would require you to accept that Genesis is not literally true.

Yet there are plenty of good Christians who do just that. They have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and have been able to reconcile the fact that maybe all the stories in the Bible aren't literally true.


Are they going to Hell, Magus?

Does God work that way? I mean, you claim to know so much more about God than I do...please instruct me on this point.

Can you accept evolution and still be saved?

Will God deny you entrance into heaven if you don't believe in the literal truth of the Flood?

Is God so anal retentive that He will only allow into heaven those who believed in every single word of the Bible, or is there "wiggle room" for people who trod down the dangerous path of INTERPRETATION???

After all, that's what you're arguing here. You're not debating whether or not there is sufficient evidence for a global flood. You're not debating whether or not a global flood and an ark with all the species contained within is a physical impossibility or not.

You're arguing that Salvation is impossible unless you accept every single word of the Bible as literally true. It isn't enough that you accept Jesus...no, you've got to go the whole nine yards!

That's a pretty narrow view, don't you think?


People on this board just can't end a post without tacking on a witty repartee or insult can they?

Hey, we're infidels, remember? You've doled out your own fair share of insults. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

rlogan

It is admitedly poor scholarship to rely on an internet source, but in the interest of brevity I offer this:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html

Why can there be two differing creation stories right off the bat (a "doublet"), inconsistencies within the flood story (animals by twos vs. by sevens, days of the flood not adding up right) and so forth if there is one author inerrantly writing down verbatim what God tells him?

If there is more than one regional oral tradition being consolidated a great deal of the "inconsistencies" and "doublets" are explained by a redactor doing his (their?) best at preservation of both traditions. Instead of scoffing at the apparent stupidity we have a reasonable historical explanation.

Accepting that view is beneficial, but it comes at the cost of dropping the literalist stance. (That's a COST?)

Another very good REASON to drop the defense of the Ark as literal.


Cheers, everyone...

Magus55

They are not differing creation stories. Iv'e answered this countless times, as have every apologetics site on the web. There are no inconsistencise with the amount of animals or flood days. Re-read more carefully.

The only ones who really see inconsistancies are atheists and since when does their opinion on the Bible make a bit a difference?
The Bible and things of God are foolishness to those that are perishing. It will never make sense to atheists. It makes sense to Christians.

MrDarwin

We've been down this road many times before, with many different "literalist" Christians, who insist that even the most obvious and embarrassing contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible are no such thing. (For one of the better examples, see Exodus 34 for the "other Ten Commandments" that most Christians have apparently never heard of. I wonder how much "sense" this makes to Magus? But it kinda makes the rest of us wonder what was really on those stone tablets, doesn't it?)

Doctor X

Oh my . . . so much ground to cover. . . .

Biff the Not Terribly Immaculate:

Well, we can go crazy on this. Some faith healers know they are fake--take Peter Pophoff . . . please . . . who used radios to "hear from god" what his wife told him about members of the audience. The audience thought he was real. Some behave as "loyal liars"--to quote Martin Gardner--where they tell "a little lie" in the interest of their faith. However, since the writers were willing to change and redact stories, they did not see them as sacred as later readers have.

rlogan:

Now let me introduce you to this thing called Unjust Suffering. . . .

If you have not read it, I recommend Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman. I would also recommend it--I probably have a few times--to Magus as well. This gives a nice summary of the Documentary Hypothesis.

Which brings us to Mr. Kint. . . .

Magus:

You probably write about the OT texts since the NT texts were written in Greek. Nevertheless, Chronicles rewrites the Deuteronomistic History, for example. This is more than "translation." You may not want to believe in the multi-authorship of the Pentateuch; however, if you wish to convince anyone you must address the Documentary Hypothesis.

Returning to the NT--one text has Junior born on one date . . . another on another . . . roughly ten years apart. This is a bit more than a poor translation!

You are simply predetermining what you will learn. You have declared, in effect, you will not respond to evidence contrary to what you want to believe. That is fine, but you cannot fault posters who disagree with you because they do consider the evidence. Thus, frankly, if you considered the scholarly evidence you would not make this statement:

as previously demonstrated there is no tradition of inspiration in the OT texts. Furthermore, this does not explain the multiple versions of stories in the OT--why would YHWH/El or the Elohim need to make changes? Updates?

