By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[F1fan]

Thanks for all those words, but don't you feel I already knew that information, I am a grown adult?

I’m going based on what you are saying and you indicate that you lack basic science knowledge, and have been badly influenced by creationism. My feelings are irrelevant.

It's too bad we can't just voice what we believe to be true? What makes more sense? And just Leave it at that!

Belief is what a mind judges true. Ideally minds would be well educated on critical thought and logic, but few people are. Many end up believing false ideas and most are harmless.

But ponder this. A friend of yours is murdered and due to some weak circumstantial evidence you are arrested and tried. You are innocent but the jury feels you are guilty. The evidence is weak but they feel you are guilty and decide to send you to prison for 25 years to life.

Are you going to accept their judgment based on weak evidence and feelings?

But we have to pick part each other's words, I think everybody knows the ABC's of obvious reasonable thinking? I don't see the value of picking part each other's words, I am guilty of it also.

That’s debate. These platforms give us opportunities to learn skills and knowledge, and allow us to question our beliefs in ways we may not do ourselves. Those most dead set on what they believe will find debate stressful.

 

[walt]

Why not? Have you even read the Genesis myths? Do you think that those make any "sense" at all?


It will help if you try to understand how you went wrong.


I would test the various stories in the Bible scientifically. For example the evidence against the Flood of Noah is so strong that one is screaming that God is a liar if one insists that they are literally true. Some parts of the Bible may work as morality tales. They very often do not work as reality.

Please give me one way that you would test the Bible. I can probably explain to you why it is or is not a valid test.

Thank you. And so far you appear to be trying As long as one can be honest with oneself one should be able to learn.

ok................................I will keep all your words in mind thank you.

 

[walt]

I’m going based on what you are saying and you indicate that you lack basic science knowledge, and have been badly influenced by creationism. My feelings are irrelevant.


Belief is what a mind judges true. Ideally minds would be well educated on critical thought and logic, but few people are. Many end up believing false ideas and most are harmless.

But ponder this. A friend of yours is murdered and due to some weak circumstantial evidence you are arrested and tried. You are innocent but the jury feels you are guilty. The evidence is weak but they feel you are guilty and decide to send you to prison for 25 years to life.

Are you going to accept their judgment based on weak evidence and feelings?


That’s debate. These platforms give us opportunities to learn skills and knowledge, and allow us to question our beliefs in ways we may not do ourselves. Those most dead set on what they believe will find debate stressful.

ok................................................I will keep all your words in mind thank you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Wouldn't that require stoning homosexuals, drunken sons and people who work on the Sabbath?

That was a response to, "I limit myself to God's word the Bible," which as you well know means assigning whatever meaning one likes to those words. If one likes them, their God's literal word. If they've already been disproven, then they were never meant to be believed. They were allegory or metaphor, although biblical myths are neither. Those are specific literary form with criteria, which mythology doesn't fulfill.

Mathew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

And we see that sometimes, laws are disregarded on grounds that they have been fulfilled and no longer apply, which is an incoherent claim due to being a category error. Laws can be fulfilled. Promises and prophecies can be fulfilled and criteria can be met or fulfilled, but laws aren't fulfilled. They can be written, obeyed, flouted, amended, enforced, declared (un)constitutional, and a few other verbs, but not fulfilled like a contract. They don't expire unless they are written to expire, like a tax break written to expire on a given date if not renewed.

Another meaning of fulfilled is unrelated to the ones above, as in feeling fulfilled.

if you believe those accounts are literal, as in, it literally took 6 days for creation. But if one takes those stories more metaphorically, which the evidence suggests that's how they were meant to be understood

The creation myth is not a metaphor. Nor is it an allegory. I leave it to you to determine the definition of those terms and what kinds of writing "fulfills" their criteria.

To use an exaggerated illustration to bring the point home, one might also call the myths limericks or haikus, but those also have requirements that must be fulfilled before those words apply to any written or spoken words.

This is from an AI query, "What is the difference between a myth, a metaphor, and an analogy?":

"Metaphors compare two seemingly unrelated things to highlight similarities and create vivid imagery. They are used to evoke emotions, simplify complex concepts, or add depth to descriptions. Analogies, on the other hand, draw parallels between two familiar subjects to explain a less familiar or abstract concept. Analogies are effective tools for clarifying complex ideas by linking them to something relatable. In summary, myths are traditional narratives that often carry cultural significance, metaphors are figurative expressions that compare two things for effect, and analogies are comparisons used to explain complex ideas in more familiar terms."

