Apostle John
“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
Been there done that. I am now healed and know more than any psychiatrist like things such as synchronicity that science can only babble a haughty dismissive response to. Good luck in the afterlife.
-
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!
Is the Bible Allegorical or Literal?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
Religion is just a name but the real purpose is to unite man with God. And before Jesus, God made Himself known to man through other Prophets and also since Jesus He has sent other Prophets to guide humanity back to Him.
It lets you believe flood
I believe the flood happened because of two reasons, enough evidence in physical world, and I trust to the Bible.
... so the issue is:
- one's ability to evaluate 'evidence', which
- greatly determines one's degree of gullibility.
Rant? Rest?
It's harder and harder to find believers capable of discussion without an emotional response. Somebody else might have tried to explain why the comment was incorrect in his opinion, but you went this route to be dismissive and condescending instead. Why? Apparently, somehow, your feelings were bruised by, "In the absence of any clear reason to believe that the author did not mean to be taken literally, it should be assumed that that is what he intended or is a poor writer."
Can we assume that you didn't rebut instead because you cannot? It's a great setback for apologists if they can't freely choose to call prose symbolic, since so much of scripture is indefensible if taken literally, but that doesn't license anybody to say that the words don't mean just what they say and no more or less just to try to reconcile an ancient text with a modern understanding. If they were wrong then, they're still wrong now.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
In ancient times, the known science was more of a spinoff from invention and technology. The magician could throw salts into the fire to make color changes. This then led to questions. This has not changed too much, since we still need to run experiments, to prove any new concept; use of technology is needed first to settle the science.
In modern time, we have far more science fruit from this long term experimental effort, written up as established science. But at one time, this entire data base, needed technology, to provide the experimental proof. Now science is more self standing, by accumulative efforts of tech first.
The idea of technology leading science is often overlooked, in modern times, since the work has already been done in the past. When you learn about science, you get the done deals, but not all the experimental precedent, that led to this. This can create a science comes first illusion, that impact your perception of the chicken or the egg of science and the tech sophistication of the past; Build the Pyramids.
The ancients could plot the stars and planets and even predict eclipses in terms of their applied science techniques, all without having what we call modern science. They did good science without science.
Rome for example, had advance building technology, for its time, with this tech far ahead of its science; by modern standards. They have buildings and techniques that are 2000 years old, which is beyond modern technology, all without the advantages of our advanced pure science of today. How is that possible? Could they also have had an advanced practical; applied, looks on life, that even exceeds the fruits of the modern sciences of modern sociality and psychology, since applied always comes first.
Newton was pondering gravity and gets hit by the apple. This was applied data; Apple to the head, causing him to reverse engineer into Newtonian Gravity. He did not know about Relativity, since the tech was not yet there nor was there the modern science foundation. Today we often assume science works backwards, with science leading tech, but that is not really the case.
When you applied this cause and affect of science observation and tech to the wisdom of Holy Books, they had applied science based on observing reality, without the bias of science theory leading. They conclusions were experimentally based, without the bias of modern science, putting the chicken first.
As modern example, Physics thought cosmology was a done deal. However, recently technology has shown new images that demonstrate that galaxies were forming much earlier in the universe that anyone had inferred; based on established science first. Now it all that science needs to be done again, because they did it backwards and got arrogant. This happens with the wisdom of the past; practical, underestimated.
I often learn things from the Bible based on symbolism allowing one to reverse engineer the tech and consciousness science.
In modern time, we have far more science fruit from this long term experimental effort, written up as established science. But at one time, this entire data base, needed technology, to provide the experimental proof. Now science is more self standing, by accumulative efforts of tech first.
The idea of technology leading science is often overlooked, in modern times, since the work has already been done in the past. When you learn about science, you get the done deals, but not all the experimental precedent, that led to this. This can create a science comes first illusion, that impact your perception of the chicken or the egg of science and the tech sophistication of the past; Build the Pyramids.
The ancients could plot the stars and planets and even predict eclipses in terms of their applied science techniques, all without having what we call modern science. They did good science without science.
Rome for example, had advance building technology, for its time, with this tech far ahead of its science; by modern standards. They have buildings and techniques that are 2000 years old, which is beyond modern technology, all without the advantages of our advanced pure science of today. How is that possible? Could they also have had an advanced practical; applied, looks on life, that even exceeds the fruits of the modern sciences of modern sociality and psychology, since applied always comes first.
Newton was pondering gravity and gets hit by the apple. This was applied data; Apple to the head, causing him to reverse engineer into Newtonian Gravity. He did not know about Relativity, since the tech was not yet there nor was there the modern science foundation. Today we often assume science works backwards, with science leading tech, but that is not really the case.
When you applied this cause and affect of science observation and tech to the wisdom of Holy Books, they had applied science based on observing reality, without the bias of science theory leading. They conclusions were experimentally based, without the bias of modern science, putting the chicken first.
As modern example, Physics thought cosmology was a done deal. However, recently technology has shown new images that demonstrate that galaxies were forming much earlier in the universe that anyone had inferred; based on established science first. Now it all that science needs to be done again, because they did it backwards and got arrogant. This happens with the wisdom of the past; practical, underestimated.
I often learn things from the Bible based on symbolism allowing one to reverse engineer the tech and consciousness science.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe God knows all things and I have access but He tends to provide answers when they are needed not just to please someone's fancy.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe there is enough evidence of a flood in Mesopotamia. It is not unreasonable because there are rivers and the land surrounding the rivers is low and easily flooded.
I believe it isn't God who is at fault it is the people who think the earth is flooded means the whole planet when it can simply mean the earth in that region.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
What about those people and societies that didn't live in the area of the Middle East and/or lived prior to 4000 b.p.?
