The Bible, what's literal and what's not?

[superstarr]

I like this topic better, anyway.

I know you mean the mathematical concepts, etc. It is not unheard of for ancient people to attribute their knowledge, morality, etc., to "beings from the sky." Aliens more plausible than gods, yes. More plausible than a. misinterpreted symbols or b. misunderstood cultures, no. You're applying today's logic to something that was built and written about yesterday. Do you believe the ancient Greeks when they say (wrote) that gods were responsible for virtually everything in their lives? Do you believe the bible's explanation for the appearance of man on Earth?

This actually fits well in this thread. Should Egyptian hieroglyphs be taken literally?

Well, the heiroglyphs aren't subject to misinterpretation since the language isn't extinct. The little trick with the "beings of the skies" thing, is that if they indeed were mentioning a God like Osiris, they would most likely have mentioned Osiris by name. The Ancient Greeks wrote down things a little differently than the Egyptians because the Greeks were developed much later than the Egyptians, and it was the time of the Old Testament and it was the age of "Gods did this" and the "They made us" garbage. The Greeks weren't part of the Bronze Age. But the heiroglyphs actually told stories on things that actually made some sense to their time, unlike the bible that often contradicts itself itself. It tells stories of the age of the pharoahs, how things were, and the heiroglyphs where the "other worldly beings" were, had carvings that resemble aliens that we picture today. Even the mayans had carvings that depicted some being in a modern spacesuit.

And I think I know how we started talking about this. I think that Godschild was trying to prove that people back when they wrote the bible weren't too primitive. But even if the Egyptians weren't primitive, the bible wasn't written until after the pyramids of giza, which was the age of the gods.