Notice the word comparison in the definitions of metaphor and allegory (it could also have appeared in the description of analogy, which wasn't asked about). In every case, something is substituted for or stands for something else the writer or speaker had in mind. Myths are comparisons.

Some scriptures are not interpreted in a lot of different ways, people say they are but when you when you read each word, the words themselves reveal the meaning of the scripture, or another verse sheds light on the subject. For example: Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5

You probably reinterpret meek to humble. Most believers do, because whereas humility is a virtue, meekness is not. It means passive and easily imposed upon. It's a paucity of spirit and a relative inability to assert oneself even when that would be appropriate or even exemplary.

I take the scripture at its word and understand it as praising those who don't assert themselves. Look at the context it appears in. Here is an excerpt from a previous post:

​

I see the Sermon on the Mount (SOTM) as instructions to an oppressed and exploited peasantry to not rise up against their oppressors. It's not saying be courageous, loyal, industrious, etc..​

​

Here's the message in a nutshell: Accept your miserable lot without objecting or rising up, because that's what God commands. Be longsuffering. Be meek. If the man slaps you, offer him your other cheek. Do you have enemies? Love them. Pray for them, even.​

​

Christianity is a religion of submission and obedience. The only path to salvation over perdition is to submit to the will of its god. Elsewhere, we read that subjects must submit to kings, slaves to slaveholders, and women to men. The SOTM is a part of that message. Stand down and allow yourselves to be controlled and exploited. Your reward will come after you die, or, if you disobey, your punishment will be severe.​

​

Who benefits from that advice? Not the people being advised to take it. I don't consider that good advice, and I wouldn't teach my children such things.​

​

As Napoleon said, "How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."​

​

Thank you for all your time explaining to me.

I don't know if any religion that stones people anymore ... Everybody has a right in this country to believe what they think is true ... Thanks for your kindness and understanding ... I respect your beliefs ... Thank you for your words

Words like those might be what you understand meekness to be. If so, I would use different words, like polite, humble, or deferential/ respectful.

Do you personally have an opinion of the first thing that happens in evolution?

The same as the last. Nature works on genetic variation to favor some forms over others, which modifies the population's gene pool.

Do you have any evidence of the first few steps happening?

Yes. The last few steps, which we have observed. They imply that there were earlier steps among which must be the first ones.

I don't want a link to evolution 101 please. I want your personal information you have learned.

Your education is your responsibility, and a decent one requires comprehensive instruction beginning with the foundations. I learned that material in one university class and from a few books written for lay people.

Try these:

Evolutionist keep asking me for evidence, I'd like to see some of their evidence, of one species evolving into another.

You'll need to pursue that yourself. Try this: Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey

You can also find time-lapse footage of bacteria evolving. Behold!

I respect your beliefs I just want the same respect.

I can (and I hope have been) respectful of and to you, but that doesn't mean I respect your beliefs. Is what I've given you acceptable to you?

 

[walt]

That was a response to, "I limit myself to God's word the Bible," which as you well know means assigning whatever meaning one likes to those words. If one likes them, their God's literal word. If they've already been disproven, then they were never meant to be believed. They were allegory or metaphor, although biblical myths are neither. Those are specific literary form with criteria, which mythology doesn't fulfill.

And we see that sometimes, laws are disregarded on grounds that they have been fulfilled and no longer apply, which is an incoherent claim due to being a category error. Laws can be fulfilled. Promises and prophecies can be fulfilled and criteria can be met or fulfilled, but laws aren't fulfilled. They can be written, obeyed, flouted, amended, enforced, declared (un)constitutional, and a few other verbs, but not fulfilled like a contract. They don't expire unless they are written to expire, like a tax break written to expire on a given date if not renewed.

Another meaning of fulfilled is unrelated to the ones above, as in feeling fulfilled.

The creation myth is not a metaphor. Nor is it an allegory. I leave it to you to determine the definition of those terms and what kinds of writing "fulfills" their criteria.

To use an exaggerated illustration to bring the point home, one might also call the myths limericks or haikus, but those also have requirements that must be fulfilled before those words apply to any written or spoken words.

This is from an AI query, "What is the difference between a myth, a metaphor, and an analogy?":

"Metaphors compare two seemingly unrelated things to highlight similarities and create vivid imagery. They are used to evoke emotions, simplify complex concepts, or add depth to descriptions. Analogies, on the other hand, draw parallels between two familiar subjects to explain a less familiar or abstract concept. Analogies are effective tools for clarifying complex ideas by linking them to something relatable. In summary, myths are traditional narratives that often carry cultural significance, metaphors are figurative expressions that compare two things for effect, and analogies are comparisons used to explain complex ideas in more familiar terms."

