excreationist

David Mathews:
Was this "Jonah" a person who lived in a big fish for three days? If not, then it isn't really the same Jonah that Jesus and the book of Jonah is talking about.

How was Lot's wife killed then? Was she killed by God by a heart attack or something? I guess Lot just assumed she was turned into a pillar of salt because she stopped following him.

You don't seem to have much faith that the Bible is a historical document...

I basically agree with what they're saying!
"Scripture had supreme authority for the Old Testament saints, Christ and His apostles in all matters it touched upon. In particular, for Christ, what Scripture said, God said. Christ also directly affirmed many of the passages attacked by liberals. The charge that Christ was mistaken or merely accommodating to His hearers is impossible for a consistent Christian to hold..."

For a less-biassed link see <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran3.htm" target="_blank">Biblical passages about inspiration and inerrancy</a>.

Basically these passages give the impression that the Bible says that it is flawless, etc. (i.e. it doesn't contain exaggerated genealogies, etc) Anyway, if <a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/bible/genealogies.htm" target="_blank">the ages</a> were exaggerated, that would mean that there were about 20 ancestors before Isaac, which would take about 800 years or less. And Jesus had either 54 or 40 ancestors up to Abraham. Assuming he had 54, that's 2160 years, so Adam was created in about 3000 B.C.... but Jericho is supposed to be about 10,000 years old! So anyway, do you think that Jesus's genealogies are accurate, and that Adam was "created" in about 3000 B.C.? Or perhaps you'd rather not put much thought into what you really believe about the Bible.

I am asking what you think what message the authors of the Bible intended to get across... to me it seems that in the stories, the demons were as real as the disciples - they even had conversations with Jesus and interacted with everyone... it doesn't seem that the authors (of many, many Bible books that involve demons/spirits) meant those things to just be a metaphor or something.

Of course an infinite God would be more than the Bible, but surely this supreme being could make a straight-forward book that is clear whether it is being literal or not. So maybe the bit about spreading the message of the gospel wasn't a literal command... maybe Jesus didn't literally die - or literally ascend into Heaven, or literally walk through walls or literally ever exist on earth... maybe God doesn't literally answer people's prayers. Maybe the Holy Spirit doesn't literally exist. In fact, according the the Christian research group, <a href="http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PageCategory.asp?CategoryID=6" target="_blank">Barna</a>, "Among the segments of the population more likely than others to deny the existence of the Holy Spirit as a living entity are Catholics (73%), non-Christians (68%), and non-whites (68%). (2001) A majority of all born again Christians reject the existence of the Holy Spirit (52%). (2001)" Maybe the afterlife doesn't literally exist. In fact, most of the Jewish priests in Jesus's time were <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13323a.htm" target="_blank">Sadducees</a> who didn't believe in the afterlife - or demons, angels or the intervention of God. (They were deists I guess)

wordsmyth

Let us not forget exactly which points you are supposed to be defending. First you asserted the following…

Lacking any evidence to support this assertion, you back-pedaled to the following statement …

You then made this assertion…

Again you have not provided any valid evidence that muslims in general consider their God the same as the xian and/or jewish God.

This statement leads me to believe that possibly you are beginning to understand why your previous assertion is fallacious. In particular it is your last statement that leads me to believe this.

Whoa! Two for two. I’m impressed.

Since muslims do not hold to the trinitarian concept of the God of Abraham and xians do, it is only logical to conclude that muslims do not consider their God the same as the xian deity.

No, based on the context of each event the act of Jesus “casting out demons” was not the focus of those accounts. However, because various gospel authors record these events it is evidence that “demon possession” and Jesus’ ability to “cast them out” was a common and popular belief among early xians.

It is fallacious to attribute the actions of Jesus in the context of these events as having power over mental illness, even if that is what it was, due to the fact it is abundantly clear based on the context that the author(s) believed he was casting out actual demonic beings or evil spirits and not just curing mental illness.

I'm curious to know whether you consider those stories in which Jesus is reported to be "casting out demons" are allegories or not.

Religion has motivated people to more extreme acts of hate and violence than it ever has love or benevolence and I challenge you to produce any evidence to the contrary.

Science can provide evidence to support its claims where religion cannot. Truth is a powerful resource and the only one science needs.

You are quite right. Ignorance abounds regardless of age, race, sex, or religion. I was simply after an acknowledgement from you that some people would indeed go to extreme lengths to defend their beliefs even when presented with evidence that those beliefs are not logical or rational.

rainbow walking

Hello Rainbow Walking,

Hello David,



That’s a curious position David. One that Genesis itself does not support.
According to Genesis men, (prior to the deluge), lived almost a thousand years. I don't know if those years were equivalent to our concept of a year today but their bookkeeping skills were impeccable judging from the genealogies. For instance, the oldest recorded man, Methusaleh, actually perished in the flood. Here's the facts. I'll try to lay it out as simply as I can. First the genealogy from which this proposition is derived:

25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:
26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Also


Genesis 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.


