Ion

Anime,

write your Bible, because in the God's Bible, in Genesis 6, there is no Adam.

Genesis 6:3 writes:

"...with man forever; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."

Now, you mean to put words like Adam in the mouth of 'God'?

anime

I am speaking of the Hebrew manuscripts.

I must apolgize for the translation, for the manuscripts do not say "man", they say "the man".

Ion

Well,

'omnipotent God' who allegedly wants to communicate the need to be worshiped from all languages, in The New King James Version in English relies on this:
There is no "...the man..." in there.
I swear.

There is no "...Adam..." in there.
I swear.

anime, you need to revise and improve The New King James Version of the Bible in English, make it the official 'word of God' with the Vatican, so that is not just you being an apologist (style of adding the 'missing' "...before the Flood...", "...the man...", "...Adam..."), then tell me how it goes;

or better:
make 'God' catch up on this assignment with 'omnipotent and omniscient' skills, saving troubleshooting work for people.

Until then, I go with the official The New King James Version in English, which is a falsehood about the age of 120 among other examples.

Nickle

I'm always surprised when christians will fight for a proper interpretation of a passage like the one in the OP while ignoring the biggest problem of all: It is shear stupidity to believe in an inerrant and infallable bible when it contradicts a century and a half of science.

I'll second the earlier invitation to visit the evo/cre forum. We're bored.

malookiemaloo

I agree with hawkingfan. If people read the Bible and applied more common sense and less scepticism it would become much clearer. Not that there are no difficulties eg what does the Song of Solomon really teach? But you know what I mean.


malookiemaloo

Ion

I don't know what you mean:

when the Bible says something, which is contradicted by reality, it is common sense to disqualify the Bible as being the word of an 'omniscient God'.

That's the case here.

That's the case in hundreds of examples.

malookiemaloo

Sorry are we still talking about the 120 year thing?

It's hardly the Bible's fault if people misinterpret it.

If you were to write something down and not allow it to be read for 2000 years what do you think the reaction would be in 4003?

Not everyone would understand/agree with you I think I can say for certain. Would that be your fault?


malookiemaloo

braces_for_impact

Saying that the 'original manuscripts' were inspired and perfect while the translations and interpetations are not is simply another attempt to rationalize why a god would inspire a perfect work, (required for salvation) and yet allow copies to become corrupted. Like most theistic straw men, it tries to remove the responsibility from god (a supposedly omniscient being who should know better) and place the burden upon men. Since god is supposedly omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent, then evidence found to the contrary must be attributed to man in an attempt to hold onto an illogical, contradictory belief system.

My apoligies for the run on sentence...

Ion

I disagree with this:
It is the Bible's fault when 'God' doesn't communicate properly in all languages and at all times in history, if this 'omniscient and omnipotent God' thing was real.

malookiemaloo

So it's all God's fault and we get of Scot free!! Just like Adam we say to God 'the woman YOU gave me caused me to eat of the fruit of the tree..'

It seems to me there are two elements here.

There is the what God wants us to know ie the message. Then there is the medium ie the Bible in Greek, Hebrew and translated into whatever languages.

Now I suppose God could have written His word on tablets of gold in every language under the sun if He had wanted. (Whether more people would believe if this were the case, admits of doubt in my opinion.)

As I see it, Bible interpretation/translation is a living science constantly being updated/ improved as more information becomes available, new manuscripts are found, more archaelogical discoveries are made etc. There are still Hebrew words in the book of Job which we still do not know the meaning of. That does not mean that Job is not worth reading. It just means that some other future generation will get a bit more out of the book than we can once further meanings are uncovered.

It's all very well for us to tell God 'if you are really onmipotent you would do this, that and the next thing....' However I think we would benefit ourselves to a greater extent by having regard not to what we think God should have done, but what He has done and how He has communicated to us.


malookiemaloo