Notice the word comparison in the definitions of metaphor and allegory (it could also have appeared in the description of analogy, which wasn't asked about). In every case, something is substituted for or stands for something else the writer or speaker had in mind. Myths are comparisons.

You probably reinterpret meek to humble. Most believers do, because whereas humility is a virtue, meekness is not. It means passive and easily imposed upon. It's a paucity of spirit and a relative inability to assert oneself even when that would be appropriate or even exemplary.

I take the scripture at its word and understand it as praising those who don't assert themselves. Look at the context it appears in. Here is an excerpt from a previous post:

​

I see the Sermon on the Mount (SOTM) as instructions to an oppressed and exploited peasantry to not rise up against their oppressors. It's not saying be courageous, loyal, industrious, etc..​

​

Here's the message in a nutshell: Accept your miserable lot without objecting or rising up, because that's what God commands. Be longsuffering. Be meek. If the man slaps you, offer him your other cheek. Do you have enemies? Love them. Pray for them, even.​

​

Christianity is a religion of submission and obedience. The only path to salvation over perdition is to submit to the will of its god. Elsewhere, we read that subjects must submit to kings, slaves to slaveholders, and women to men. The SOTM is a part of that message. Stand down and allow yourselves to be controlled and exploited. Your reward will come after you die, or, if you disobey, your punishment will be severe.​

​

Who benefits from that advice? Not the people being advised to take it. I don't consider that good advice, and I wouldn't teach my children such things.​

​

As Napoleon said, "How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."​

​

Words like those might be what you understand meekness to be. If so, I would use different words, like polite, humble, or deferential/ respectful.

The same as the last. Nature works on genetic variation to favor some forms over others, which modifies the population's gene pool.

Yes. The last few steps, which we have observed. They imply that there were earlier steps among which must be the first ones.

Your education is your responsibility, and a decent one requires comprehensive instruction beginning with the foundations. I learned that material in one university class and from a few books written for lay people.

Try these:

View attachment 98266

You'll need to pursue that yourself. Try this: Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey

You can also find time-lapse footage of bacteria evolving. Behold!

I can (and I hope have been) respectful of and to you, but that doesn't mean I respect your beliefs. Is what I've given you acceptable to you?

THX

 

[ChatwithGod]

All of it. Unbelief is sin (Romans 14:23)

Romans 14:23 teaches that anything not done in faith is sin, highlighting the importance of trusting in God's ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Romans 14:23 teaches that anything not done in faith is sin, highlighting the importance of trusting in God's ways.

What makes you think that the Bible is accurate? With all of its errors, bad morals, portraying of God as evil and incompetent, isn't it obvious that it is just a work of man?

 

[amatuerscholar]

The creation myth is not a metaphor. Nor is it an allegory. I leave it to you to determine the definition of those terms and what kinds of writing "fulfills" their criteria.

To use an exaggerated illustration to bring the point home, one might also call the myths limericks or haikus, but those also have requirements that must be fulfilled before those words apply to any written or spoken words.

This is from an AI query, "What is the difference between a myth, a metaphor, and an analogy?":

"Metaphors compare two seemingly unrelated things to highlight similarities and create vivid imagery. They are used to evoke emotions, simplify complex concepts, or add depth to descriptions. Analogies, on the other hand, draw parallels between two familiar subjects to explain a less familiar or abstract concept. Analogies are effective tools for clarifying complex ideas by linking them to something relatable. In summary, myths are traditional narratives that often carry cultural significance, metaphors are figurative expressions that compare two things for effect, and analogies are comparisons used to explain complex ideas in more familiar terms."

Notice the word comparison in the definitions of metaphor and allegory (it could also have appeared in the description of analogy, which wasn't asked about). In every case, something is substituted for or stands for something else the writer or speaker had in mind. Myths are comparisons.

I didn't say it was a metaphor or an allegory. I said it can be read more metaphorically. As opposed to literally. I could have been more specific, such as talking about how the story is mythological, but often using such terminology leads nowhere as there is a huge rift between the common perception of myth and the scholarly view of mythology. So using such an idea generally doesn't further a conversation, and tends to hamper it as then a discussion of what mythology really is needs to be brought up.

This then leads to further complications as so many people believe that the dictionary is the final arbiter or a word's definition, when it really isn't. They give us a good idea as to the basic meaning of a word, but when speaking of ideas such as mythology, it really only scratches the surface. One can produce entire books on just what the term mythology really means.

