Tired of the "why did God allow ……." posts.

[Ingledsva]

I was out of time. but the question becomes, If we accept the Bible as valid. (and not all do), at what point can we point to the genealogies and say "right there (pointing), that is were fact becomes fiction."?

When we know it is fiction, because it is impossible.

Why would we believe the Adam and Chav'vah story - when the time, and events don't add up?

Why would we believe the Noah's Ark story, - when it gives us the measurements for the Ark, and they are far too small for even a fraction of the earth's critters? Obviously - nor could three breeding couples produce the vast diversity of worldwide humanity in that short a time.

They are just teaching stories, - not true.

*

 

[tkdrocks]

I was out of time. but the question becomes, If we accept the Bible as valid. (and not all do), at what point can we point to the genealogies and say "right there (pointing), that is were fact becomes fiction."?

I think the fictional part starts when it says "In the beginning ..."

 

[Kolibri]

When we know it is fiction, because it is impossible.

Why would we believe the Adam and Chav'vah story - when the time, and events don't add up?

Why would we believe the Noah's Ark story, - when it gives us the measurements for the Ark, and they are far too small for even a fraction of the earth's critters?

They are just teaching stories, - not true.

*

so despite the limit on those taken on the Ark being limited to a sampling of kinds (limited by what can successfully produce fertile offsping) and not species, which would greatly reduce the needed dimensions. Nor the spreading of 70 families with confused languages throughout out the earth (with an unknown amount of brand new languages).....at what point in the record does it become legend? At what point does it become actual history? (this of course is sorta limited to those that accept at least part of the Bible as factual)

 

[Ingledsva]

so despite the limit on those taken on the Ark being limited to a sampling of kinds (limited by what can successfully produce fertile offsping) and not species, which would greatly reduce the needed dimensions. Nor the spreading of 70 families with confused languages throughout out the earth (with an unknown amount of brand new languages).....at what point in the record does it become legend? At what point does it become actual history? (this of course is sorta limited to those that accept at least part of the Bible as factual)

I've heard this one before as well, and it is also bull.

There is NOT enough evolutionary time for the diversity of critters with this idea, just as there isn't enough time for the evolutionary differences in the worldwide human population.

*

 

[Kolibri]

okay. but where do we draw line? Or rather, where do you the line, Ingle?

 

[Ingledsva]

okay. but where do we draw line? Or rather, where do you the line, Ingle?

For me personally, what the Bible is composed of, are just the writings of man trying to understand the idea of God, and how all came to be.

However, we were discussing what could or could not actually be, in the Bible stories.

For instance - Jesus could have actually existed. The Adam and Chav'vah story did not. There was no Ark, and no three couples leading to the diversity we have.

Most Jews don't even believe those stories - outside of what they can teach.

*

 

[Kolibri]

thank you for your response. I mean it.
we all have to draw a line somewhere in our personal beliefs.
From your starting point that makes a lot of sense.
However there are a lot of people that swear in Jesus being their Christ and yet claim other things are myth.
For those people, Including myself, the question comes down to, when does historical fact become myth? The first 9 chapters of 1 Chronicles presents the genealogies as real people. It does not reach as far into the recent past as the ones in Matthew and Luke, but they do coincide. For those of us that are Christian, the challenge is, where do we draw the line? At what date do we claim non-fiction has entered fiction? For those of us that claim faith, at what point do we loose our trust?

 

[Ingledsva]

thank you for your response. I mean it.
we all have to draw a line somewhere in our personal beliefs.
From your starting point that makes a lot of sense.
However there are a lot of people that swear in Jesus being their Christ and yet claim other things are myth.
For those people, Including myself, the question comes down to, when does historical fact become myth? The first 9 chapters of 1 Chronicles presents the genealogies as real people. It does not reach as far into the recent past as the ones in Matthew and Luke, but they do coincide. For those of us that are Christian, the challenge is, where do we draw the line? At what date do we claim non-fiction has entered fiction? For those of us that claim faith, (not credence), at what point do we loose our trust?

Tanakh is the religious beliefs of the Hebrew people.

