I don't see how you can interpret that to mean a single continent without throwing in things that aren't there. A collection of waters indicates more than one continent.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cardinal Pell and Evolution
- Thread starter Kevin Armstrong
- Start date
Still doesn't work. One place could be arranged to result in continents. The Bible really doesn't say.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It's what the verse means.
Audie
Veteran Member
Whatevs
Wouldn't it speak land in plural, if it means many areas of dry land? And, if water is in single place, how could there be more than one continent?
I think that is only true, if you have not understood the texts correctly.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No. The writers of the Old Testament only knew of their local geography. They had not clue as to the larger world.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You have that backwards. It is only true if one understands the texts correctly. For example the birth dates of Jesus differ by ten years between Luke and Matthew. No amount of apologetics can make that fact go away.
I wrote, "Scripture is rife with internal contradiction and errors in history and science not to mention intellectual and moral errors attributed to a deity, which is evidence that it was written by an ignorant multitude - not a god."
No rebuttal, then - just what you think instead and not why you think it is correct and I am wrong? That's fine. I didn't expect more. What else were you going to say but something like that anyway?
What you call understanding scripture correctly is what others call motivated reasoning, which is looking for ways to make the words seem to mean what has been believed before looking at them, which creates a faith-based confirmation bias to filter future thought through.
The Bible is not difficult reading if one is literate in the language the Bible he is looking at is written in to be able to understand the parts that aren't vague, but he needs be open-minded. Lets try a verse together: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1
It says that there is a class of people who don't believe in gods, who because of that are fools, corrupt, vile, and none of them do good. It says that I'm a vile and corrupt fool and do no good. Fortunately, it only included atheists and not blacks, Jews or gays as well, because then people would recognize the words as hate speech. Imagine the outcry if I wrote, "The fool says in his heart, 'Christ is the risen God.' Christians are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good." It probably wouldn't sound as holy to you then, because you wouldn't be applying motivated understanding in your interpretation, seeking for a way to understand how it was true. Vile must mean chosen by God, and corrupt must mean above the angels.
You will probably want to mitigate the meaning of the original scripture - to make it seem less vile itself. That's motivated reasoning, also called tendentious reasoning and rationalization. Now you get to explain why that doesn't really say what it appears to say, why vile doesn't really mean vile.
I've collected several variations on what you just posted - reasons why the skeptic's understanding of scripture should be disqualified. You might find them as entertaining as I do. Look at all the creative ways believers exhort outsiders to stop interpreting scripture. They ridicule. The devise competency tests. They claim hidden knowledge for themselves. Here are some representative examples:
[32] I would question the person who thinks that you understand even one page of any Bible. Without first learning the language how could you.
[34] You and others like you can't understand because you're not permitted to unless/until you repent and confess Christ as LORD.
[35] The power of the gospel is designed to frustrate the wisdom of the wise.
[36] It's so damn cute when atheists reach for their Bible to make their point. I love it!
[38] It requires theological understanding. You don't have that. I do.
[41] You get your biblical passages from Atheist web sites.
[43] Don't bother quoting Scripture to me, atheist. You don't even know what you're doing.
[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.
[46] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.
[47] Out of context arguments are presented by narrow minds that refuse to take in the bigger perspectives and the greater all encompassing truths.
[49] You can't just read the Bible to understand it, you need to study the scriptures.
[52] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.
[54] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.
[55] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana
[58] You need Jehovah’s approval to understand His word.
[59] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.
[63] Its cute you cherry picked from a cherry picked verse because you dont know anything else. Very cute. Can you explain what "yakaffara bissilahi" mean in Quranic arabic?
[67] the typical oblivious understanding of an atheist, in their incessant attempt to try and undermine the wisdom of the Bible.
Here's a nice example of motivated reading. Your motive: to make the scriptures agree with the science that says that all of the major land masses once came together. What you have to work with: Dry land is called Earth. So, how to make the latter say the former? That's your job as apologist. You started by injecting the word "one" into the scripture, a concept not in the scripture.
Objective readers don't do that, because why would they?
And of course, there were no human beings around to see Pangaea or to watch it evolve into the world we see today.
Genesis isn't an allegory. An allegory is a specified literary form. Gulliver's Travels is an allegory, which uses symbols to represent know people and events in history. Genesis is largely mythology, which are best guesses to explain what is seen. So, we have the Tower of Babel myth to explain why people can't understand one another in a world allegedly created and ruled by a tri-omni god, but like all such stories, it's a wrong guess, not symbolism. Allegory and metaphor are euphemisms for error in this context from people who simply don't like to say that the Bibe writers were wrong.
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
That says absolutely nothing specific about "one continent."
It seems you're reading into it what you want to see, rather than what is there.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You didn't show that.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I think it's only true if you read into the text things that aren't actually there.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Why would it speak of land in plural? No. It's talking about a simple division of land and sea. It is not addressing the different continents.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I don't believe that the birthdate of Jesus is mentioned in either Luke or Matthew, or actually anywhere in the bible. Care to cite your source? Thanks.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The exact date is not given, but the years are. Oh, and my sources are Matthew and Luke
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, let me be a little more serious for @Kathryn . The Gospel of Luke has the date at 6CE for the birth of Jesus. He specifically referred to the census of Quirinius. The Romans kept good records of that. We know when it happened and where Quirinius was before that. Apologists will try to make excuses, but biblical scholars recognize this as an error. Matthew has the date in around or before 4 BCE. Herod the Great was still alive in his version of the Nativity myth. By the way, that actually would make a census of Judea at that time out of the question. Judea was not part of the Roman Empire under Herod. It was a client kingdom. That means that they had their own rule. They were a buffer between Rome and its possible enemies. Until Herod's son that took over Judea failed so badly that rebellion almost happened that Rome stepped in and took over. That was why a census was needed. Rome made Judea part of Rome in the year 6CE. They needed to tax it since it was now part of the empire. That was why a census was held:
en.wikipedia.org
Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia
Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that. And I think Bible actually has better understanding of how earth was formed than modern people.
Please explain why do you think so?
exchemist
Veteran Member
That's your opinion. However it is the case that many of the stories in Genesis have been and continue to be interpreted as allegories by mainstream Christianity.