One could also describe the narrative as part of a national epic, similar to other national epics of that time. But the term epic has shifted as well, at least when it comes to the scholarly view and public perception. Many nations had these epic tales that were meant to be taken literally, but built up an understanding of the "truth" of how the nation formed. They were exaggerated or mythical stories that portrayed national "truths."

Which then brings up another issue in that people often don't get the idea of what truth is, and often mistake it for fact. When in fact, truth is subjective and can portray a number of ideas that aren't factual, but still are true in a sense.

So I used the term metaphorically in a rather common manner, that showcased, in context, that the stories were not meant to be taken literally, but had other underlying meanings. I used that word choice on purpose in order to avoid issues with many other terms.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I used the term metaphorically in a rather common manner, that showcased, in context, that the stories were not meant to be taken literally, but had other underlying meanings. I used that word choice on purpose in order to avoid issues with many other terms.

I don't know what you mean by a common manner, but metaphor and metaphorically have specific meanings. And if your purpose was to "avoid issues with many other terms," you picked another term that caused an issue.

The stories are myths, not metaphors or allegories. Metaphors and allegories are different from myths. Something that is either of the first is not the third, and anything that is a myth is neither of the other two.

And I disagree that the biblical myths were not to be taken literally. There is nothing in them that suggests that other than that many have been disproven by science. No believer wants to say that his scripture contains error, but that's what the stories are - incorrect best guesses to account for how the world got to be the way it was found to be and especially why life doesn't look like our world is ruled by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. Why aren't we in paradise? Why must we live difficult and brutish lives and then die? Why is the world filled with mutually unintelligible languages if our god can do anything and loves us?

These stories were their answers, and characteristically, they shift the blame onto man. Two kids literally ate forbidden fruit and suffering followed by death was the just punishment. That's meant literally. Some people built a tower which angered this deity as much as eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The six days of creation and one of rest were also meant literally. We can tell by the commandment to honor the Sabbath one literal day out of every seven literal days, and one gainsaid or defied this at his own peril:

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Why do you suppose they did that? It should be obvious:

Before the advent of civilization, the Hebrews were a nomadic people. The "clergy" were part time priests and medicine men, but fulltime hunters, who, like everybody else, hunted or gathered every day.​

​

Once we have civilization and large cities, we get organized religion and priests as specialists who don't do other work or support themselves. Instead, there is a large central meeting place where people come regularly to listen to and support a dedicated priesthood (no other source of income but donations).​

​

You can tell about when this happened with the Hebrews - whenever the Sabbath was invented. Think about it. In nomadic days, as I noted, every able-bodied person worked every day, and it was no doubt a "sin" to be lazy or fake illness.​

​

But then life changed with the advent of civilization and cities, and people needed to travel often for an hour or more to a central temple and spend hours there on a regular basis, and suddenly, it became a "sin" not to take a day off from work and bring the family to the temple. This became institutionalized two ways. The Commandment to not work on the sabbath was added to others, and the creation myth was modified to include a timeline and a new unit of time, the week for the six days of creation and one of rest. If God rested one day in seven, you need to as well.​

​

And think about the week. Compare it to the other units of time - the day, the month, and the year. These are all natural and correspond to the motions of the moon around the earth and the earth around its axis and around the sun. If monthly visits to the temple were too infrequent and daily visits too frequent, a new unit was needed, and so, we have the invention of the work week and the weekend.​

Regarding that commandment, to say otherwise or do otherwise would be sacrilege and punishable. That's just how life was then. People of all cultures were afraid and relied on their imagined gods for protection. Nobody says that their gods told them such-and-such, but it's just a story - don't believe it.

But non literalist Christians, who have the benefit of the fruits of modern science like you do, just won't say that the Bible writers were wrong, because they believe that their god gave them that story, so it can't be an error. Many say metaphor or allegory as you did before you walked it back as also not really meaning what the word means and changed it to "not meant to be taken literally."

That's all fine. If that's what you prefer to believe, I don't have any issue with that.

But it's not what I believe, and I was happy to say why.

 

[amatuerscholar]

I don't know what you mean by a common manner, but metaphor and metaphorically have specific meanings. And if your purpose was to "avoid issues with many other terms," you picked another term that caused an issue.

The stories are myths, not metaphors or allegories. Metaphors and allegories are different from myths. Something that is either of the first is not the third, and anything that is a myth is neither of the other two.

