happyboy

i have a question: if a soul ascends to heaven after it dies, can it breathe water? after all, beyond the dome of the sky lies the "waters above", so presumably to get to God's kingdom, a soul would have to go through a considerable amount of water (enough to flood the entire earth).

i only ask since souls can obviously be burned in hell, so it would stand to reason that if an immaterial soul can be burned and feel physical sensations such as pain, do they also breathe?

happyboy

Thomas Cassidy

I believe Genesis, as well as the rest of the bible, is literal where applicable, and metaphorical where applicable.I left the BB in disgust a long time ago. They argue in circles, and misapply much of what their opponent says. Much as you do. What the ancient Hebrews knew or believed is irrelevant to me. I don't base my understanding of anything on majority vote.None needed. Their opinions are irrelevant to me.

Thomas Cassidy

You seem confused. The issue was not whether the water was metaphorical, but whether the term "flood gates" was metaphorical. Nobody I know of has suggested the water was metaphorical.Something which is badly misnamed, common sense. The use of figures of speech is common in all languages, including Hebrew. When we study the grammar, syntax, and common usage of such languages in their histoical context we would be fools not to recognize the colloquial nature of the language in question. I highly recommend the excellent book, "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" by E. W. Bullinger, originally published by Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, in 1898, but currently in reprint by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Jimmy Higgins

I've got it then. Whatever helps your argument makes it either metaphorical or literal.

Alright, then lets ask this, was the global flood metaphorically global? Why or why not?

Oh and for studying the old testament, I'd recommend von Rad, Gunkel, Noth, which are all permanent parts of my home library.

pz

Why not? The bible uses one term, "flood gates", which you comfortably dismiss as metaphorical because you know that the idea of literal "flood gates" in the sky is silly.

Geologists also know that the idea of a literal world-wide flood is equally silly. That whole account of Noah and the flood is therefore metaphorical, right down to the claims about "water".
Let's also recognize that the authors, beyond merely being colloquial in their language, were also uninformed, misinformed, ignorant about the things they were writing about, and patently willing to make up stuff on the spot.

Thomas Cassidy

Unlike, you, of course.

pz

My fallibility (or unfounded rumors thereof) is not the issue here. Pointing out that I can make mistakes is not any kind of rebuttal to my point that the authors of the bible were "uninformed, misinformed, ignorant about the things they were writing about, and patently willing to make up stuff on the spot", nor does any admission of my few slight imperfections suddenly make the idea that the bible was written by inspired, all-knowing individuals plausible.

scigirl

Don't you just love this apologetics cop-out? Man I wish I could have done that when writing my master's thesis!

Hmm, this piece of data fits with my theory - it's in. This other piece doesn't fit, it's out.

Thomas - I have a question for you. The Bible was allegedly inspired by God, right? So each time you interpret what parts of the bible are literal and what parts are not, are you also being inspired by God each time you do this?

If not, is there an objective way that you decide what parts are valid and what parts are not? Is there a process for analyzing the bible rationally? And whose process is more 'objective' - the bapists, the catholics, who?? How do you make these distinctions?



scigirl

Thomas Cassidy

Ad hominem deleted.Each time I read the bible I exercise my God given intellect and aquired comprehension skills to delineate between that which is literal and that which is a figure of speech. Anyone who does not do so will have very little comprehension of either the spoken or written word. Our language is replete with such figures of speech.Of course. The same one you use every day! Jesus said "I am the door." Does that mean he was a literal door? Solid core? Double hinged? With a door knob and dead-bolt lock? What about that little peep hole to see who is on the other side? Would anyone in their right mind understand the phrase "I am the door" to be understood literally? How about "I am the way." A "way" is a roadway or path way. Was Jesus claiming to be a roadway? Freeway? Highway? Country road? Cow path? Of course not! It is obviously a figure of speech. How about "gates of hell." Literal gates? Wrought iron? Chain link? Single swing or double swing? Of course not! A figure of speech meaning "the authority of hell."

Oh, and, by the way, my bible doesn't mention a "floodgate" anywhere. It simply says "windows" of heaven. Obviously a figure of speech.I had noticed!

Okay, back to serious mode. Why do you hold me, and the Christian faith, to a higher standard than you hold yourself? You understand figures of speech when you hear them. Why do you assume I, and other Christians, are too stupid to do so? Or why do you assume we are too stupid to notice you have established one standard of understanding for yourself and another for us?

pz

Please look up the definition of ad hominem. None was made by scigirl.The only double-standard being propagated here is being done by christians themselves. I am perfectly willing to accept that much of the message of the bible is couched in metaphor and imprecise language -- I really have no problem with that at all. The thing is that christians then want to claim that some (and for some christians, all) of the words of the bible are literally true. The question is, which words are literally true, and how do you determine that? All we've gotten from you so far is this vague, subjective claim that you "exercise my God given intellect and aquired comprehension skills to delineate between that which is literal and that which is a figure of speech".

Well, I did exactly that, and my intellect tells me that the bible is a load of self-righteous primitive hooey.