NOGO

Job 19:25-26
"As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives,
And at the last He will take His stand on the earth.
"Even after my skin is destroyed,
Yet from my flesh I shall see God;

This is rather vague. You want to read afterlife into this but I can't see it.

Look here at Job 14 ...

Job 14
7 "For there is hope for a tree,
When it is cut down, that it will sprout again,
And its shoots will not fail.
8 "Though its roots grow old in the ground
And its stump dies in the dry soil,
9 At the scent of water it will flourish
And put forth sprigs like a plant.
10 "But man dies and lies prostrate.
Man expires, and where is he?
11 "As water evaporates from the sea,
And a river becomes parched and dried up,
12 So man lies down and does not rise.
Until the heavens are no longer,
He will not awake nor be aroused out of his sleep.
13 "Oh that You would hide me in Sheol,
That You would conceal me until Your wrath returns to You,
That You would set a limit for me and remember me!
14 "If a man dies, will he live again?
All the days of my struggle I will wait
Until my change comes.
15 "You will call, and I will answer You;
You will long for the work of Your hands.
16 "For now You number my steps,
You do not observe my sin.
17 "My transgression is sealed up in a bag,
And You wrap up my iniquity.
18 "But the falling mountain crumbles away,
And the rock moves from its place;
19 Water wears away stones,
Its torrents wash away the dust of the earth;
So You destroy man's hope.
20 "You forever overpower him and he departs;
You change his appearance and send him away.
21 "His sons achieve honor, but he does not know it;
Or they become insignificant, but he does not perceive it.
22 "But his body pains him,
And he mourns only for himself."


Point 1
7 "For there is hope for a tree,
When it is cut down, that it will sprout again,
And its shoots will not fail.
...
10 "But man dies and lies prostrate.


Note the BUT
There is hope for a tree but not for a man.
A tree will live again but not man.

14 "If a man dies, will he live again?
All the days of my struggle I will wait
Until my change comes.

Here Job talks about his change (ie his death) but note that he never talks about his rise from death. If a man dies, will he live again? obviously the answer is NO. Otherwise he would talk about his "other change" into eternal life.

20 "You forever overpower him and he departs;
You change his appearance and send him away.
21 "His sons achieve honor, but he does not know it;
Or they become insignificant, but he does not perceive it.

"he does not know it"
Clear enough. In Sheol people know nothing.

Jack the Bodiless

From your latest post, Ed:
But you haven't actually provided any answers in these "posts to Jack".

Is this the same type of hallucination that allows you to refer to Bible verses that do not support your position?

winstonjen

Perhaps we need to take a look at the hidden 'book of Ed' in the Bible that was mysteriously left out.

Ed

Fraid so, there are significant gaps between Orders, Families, and even Genera in some cases.

Quote:

Ed: No, in hebrew repetition of conjunctive phrases are often metaphorical. I think I will place greater weight on the words of a biblical scholar than on the words of a hyperskeptical atheist on an atheist discussion board. jtb: This is not "repetition of conjuntive phrases", as the phrase only appears ONCE per creation day. And the Hebrews used repetition for emphasis, not to indicate that something was metaphorical. You are choosing to believe fundamentalists who are constantly looking for excuses to dismiss awkward parts of the Bible as "metaphorical".

Actually fundamentalists RARELY IF EVER say that parts of the bible are metaphorical. The biblical scholars that say these phrases are probably metaphorical are not fundamentalists. Here is another explanation about this unusual hebrew phrasing:

"Looking at the literal Hebrew, one finds this phraseology: "and was evening and was morning day Xth." The New International Version renders the time markers in this way: "And there was evening, and there was morning-the Xth day." The word arrangement, in both cases, is a departure from the simple and ordinary. It creates an ambiguity. If "day Xth" were intended as the noun complement for the one evening and morning together, the linking verb should appear just once, in plural form (as the King James Version renders it) "And the evening and the morning were the Xth day." We would expect the literal Hebrew to say, "and were evening and morning day Xth." But, that is not the case. This syntactic ambiguity does not constitute a proof. However, it does at least suggest an indefinite period for each phase of the creation." This comes from Biblical scholar and astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross.

Quote:

jtb: Many Biblical scholars have labeled Biblical references to a flat Earth as "metaphorical".

There are no biblical references to a flat earth.

Quote:

jtb: They have ALSO decreed that the entire Genesis creation story and all references to the Noachian Flood are "clearly metaphorical" due to the prose style used. So, if Biblical scholars say that the Genesis creation and Flood stories are fiction: why don't you believe them, Ed?

Because the use of prose plainly means it is not metaphorical. If it was poetic then you could say that it was metaphorical or used repetitious phrases as above.