And I disagree that the biblical myths were not to be taken literally. There is nothing in them that suggests that other than that many have been disproven by science. No believer wants to say that his scripture contains error, but that's what the stories are - incorrect best guesses to account for how the world got to be the way it was found to be and especially why life doesn't look like our world is ruled by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. Why aren't we in paradise? Why must we live difficult and brutish lives and then die? Why is the world filled with mutually unintelligible languages if our god can do anything and loves us?

These stories were their answers, and characteristically, they shift the blame onto man. Two kids literally ate forbidden fruit and suffering followed by death was the just punishment. That's meant literally. Some people built a tower which angered this deity as much as eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The six days of creation and one of rest were also meant literally. We can tell by the commandment to honor the Sabbath one literal day out of every seven literal days, and one gainsaid or defied this at his own peril:

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Why do you suppose they did that? It should be obvious:

Before the advent of civilization, the Hebrews were a nomadic people. The "clergy" were part time priests and medicine men, but fulltime hunters, who, like everybody else, hunted or gathered every day.​

​

Once we have civilization and large cities, we get organized religion and priests as specialists who don't do other work or support themselves. Instead, there is a large central meeting place where people come regularly to listen to and support a dedicated priesthood (no other source of income but donations).​

​

You can tell about when this happened with the Hebrews - whenever the Sabbath was invented. Think about it. In nomadic days, as I noted, every able-bodied person worked every day, and it was no doubt a "sin" to be lazy or fake illness.​

​

But then life changed with the advent of civilization and cities, and people needed to travel often for an hour or more to a central temple and spend hours there on a regular basis, and suddenly, it became a "sin" not to take a day off from work and bring the family to the temple. This became institutionalized two ways. The Commandment to not work on the sabbath was added to others, and the creation myth was modified to include a timeline and a new unit of time, the week for the six days of creation and one of rest. If God rested one day in seven, you need to as well.​

​

And think about the week. Compare it to the other units of time - the day, the month, and the year. These are all natural and correspond to the motions of the moon around the earth and the earth around its axis and around the sun. If monthly visits to the temple were too infrequent and daily visits too frequent, a new unit was needed, and so, we have the invention of the work week and the weekend.​

Regarding that commandment, to say otherwise or do otherwise would be sacrilege and punishable. That's just how life was then. People of all cultures were afraid and relied on their imagined gods for protection. Nobody says that their gods told them such-and-such, but it's just a story - don't believe it.

But non literalist Christians, who have the benefit of the fruits of modern science like you do, just won't say that the Bible writers were wrong, because they believe that their god gave them that story, so it can't be an error. Many say metaphor or allegory as you did before you walked it back as also not really meaning what the word means and changed it to "not meant to be taken literally."

That's all fine. If that's what you prefer to believe, I don't have any issue with that.

But it's not what I believe, and I was happy to say why.

Did you understand what I meant when I said metaphorical? I think you did. Why? Because even if the term wasn't fully correct, in context, it made sense. You're being overly pedantic right now and it adds nothing to this conversation. I explained why I used the term, you can either take it, or not.

Now, if you understood what myths were, you'd know they weren't meant to be taken literally. The term myth, in this context, as in mythology, makes it clear that the stories were not meant to be taken literally. That's how mythology works. This only furthers the reason why I didn't use the term myth or mythology as people tend to not really understand what it means.

Now, if one really reads the text about creation, what we have are two different creation stories. Whoever put together Genesis was fully aware that they were combining two different creation stories, that didn't agree with each other. There is no reason to assume that they thought they were meant to be taken literally.

More so, we see many Christians and Jews, pre-modern science, who took the same view. Augustine said we shouldn't read them literally. Origen criticized taking the stories literally. Paul, in Galatians, calls portions of Genesis allegory. Maimonides takes an allegorical approach.

The fact is, these stories weren't seen as needing to be literal. It's not a modern view, it's an ancient view. And the very fact that they are mythology tells us that they weren't meant to be taken literally as that wasn't the purpose of mythology.

 

[Dimi95]

The stories are myths, not metaphors or allegories. Metaphors and allegories are different from myths.
And I disagree that the biblical myths were not to be taken literally.

Yes , this is true.
They are myths.
Traditional stories that were corrupted with time because of x reason.
That's how we know they are myths.
Myth does not mean false idea or false belief.
That's aples and oranges.

There is nothing in them that suggests that other than that many have been disproven by science.

This is also true.
For nearly 1800+/- years and the world does not understand it.
Well , we hope that will change some day..
Or by Science you meant "natural or formal"?