Audie
Veteran Member
Trust the Bible is a matter of faith, especially faith in yourself as being infallible at knowing the truth in what it says.
As for physical evidence, of what exactly? world wide,
everything under water?
What physical evidence? Mind telling me?
Audie
Veteran Member
So that effectively gives you a cloak of infallibility when needed.
Audie
Veteran Member
The ones who go with world wide are every bit as assured of
their infallibility as the ones who thunk it was local, or
is just an allegory.
“ God” is sure at fault-if he exists that is- for not seeing to it
that an accurate account was kept.
The story is told is impossible, so…
Audie
Veteran Member
Lectures on the nature of science from the clueless.
Yes, that is the definition of inclusive “OR”.
so, the conclusion is that when a Christian disagrees with another Christian, then none of them tries to settle the issue by talking, and listening, to God. Ever.
don’t you find it odd?
ciao
- viole
That would certainly be the more convenient option.
I believe God has always sent Messengers to guide humanity from time immemorial.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Yes that is odd.
Us humans are proud and don't like to admit we are wrong, and convince ourselves that we are correct. We teach others and gather those around us who think the same way. We set up our little, and sometimes large, strongholds of error, fortresses against the truth. Judging by the number of different Christian denominations, that happens a lot.
We become blind to the truth in a certain area of our lives.
So getting back to having a relationship with God, that imo is true, but God is dealing with humans and we have many and varied voices in our lives and recognising what God is telling us is not always easy, it's amazing God gets through to us at all to change us, but He seems to, and the areas where God is working to change us are not the mainly unimportant differences in opinion about doctrine that we might have with other Christians.
joelr
Well-Known Member
First there is no evidence for conquest in Canaanite cities ever. Second - The text is largely an account of Merneptah's victory over the ancient Libyans and their allies, but the last three of the 28 lines deal with a separate campaign in Canaan, then part of Egypt's imperial possessions. - Merneptah inscription is IN CANAAN, further demonstration that the Israelites came from Canaan.
The Canaanites were never conquered. Israelites moved out of Canaan and went to the highlands and eventually were forced to unite because of Phillistine activity.
Joel Baden is a lecturer at Yale Divinity, this conspiracy theory level hand waving of top scholars is bizarre. The versions of Exodus in scripture are not true.
There may be one archaeologist pushing for this (is he even an archaeologist?) yet since he matches your fundamentalist beliefs he is the one with the truth while everyone else has to die off?? That is absurd.
joelr
Well-Known Member
No these are historical facts used in biblical historicity. No scholar denies this and it's taught at the Yale Divinity lectures.
Fundamentalists denial of scholarship isn't supported by evidence just as Islamic apologetics are not supported. Yes Islamic fundamentalists will say the moon really did split in 2 and an angel really did give revelations to Muhammad but there is no evidence to support that.
The Divinity lectures are all conservative scholars, it's just proven beyond a doubt that Genesis is re-working Mesopotamian myth using techniques like intertextuality.
joelr
Well-Known Member
If you read the text you would see that is the section explaining doublets. Although there is also a contradiction in that one.
The contradictions part is the first paragraph -
"Contradictions in the pentateuchal narrative come in a variety of forms, from the smallest of details to the most important of historical claims. On the minor end are ostensibly simple disagreements about the names of people and places. Is Moses’s father-in-law named Reuel (Exod 2:18) or Jethro (Exod 3:1)? Is the mountain in the wilderness where Yahweh appeared to the people called Sinai (Exod 19:11) or Horeb (Exod 3:1; Deut 1:6)? Of somewhat more significance are disagreements about where, when, and even why an event took place. In Numbers 20:23–29, Aaron dies on Mount Hor; according to Deuteronomy 10:6, however, he dies in Moserah. In Numbers 3–4, after Moses has descended from the mountain and is receiving the laws, the Levites are assigned their cultic re- sponsibilities; but according to Deuteronomy 10:8, the Levites were set apart at a site in the wilderness called Jotbath.10 In Numbers 20:2–13, Moses is forbidden from crossing the Jordan because of his actions at the waters of Meribah, when
he brought forth water from the rock; but then according to his own words in Deuteronomy 1:37–38, Moses was prohibited from entering the promised land not because of anything he did, but because of the sins of the people in the epi- sode of the spies. Major contradictions, with important historiographical and theological ramifications, are also present in the text. The premier example of these is the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2: in what order was the world cre- ated? was it originally watery or dry? were male and female created together, or was woman made from man’s rib? is man the culmination of creation, or the beginning? Other examples are equally problematic. For the cult: was the Tent of Meeting in the center of the Israelite camp (Num 2–3) and did Yahweh dwell there constantly (Exod 40:34–38), or was it situated well outside the camp (Exod 33:7), and does Yahweh descend to it only to speak with Moses (Exod 33:8–11)? For prophecy: could there be other prophets like Moses after his death (Deut 18:15), or not (Deut 34:10–12)? These contradictions, from minor to major, are difficult, and frequently impossible, to reconcile."
But this:
"Similarly, in Numbers 14, after the episode of the spies, Yahweh tells Moses that the first generation of the Exodus will die before reaching the promised
land, all except for Caleb (Num 14:21–24). Immediately thereafter, he speaks again and says almost the same thing: the first generation of the Exodus will die before reaching the promised land, all except for Caleb and Joshua (vv. 29–35). Virtually the same message is delivered twice in a row—it is a doublet—but there is a significant distinction in the content, a disparity in precisely who is to survive—and it therefore also entails a contradiction."
Are you telling me you couldn't see that in one line it says everyone will die EXCEPT FOR CALEB. Then when it is re-stated (which is weird) it says everyone will die EXCEPT FOR CALEB AND JOSHUA????