Quote:

Ed: No, as I stated before, from what we know about ancient genealogies the more correct translation should be "all SIGNIFICANT generations". jtb: No, we do NOT know this about ancient genealogies. This stuff is INVENTED, Ed. Furthermore, unless you can come up with the Aramaic word for "significant" that was omitted by the translators, then my accusation that you are LYING still stands.

No, fraid not, see my reference to Princeton theologian William Henry Green. Your accusation of me lying is just an ad hominem attack. Which you seem to be making in greater frequency as we go along in our discussion.

Quote:

jtb: No, he did NOT. Lee would have been your ancestor all along, he did not BECOME your ancestor when he was 30 years old. This is pure nonsense. Ed: No, until he became the father of my great great grandfather, he was NOT my ancestor. jtb: Yes, he WAS your ancestor. If he was NOT your ancestor, then why would he BECOME your ancestor when he fathered your great great grandfather, who was himself NOT your ancestor either? This is pure nonsense, Ed. More invented crap to hide the fact that the Bible is fiction.

He doesnt become my ancestor until he fathers my great great grandfather and establishes the lineage leading to me. How is that nonsense? It is a biological fact.

Quote:

Ed: The mistreatment the verse is referring to is AFTER the killing of her family. You are partially correct, they probably didn't consider forcing captive women to marry soldiers as mistreatment, but they plainly DID consider rape mistreatment. Read verse in Deuteronomy about crying out in a city. jtb: ...Which has nothing to do with mistreatment at all. We're back where we started on this. Deuteronomy PROVES that rape is a crime against MEN, not WOMEN. It does not apply to ADULT SINGLE WOMEN. It is only illegal to rape a WIFE or FIANCEE of another MAN, or to rape a young DAUGHTER without paying compensation to her FATHER. I have a suggestion for you, Ed. Re-read every single post in this entire thread. You are again bringing up arguments you have LOST..

Single adult women were practically unknown in ancient societies like Israel. Because of that fact, the Torah does not have a specific law dealing with the rape of an adult single woman. The Torah is not exhaustive. But given the law mentioned above and other laws such as the Ten Commandments and laws regarding the treatment of your neighbor, it is a rational assumption that the law dealing with the rape of a betrothed women was used by Moses and the hebrew judges in the case of a single woman. So if she cried out it was rape, if she didnt it was consensual.

Ed

I may not have replied to your specific post but I think I covered your arguements in my answers to Jack and Nogo. If not, let me know which one I failed to respond to and I will be happy to do so.

NOGO

Hi Ed,
I suppose that this is the line which you claim speaks of life after death ...

2 Sam 12:23
I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

You are again reading a lot into very little evidence. Just the opposite of the Amalekite case where you ignore what the Bible actually says.
Go to Genesis 37:35 and you will know what David meant.

Why was the child killed by Yahweh?

2 Sam 12
11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."

Obviously Yahweh wanted to punish David for what he did.
Note verse 11 where he threatens to have his wives raped in order to punish him.

What a moral God? He would have a man's wife raped in order TO PUNISH HIM.
What about the wives? Women are just not that important! There is no such thing as a crime against a woman. A raped woman is a crime against her husband or her father but not against her.

Verse 13: Wow! That is all it takes. But what about the law? David has killed a man and seduced his wife both of which are crime which require him to be stoned to death. Is the law different for David than for everyone else?

Verse 14 David shall not die HOWEVER because of what DAVID DID ("by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme") the child shall die.

So the child was killed because of what David did.
David was not punished.
Instead his child was killed.

Surely what gives enemies of the Lord occasions to blaspheme is the murder of Uriah and adultery with his wife not the birth of a child.

Clearly this is again punishing children for the sins of their fathers.
But notice again the threat to have David's wives raped.
This Yahweh has problems with punishing the person who committed the crime. He is ready to punish all the innocent but not the guilty.

Ed

You have repeatedly failed to provide evidence that it wasn't. The common sense understanding of the text is that mistreatment plainly covers rape.


Actually they are not murderers, killing during a war is not equivalent to murder. But you are looking at the situation from the perspective of modern times where women's status was raised by the coming of Christ and the attendent development of chivalry and police forces. There is evidence that ancient women looked at the situation quite different from you.

They didn't practice the abandonment of unwanted babies as many of those societies did.


Yeah right, I am sure they were "volunteers".

This is the end of part I of my response.

winstonjen

Sex without consent = rape. The Bible has many instances of women being raped, under the euphimism 'humbled', or 'taken into his bed.' Apparently it was OK in the Bible, so women had no rights back then.

Jack the Bodiless

There are gaps, but no SIGNIFICANT gaps. We should not expect the fossil record to be perfect.