No believer wants to say that his scripture contains error

I disagree.
This isn't about scripture,it is heresy to say that in the first place , in Christian sense.It is a false teaching.
I mean for those who see the errors and don't say it.
The Bible , it's just a Book to us , or The Book,library of Books etc..
Nothing more then that.
Written and passed through man.
Living tradition.

Not all of The Bible is Myth , there are parts who are considered as biographies in History and are being studied as such in social Science.

, but that's what the stories are - incorrect best guesses to account for how the world got to be the way it was found to be and especially why life doesn't look like our world is ruled by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.

Light means Life in the most profound way.
Even when you go at the very begining.
On micro and macro level.

Why must we live difficult and brutish lives and then die? Why is the world filled with mutually unintelligible languages if our god can do anything and loves us?

Because we are not his slaves as man was to man.
So if God exists as a person , like us , with conscious mind, What should he do , should he just kill everybody that does not listen to him?
I said God exists as a person because zou tried to make it as one.
What should he have done differently in known human kind History,since you said that?

These stories were their answers, and characteristically, they shift the blame onto man.

I doubt that you and "they" asked the same question..
So i don't know of the conclusions are the same.

wo kids literally ate forbidden fruit and suffering followed by death was the just punishment.

There are forbidden fruits you know , that nobody should eat , not just kids.
So if you don't know what is to eat and what is not to be eaten , then why should you eat it?

That's meant literally.

If you mean literally, then Why did Eve not asked for advice before she decided to eat it? Since the only thing that she knew was probably "pleasent to the eye".

Some people built a tower which angered this deity as much as eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

And where is this tower now?

The six days of creation and one of rest were also meant literally.

So what if they belived it?
This line of questioning does not aply to everyone who reads the Bible.
We don't know if we can't trust everything literally from the Torah.
That's what we know from History point of view.
Especially because of Assyrian rule.And because of Persian.
Ane because of many divisions between the north and the south that were present in that tine.

We can tell by the commandment to honor the Sabbath one literal day out of every seven literal days, and one gainsaid or defied this at his own peril:

Not all of us follow the same advice..
The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabath , we who say that we are Christians we follow his advice.
Matthew 12:1-8

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God.

And we don't work on that day.
You can work whenever you like , but sometimes you have to find time for your culture and your family.
Don't mind that we do our own buisness.

On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy

.

A day may be a year or milions of years , or bilions , we don't know.
And we know that from the New Testament.

Why do you suppose they did that? It should be obvious:

Before the advent of civilization, the Hebrews were a nomadic people. The "clergy" were part time priests and medicine men, but fulltime hunters, who, like everybody else, hunted or gathered every day.​

​

How do you know that they were hunters , do you have any proof?

There have been many, many scientists and engineers since the time of the Babylonians, 1000 years before Jesus. By scientist/engineer I mean people who look at actual evidence and think about it in rational terms.

At the time of Jesus, everybody in the world had excellent knowledge of astronomy, agriculture, metallurgy , how to build roads from Italy to Britain etc. Not everybody, but the scientists did.

Once we have civilization and large cities, we get organized religion and priests​

The further that religious practice is studied in History is in the time of the Neandherthals or even before that..

I don't know where do you get your information , but you should question them.
Even before that , in some parts of Africa ..

I was shocked when i saw the sign of the cross.
Like literally i was shocked and didn't know what to say.
Everybody who saw the whole research were shocked and we didn't say anything.

as specialists who don't do other work or support themselves. Instead, there is a large central meeting place where people come regularly to listen to and support a dedicated priesthood (no other source of income but donations).

​

You can tell about when this happened with the Hebrews - whenever the Sabbath was invented. Think about it. In nomadic days, as I noted, every able-bodied person worked every day, and it was no doubt a "sin" to be lazy or fake illness.​

​

You are trying to make it sound like they were stupid.
If we followed their examples , we wouls be all doomed.

But then life changed with the advent of civilization and cities, and people needed to travel often for an hour or more to a central temple and spend hours there on a regular basis, and suddenly, it became a "sin" not to take a day off from work and bring the family to the temple. This became institutionalized two ways. The Commandment to not work on the sabbath was added to others, and the creation myth was modified to include a timeline and a new unit of time, the week for the six days of creation and one of rest. If God rested one day in seven, you need to as well.​

​

I am sure they did , but "they" and "we" is not the same.

And think about the week. Compare it to the other units of time - the day, the month, and the year. These are all natural and correspond to the motions of the moon around the earth and the earth around its axis and around the sun. If monthly visits to the temple were too infrequent and daily visits too frequent, a new unit was needed, and so, we have the invention of the work week and the weekend.​

So You think that we should do nothing?