Here's how it works out:

(1). Methuselah was 187 yrs.
old when Lamech was born. 187

(2). Lamech was 182 yrs.
old when Noah was born + 182

(3). 187 added to 182 equals =369
(4). Noah was 500 yrs.
old when his three sons were born +500

(5). 369 plus 500 equals

=869

(6). According to Gen. 7:6
Noah was 600 yrs. old when
the flood started

(7). That equals an additional
100 years. +100

(8). This adds up to a grand total of..............................=969

Genesis 5:27 says Methuselah was 969 years old when he died. The same time frame as when the flood began. Either he perished in the flood or in the same year.

Let's go thru the numbers again just to be sure we've got this right.

(1). Methuselah was 187 yrs. old when he became a father

(2). He was 369 yrs. old when he became a grandfather. Noah was born.

(3). He was 869 yrs. old when he became a great grand father. Noah was 500 yrs. old

(4). Noah was 600 yrs. old when the flood began, adding an additional 100 years to Methuselah’s age when he first became a great grandfather making him 969 yrs. old when he died.


Now you can say what you want about the allegory of Genesis but these numbers tell a different story. The math doesn't deviate. Methuselah perished in the same year as the flood. Genealogies are not prophecies. They are recorded after the fact. This particular genealogy would have had to have been preserved by Noah and who better than Noah would have known when his own grandfather died. If Genesis was meant to be taken allegorically then please explain why the authors (unknown) went to so much trouble to align the math with the timing of the flood? It just wouldn’t make sense to tell a fable to make a point and go to so much trouble with something as insignificant to a fable, just to make the point. Clearly the author(s) of Genesis believed they were recording a historical record and not a fable to communicate a message allegorically.

There is a highly favored hypothesis that Genesis was a redaction created by combining two separate Genesis accounts. I believe it’s called the Documentary Hypothesis but the name and credentials of its author eludes me at the moment.

excreationist

About demons again:

<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/dem_bibl.htm" target="_blank">Bible passages about demons and evil spirits</a>
There are many O.T. passages about them as well as non-gospel N.T. passages about them.
e.g.
James 2:19: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder."

It seems that James (the passage's author) is saying that demons are persons who are capable of having theological beliefs.

Mark 5:2-15 is an example of Jesus having a conversation with an evil spirit that has possessed a man. e.g. Mark 5:12 says "The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.""

In Mark 5:1 and Mark 5:20 it talks about geographical locations (the region of the Gerasenes and the Decapolis). That story appears to be part of the general Jesus narrative and not some vision or something (like the temptation of Jesus by Satan may have been).

In Matthew 25:31-46 it is talking about the sheep and the goats. Those animals would be symbols of the other things he mentions - the righteous and the others. In verse 41 he says "Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."" (The devil's angels are demons) The sheep and the goats symbols have already been used - so those words would be literal so the devil and his angels are supposed to literally exist. (I mean it is pretty confusing having two layers of symbolism and not hinting that Satan doesn't exist, etc)

David Mathews

Hello Everyone,

Before everyone begins bringing up all their complaints against the Bible and supposed errors in it, I would like to say:

1. The Bible is not God, God is not the Bible.

Secondarily, I will also say:

2. The Bible does not claim infallibility, nor does it claim inerrancy.

In addition:

3. The ancient people had a far difference concept of history than modern people. They were not devoted to the concept of objective history.

4. It is impossible to prove that the Bible is infallible, nor is it proof of that claim necessary.

5. It is impossible to prove that the Bible is inerrant, nor is it proof of that claim necessary.

That is my view on the Bible.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Philosoft,

David: Is it possible for atheists to be irrational and unreasonable?

Do you believe that atheists can make mistakes, misinterpret evidence, allow their preferences to determine the outcome of their rational investigations and otherwise favor their own subjective ideas over objective evidence?

Of course, atheists can do any of these. Atheists are fallible.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello excreationist,

David: Perhaps you are correct, perhaps you are mistaken. You have to make your own choices for your own reasons.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Rainbow walking,

David: The documentary hypothesis is actually more complicated that you are suggesting above. I have a lot of respect for textual criticism and higher criticism and will not presume to question their conclusions.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello excreationist,

I am not devoted either to demonology or exorcism and so don't have much concern about interpreting the illnesses that afflicted these people in the Bible.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Philosoft

Absolutely. I am often living proof.

<strong> Indubitably.

<strong> And David poorly dodges wordsmyth's point. Let me refresh: The fallibility of atheists has nothing whatsoever to do with this.