You have, on the contrary, been shown the logical and physical inconsistencies in the stories--do you believe that El cut the heavens and earth appart, since "cut" is the proper translation of the Hebrew--and we now know you wish us to consider proper translation?

Very well . . . do not believe me. . . .

I Hereby Issue a CHALLENGE:

Consistent with the ancient and noble arts of smashing people and things, I ask you to read:

Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman.

obtain the other book, The Bible Unearthed through the Amazon deal you can have fun reading about the archaeology and why people challenge the Exodus and Conquest . . . apparently YHWH/El got these wrong when he dictated them.

Anyways, Friedman's book will introduce you to E, J, P, and others. It will explain why scholars have for centuries recognized the multi-authorship.

Now, you may sit there and contend that a bible scholar will not convince you. You may even read it and state you are still unconvinced.

However, you will kindly explain, specifically, why Friedman and his supporting references are wrong.

This will dispense with such frank wastes of bandwidth as:

Yes, you have made this claim . . . and it has been shot down many times. You have only fallen back on Ipse dixit. Well . . . here is your chance . . . look at Friedman's division of the Flood Myth and refute it.

Or this:

Poisoning the Well. Very well . . . prove it.

You should give credit to the one who made the quote. Nevertheless, Christians do not exactly interpret the OT properly--seeing Messianic prophecy where there is none--being a Nazareen does not mean you are from Nazareth!

Yet, do not take my word for it. Read the book, refute it. Address the actual argumets of scholarship.

Otherwise, I am afraid, you merely preach and that does not feed the bulldog, so to write.

--J.D.

rlogan

Thanks McDarwin. I hadn't caught this before:

The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke"

Well, of course they are radically different. Does yeast give God a tummy ache?

Magus, thank you for answering again. You've been with me all the way on this thread and I am grateful for it. I'm a newby and I've not seem some of your previous responses. So forgive me.

McDarwin has put his finger squarely on what justifies getting angry at organized religion. This is a perfect example of church leaders as politicians hiding a massive crack in the dam and telling the downstream townspeople that there is no crack.

Magus55

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rlogan
[B]Thanks McDarwin. I hadn't caught this before:

The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke"

Well, of course they are radically different. Does yeast give God a tummy ache?

Magus, thank you for answering again. You've been with me all the way on this thread and I am grateful for it. I'm a newby and I've not seem some of your previous responses. So forgive me.

What do you mean? Are you referring to MrDarwin's reference to the commandments?

They are different commandments because God reassigned them based on how the Israelites were acting and whether they were following them. A friend explained this quite well on another board, but it was a while ago so not sure I can find it. It makes perfect sense, but I just don't remember how she worded it.

Of course, Exodus has nothing to do with the flood or the ark so we are off topic.

Doctor X

Actually, the Exodus is written by authors who wrote some of the Flood Myths . . . so it is a bit on topic. I made reference to the Exodus and the Conquest because someone can buy at a discount a recent work that discusses the archaeology of it.

--J.D.

MrDarwin

So God was lying when he/she/it said, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke."? Were the commandments the same, or were they different? (And regardless, if the second set of commandments were the ones that God intended them to follow--and they are quite clearly identified in Exodus 34 as the "ten commandments"--then shouldn't those be the ones that Christians follow and cite?)

BTW I don't see this as off-topic at all, as it has to do with the credibility, consistency, and reliability of the Bible, which you keep saying literally true throughout, even when it contradicts itself, as it clearly does here.

rlogan

Absolutely on topic. Exodus is a chapter purporting to explain history. The credibility of the Ark and the flood story is disparaged with impeachments elsewhere in the same text.

One impeachment of specific testimony may not be enough to impeach the witness as a whole. But you are in a very tough spot, my friend, if we go further with this line of inquiry. The whole chapter is at risk.

I think you should plea bargain. Give up the Ark and I'll call off the dogs.