Btw Human species always worked..
With time we gave that a meaning.
Being conscious comes with a prize.
That means to recognize and to be able to choose.

Regarding that commandment, to say otherwise or do otherwise would be sacrilege and punishable. That's just how life was then. People of all cultures were afraid and relied on their imagined gods for protection. Nobody says that their gods told them such-and-such, but it's just a story - don't believe it.

Ok , so you think religious practice exists in the last 6000 years maybe?
So you are no different then the Bible literalist about this matter..

But non literalist Christians, who have the benefit of the fruits of modern science like you do, just won't say that the Bible writers were wrong

The Bible is written within many centuries and was canonized much later.
Not all have the same line of tradition and not all have the same information
Genesis and 1 Corinthians are not written by same people.

, because they believe that their god gave them that story, so it can't be an error.

No , History studies these things which you call stories , but we call them biographies.
Some we find them to be reliable , some not.

Many say metaphor or allegory as you did before you walked it back as also not really meaning what the word means and changed it to "not meant to be taken literally."

Origen said this in the second century.That we cannot consider these events to be literal , and he explains why.

That's all fine. If that's what you prefer to believe, I don't have any issue with that.

Well yeah , there is no difference in you and Origen saying that.
Only your different belief is the difference between you two,probably..

But it's not what I believe, and I was happy to say why.

Glad to have read it.
I would just repeat this.

 

[walt]

If we look at more scriptures will this change our interpretation?

What is the common interpretation of this scripture here?
Ecclesiastes 12:7
and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. NIV
[ Most Bibles Translate it this way. And a very good way ]

Many interpret this scripture to understand a persons spirit goes to God. - in heaven.
Note: [ That's what the scripture is saying isn't it? ].
- But does the scripture explain we turn into a spirit? No. - "the spirit returns to God who gave it"
- How is this translated in other Bibles? And will this shed some light on the subject?

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Then the dust [of mortals] goes back to the ground as it was before, and the breath of life goes back to God who gave it.

Contemporary English Version
So our bodies return to the earth, and the life-giving breath returns to God.

EASY English Bible
Our bodies go back into the ground as dust. The breath of our life goes back to God, who gave it to us.

VOICE
So before the silver cord is snapped and the golden bowl is shattered: before the earthen jar is smashed at the spring and the wheel at the well is broken—before the dust returns to the earth that gave it and the spirit-breath returns to God who breathed it, let us remember our Creator.

MSG The Message
Life, lovely while it lasts, is soon over. Life as we know it, precious and beautiful, ends. The body is put back in the same ground it came from. The spirit returns to God, who first breathed it.

Does the Bible explain where we are going when we die?
And what happens to our ability to think on the day of a persons death?
Does the Bible say the soul can die?

 

[Trailblazer]

What is the common interpretation of this scripture here?
Ecclesiastes 12:7
and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. NIV
[ Most Bibles Translate it this way. And a very good way ]

Many interpret this scripture to understand a persons spirit goes to God. - in heaven.
Note: [ That's what the scripture is saying isn't it? ].

Within the context of Ecc 12:7, I believe that the word spirit means the soul.
So, after the physical body dies and returns to the ground the soul returns to God.

That is essentially what Baha'is believe, that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attains the presence of God.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty.”
(Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 156-157)

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 155-158

- But does the scripture explain we turn into a spirit? No. - "the spirit returns to God who gave it"

I do not believe that we turn into a spirit. We are not a physical body that turns into a spirit.
We are a spirit (a soul) that is housed in a physical body while we are living on earth.
After we die, the soul will be housed in a spiritual body.

“The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother. When the soul attaineth the Presence of God, it will assume the form that best befitteth its immortality and is worthy of its celestial habitation.”
(Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 157)

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 155-158

“The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.” (Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194)

Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Pages 193-196

- How is this translated in other Bibles? And will this shed some light on the subject?

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Then the dust [of mortals] goes back to the ground as it was before, and the breath of life goes back to God who gave it.

Contemporary English Version
So our bodies return to the earth, and the life-giving breath returns to God.

EASY English Bible
Our bodies go back into the ground as dust. The breath of our life goes back to God, who gave it to us.

VOICE
So before the silver cord is snapped and the golden bowl is shattered: before the earthen jar is smashed at the spring and the wheel at the well is broken—before the dust returns to the earth that gave it and the spirit-breath returns to God who breathed it, let us remember our Creator.