As such, obviously they are going to place genealogies back to the claimed first two people.

This however, does not necessarily mean that they believe such to be true. They are the teaching stories of the Hebrew people.

For instance - what do those first books and their stories actually teach the Hebrew people?

That there is a God. That God created everything - including humans. That they are special to God. And God expects his people to follow Laws/rules. Do right, instead of wrong, because if you do wrong, something bad is probably going to happen to you.

Pretty much the same things most religions teach their followers, just with different stories.

Over time people start to think these passed on verbal teaching stories, are true, and write them down as such. And of course we eventually end up with some actual history written in.

They are valuable because of the nuggets of wisdom in them, not because they are true.


*

 

[Kolibri]

usually though, don't legends and myths leave out exact dates? Did Moses really talk to God or at least an angelic representative? if one believes that, would it not also follow that the histories written by Moses also be true? I mean, Moses, if he actually talked with God, would have an eyewitness to verify the accounts as recorded. One truth would seem to lead to the acceptance of another.

Somewhere the chain of trust is broken, and I am not at all singling you out.
Once we accept that a living God actually was involved then a whole lot of other things might shift in our perceptions.

 

[Simplelogic]

I think the fictional part starts when it says "In the beginning ..."

I understand. This thread is not dedicated to proving the young earth theory or the existence of God. Would love to have this debate as well though. For this thread, I am interested in the Hebrew scriptures and what they claim about the way God behaves with humanity.

A little teaser though for the case of the Hebrew God.

Here is a valid case for the red sea crossing:

 

[Simplelogic]

Tanakh is the religious beliefs of the Hebrew people.

As such, obviously they are going to place genealogies back to the claimed first two people.

This however, does not necessarily mean that they believe such to be true. They are the teaching stories of the Hebrew people.

For instance - what do those first books and their stories actually teach the Hebrew people?

That there is a God. That God created everything - including humans. That they are special to God. And God expects his people to follow Laws/rules. Do right, instead of wrong, because if you do wrong, something bad is probably going to happen to you.

Pretty much the same things most religions teach their followers, just with different stories.

Over time people start to think these passed on verbal teaching stories, are true, and write them down as such. And of course we eventually end up with some actual history written in.

They are valuable because of the nuggets of wisdom in them, not because they are true.


*

If it is merely men hallucinating concepts about God then I don't think there is much wisdom to gain.

 

[tkdrocks]

I understand. This thread is not dedicated to proving the young earth theory or the existence of God. Would love to have this debate as well though. For this thread, I am interested in the Hebrew scriptures and what they claim about the way God behaves with humanity.

A little teaser though for the case of the Hebrew God.

Here is a valid case for the red sea crossing:

I will take some time to watch these this evening. But, obviously, I am not claiming that the entire Old Testament was created as a whole cloth fictional story. Undoubtedly, it is built on long standing oral traditions, even mixed in with a little history, even naming kings and events (some of them, even accurately). Also, many of the stories are borrowed from earlier cultures (Gilgamesh/Noah) and retold to fit into the Hebrew narrative. Also, they are written long after they "happened". This can be evidenced by the authors naming leaders and regions by their current identifiers, instead of what they would have been called when they occurred.

If your belief system rides on an accurate, historical, infallible holy book, then you will need to perform some pretty impressive mental gymnastics to keep it in check.

 

[viole]

I have seen numerous posts lately which claim that God is responsible for evil and suffering on earth. I understand this kind of logic and believe much of typical Christian doctrine actually supports this sad way of thinking. To many people God is a being who is omniscient and timeless. He is also seen as someone who micromanages free will and even ordains evil actions! Most believe that this (ordained evil) is justified because its all part of a intricate plan which will eventually lead men back to God. Sigh...

I am not a Christian, nor do I fall under normative Judaism. However I am willing to debate the following items concerning the Hebrew scriptures. My positions are as follows:

1. God is not outside of time
2. God is not omnipresent nor omniscient but can be in multiple places at once.
3. God did not make or create evil
4. God does not claim to predestine mans fate
5. God does not know what we are going to do (specifically)

I would be happy to debate any of these statements with any and all who wish to debate them. I am even willing to state publicly that if it can be proven, from the Hebrew scriptures, that God is outside of time and predestining the will of man then I will formally and publicly renounce the God of Israel who's name is Yehovah.