My statement stands. Nothing in the fossil record poses any problem whatsoever for macroevolution.
By this argument, all fundametalists are young-Earthers (and flat-Earthers too).
Hugh Ross is an old-Earth creationist who has also applied Biblical hermeneutics to dismiss Noah's Flood as a global event (he claims it was only a local flood in part of the Middle East).

But it's quite amusing that you think I would respect Hugh Ross. This is true because Ross says so? Oh dear.

The text is clear. These were separate days.

I think his argument against the Great Flood was better. But because this contradicts the great Ed, Ross was talking baloney there. Right?
There are MANY Biblical references to a flat Earth.

It is a well-known historical FACT that the Hebrews thought the Earth was flat (either a rectangle or a disk) and immobile, supported on pillars, and covered by a solid dome, the Firmament, which the stars were attached to.

Genesis 1:6-8 describes the creation of the Firmament.

In Genesis 8:2, God closes windows in the Firmament to stop the waters above from falling to Earth.

Joshua 10:12-13 the Sun and the Moon (NOT the Earth) stand still. Note that the Sun and the Moon are each at a specific Earth location when this happens: Gibeon and Ajalon.

1 Samuel 2:8 The Earth stands on pillars.

1 Chronicles 16:30 The Earth does not move.

Job 9:6 and 26:11 The Earth stands on pillars.

Job 38:22 Snow and hail stored in "treasuries".

Psalms 19:4-6 The Sun circles the Earth.

Psalms 75:3 Pillars again.

Psalms 93:1, and 96:10, and 104:5 The Earth does not move.

Isaiah 11:12 The Earth has four corners.

Isaiah 40:22 God sits above the "circle" of the Earth (either a disk, or the dome over the Earth), and the heavens are spread out like a tent over it.

Ezekiel 7:2 Four corners again.

Daniel 4:10-11, 20 Daniel imagines a tree so tall that it can be seen from anywhere on Earth. Not possible on a globe.

Daniel 8:10 A giant goat that can reach the stars, cast them down to Earth and stamp on them.

Matthew 24:29 The stars will fall to Earth from Heaven.

Mark 13:24-25 The stars will fall.

Revelation 6:13 The stars will fall.

Revelation 6:14 "And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together": God rolls up the Firmament.

Revelation 7:1 Four corners.

Revelation 12 One-third of all the stars fall to Earth.
So the Earth IS flat, and Ross was right about Naoh's flood being only local?
Again, we do NOT know this about ancient genealogies. Nor does William Henry Green. And you WERE lying when you said that "all SIGNIFICANT generations" was a correct translation of the original Aramaic.
No, it is pure nonsense. He is a PART of the lineage that leads to you. He ALWAYS WAS a part of that lineage, ever since he was born. He was a link from HIS father to YOU.

If you wish to argue that his lineage at his birth doesn't lead to you YET (because the remaining links in the chain don't exist yet), then this situation doesn't change when HIS son is born, because YOU still don't exist yet!

I note that you have failed to provide ANY example of ANY culture, ANYWHERE or ANYWHEN, that uses your system.
...Rational?

Read that law again. It talks about the alleged VICTIM being killed, because of the suspicion that she was unfaithful to her betrothed!

How can this POSSIBLY apply to an adult single woman? If she DID consent, then WHO is being wronged?

Only a MAN can be wronged by rape, according to Biblical law!

You have been given MANY examples of this simple FACT of Israelite law. You have even been given examples of where GOD HIMSELF arranges the rape of INNOCENT WOMEN to punish their HUSBANDS. It is utterly perverse and futile for you to continue to defy the authority of your own Bible and your own God on this issue!
You are lying AGAIN, Ed. The "common sense understanding of the text" is that HUMBLED means RAPED, and you KNOW that. The Bible says that the woman has ALREADY BEEN raped (humbled), and that IS the "common sense" understanding of the text. She was forcibly taken as a wife! OF COURSE sex was involved! OF COURSE she did not consent! OF COURSE this was rape!

Common sense says so!

The Bible says so!
This is NOT just "killing during a war". This is the near-total slaughter of women and little children, AFTER a war. This is GENOCIDE. It is WORSE THAN BEING RAPED.
Evidence that they were NOT?

Remember these were polytheistic religions. There was no obligation to specifically worship Bacchus. He was the god of wine and orgies: the god of PLEASURE, not slavery.

adler5

as an atheist i can tell you that there are close to a billion of us, some you may have heard about,

my atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image to be servants of their human interests. ~George Santayana, 1863-1952


Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? ~Douglas Adams


I believe in God, only I spell it Nature. ~Frank Lloyd Wright, quoted, 14 August 1966