MSG The Message
Life, lovely while it lasts, is soon over. Life as we know it, precious and beautiful, ends. The body is put back in the same ground it came from. The spirit returns to God, who first breathed it.

- and the breath of life goes back to God who gave it
- and the life-giving breath returns to God.
- The breath of our life goes back to God, who gave it to us.
- the spirit-breath returns to God who breathed it, let us remember our Creator.
- The spirit returns to God, who first breathed it.

Genesis 2:7 KJ21
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

According to the verse above, man became a living soul when God gave man life (breathed life into man).
So the soul is the breath of life that goes back to God.

Does the Bible explain where we are going when we die?
And what happens to our ability to think on the day of a persons death?

I do not know if the Bible explains that, but the Baha'i Writings explain that.

The Bahai Writings say that we (our soul) goes to the spiritual world when we die.
We will continue to think, since it is the soul that is responsible for our thought process.
The soul works through the brain while we are living in a physical body, but the soul will work through another mechanism after we die and have a spiritual body.

Does the Bible say the soul can die?

Wherever the Bible says the soul can die it means that such a soul will not attain to eternal life, which is defined by Jesus:

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Eternal life does not refer to our physical bodies continuing to exist forever, it refers to souls that will exist forever with the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ.

All physical bodies will ultimately die because they are mortal, but no soul can die because the soul is immortal.

Soul Cannot Die
The Scripture says the spirit, or soul, cannot be annihilated. Though the body may die, the spirit will live on. Death, therefore is not the end of conscious life. It is the separation of the body and the spirit. The spirit, however, lives on in another realm. The body is only the temporary residence of humans.

Jesus said.
Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28).

Destroy has the idea of punish, not annihilate. The destruction of the soul means separation from the life of God. Though living, the soul of the unbeliever has no connection whatsoever to God.

Can the Spirit, or Soul, Be Destroyed?

The Bible teaches that humans are made up of both body and spirit. Life begins when the two are united, and life ends when the two are separated. Death Of The

www.blueletterbible.org

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Does the Bible explain where we are going when we die?

No, not in my opinion. I consider the Bible's multiple depictions of the afterlife erratic and misleading.

And what happens to our ability to think on the day of a persons death?

I believe that depends on the person and how they react to their death.

I don't want to derail this thread with a lengthy explanation, so I'll include a link to one of my previous posts where I address a similar topic.

Here is the post: Where are the Dead?

Does the Bible say the soul can die?

Yes, Ezekiel 18:20.

However, I don't believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible. I also reject all of its erratic depictions of the afterlife.

As I've mentioned in previous posts, including this one, I believe it is plagued with contradictions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, Ezekiel 18:20.

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

The verse does say that the soul that sins will die, but then we have to ask what that means. I believe it means that soul that sins will not attain eternal life, because eternal life is nearness to God, and sin separates a person from God.

The Baháʼí Faith teaches that sin is disobedience to God and that sinning separates a person from God.
Baháʼí views on sin - Wikipedia

 

[Muffled]

The Sun stays at the perfect distance from the Earth and the Earth stays the perfect distance from the Sun, for all life to begin and continue to exist. Both never too close, both never too far away, to me this is a daily miracle, for our Huge Sun and our Planet to continue to do this very thing, everyday, since the beginning of human life, to me this is incredible!

The other planets in our solar system are either too close or too far away for human life to start or exist, our Earth is at the perfect distance.

Does someone have something, they would call a daily miracle?

I believe the earth at times gets closer and further from the sun giving ice ages or warm times as we are in now.

 

[Muffled]

The first counsel of Baha'u'llah is to be kind. I try to always keep that in mind as I go about my day.

1: O SON OF SPIRIT! My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, Page 3

I believe to do in kind is not as great as doing more than what is done for you which is what Jesus is saying when he says: "If asked to walk a mile walk two."

 

[Muffled]

It is but of a different type.

D.N.A. and genes mutate over time, and that's a fact Jack!

I believe that is true but random changes are not going to bring about evolution. Have you not noticed that in the last million years hominids haven't changed much?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the earth at times gets closer and further from the sun giving ice ages or warm times as we are in now.

It is various aspects of our orbit around the Sun that changes. The average distance really cannot change. But how elliptical our orbit is can change. So can the tilt of the Earth.

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe that is true but random changes are not going to bring about evolution. Have you not noticed that in the last million years hominids haven't changed much?

A million years is not very long geologically. And man has changed enough over that period so that one of those fossil species of man is the "missing link" at least according to creationists.