Note: As many already know, I don't regard Paul's letters as scripture. I recognize that Paul did believe in a predestining God who is outside of time. My argument will be made with the Tanakh (Hebrew scriptures) as well as any NT writing which was not written or influenced by Paul.

Yeah, I agree. If you insist to keep omnibenevolence and sacrifice omniscience, or even omnipotence (which actually entails omniscience), then you can use that as a defense. You have a problem when they are all active.

But if God is not some omnis, can He still be called God? Or isn't maybe more plausible that His description just reflects our desire of Him being good and provide Him with a mean to get off the hook so that we can still believe in Him?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ingledsva]

usually though, don't legends and myths leave out exact dates? Did Moses really talk to God or at least an angelic representative? if one believes that, would it not also follow that the histories written by Moses also be true? I mean, Moses, if he actually talked with God, would have an eyewitness to verify the accounts as recorded. One truth would seem to lead to the acceptance of another.

Somewhere the chain of trust is broken, and I am not at all singling you out.
Once we accept that a living God actually was involved then a whole lot of other things might shift in our perceptions.

There is no proof for Moses, let alone that he talked with God.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

If it is merely men hallucinating concepts about God then I don't think there is much wisdom to gain.

Wherever there is wisdom, gleen it.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

I understand. This thread is not dedicated to proving the young earth theory or the existence of God. Would love to have this debate as well though. For this thread, I am interested in the Hebrew scriptures and what they claim about the way God behaves with humanity.

A little teaser though for the case of the Hebrew God.

Here is a valid case for the red sea crossing:

...

This stuff has already been refuted by real archaeologists, which is why you don't see it in archaeology magazines, including Biblical Archaeology. They don't print wishful thinking.

There is absolutely no proof of more than a million people crossing that small desert. We would be able to see the path they left with our newer technology, just as we can see hidden caravan trails, that have led archaeologists to hidden cities. They would have left HUGE poop piles, trash and food piles, ripped clothing, broken basket etc., burials of those that died, etc. It did not happen.

*

 

[Simplelogic]

This stuff has already been refuted by real archaeologists, which is why you don't see it in archaeology magazines, including Biblical Archaeology. They don't print wishful thinking.

Can you name the archaeologists who refuted it?

 

[Simplelogic]

If your belief system rides on an accurate, historical, infallible holy book, then you will need to perform some pretty impressive mental gymnastics to keep it in check.

Accurate….I would say yes. Infallible….I would say no.

 

[Kolibri]

I have not come across an inconstancy that I have not, with a little help, been able to see how the texts harmonize with each other yet. Our copies of the original manuscripts are not infallible.

But there are overwhelming manuscript and fragmentary copies that attest that the originals are reproducible into the various languages of today. It takes a lot of work to compare families of manuscripts to find the unintentional and intentional errors that crept in. I have come to understand much of that work has already been accomplished.

 

[Simplelogic]

I have not come across an inconstancy that I have not, with a little help, been able to see how the texts harmonize with each other yet. Our copies of the original manuscripts are not infallible.

But there are overwhelming manuscript and fragmentary copies that attest that the originals are reproducible into the various languages of today. It takes a lot of work to compare families of manuscripts to find the unintentional and intentional errors that crept in. I have come to understand much of that work has already been accomplished.

I agree regarding accuracy but infallibility is a completely different thing. The concept of infallibility is based on the calvanist version of God. A God who micromanages the will and decisions of men throughout there lives. This means that God meticulously ordained each word preserved in the scriptures. I don't agree with this logic but I do believe that humans, especially the Jews, have gone to great lengths to preserve the accounts throughout the ages. This doesn't mean they were perfect. Many people forget that man was tasked with preserving His word from the beginning. They also forget that men have failed to persevere numerous books of the Bible which still don't have today, yet they are mentioned in the text as scripture. Enoch is quoted by Jude, Yeshua's brother and Jasher is quoted in the Tanakh.