The Great Flood

[Daystar]

Here's a question, why did God create man in the first place?

The Bible says God created man simply for him (man) to enjoy himself.

Haha.....Really? As long as man doesn't enjoy things too much, otherwise you are a SINNER!

Or is that another part of the bible you don't follow?

I follow the entire Bible. You think that we should have been allowed to enjoy things too much? There was only one rule after creation. They only had to do one thing right and they screwed it up. That is sin.

[allan175]

Here's a question, why did God create man in the first place?

The Bible says God created man simply for him (man) to enjoy himself.

Haha.....Really? As long as man doesn't enjoy things too much, otherwise you are a SINNER!

Or is that another part of the bible you don't follow?

I follow the entire Bible. You think that we should have been allowed to enjoy things too much? There was only one rule after creation. They only had to do one thing right and they screwed it up. That is sin.

Hmmm......No omniscience in your god then?

[chatpilot]

Here is an interesting fact regarding the so called great flood of the bible as narrated in Genesis.

Genesis 7:20
20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Does anyone in here know how much a cubit is?A cubit is around 20.3 inches.This is what 15 cubits add up to in feet=
25.375ft. That is hardly enough water to cover the mountains and engulf the entire earth.Once again I rest my case.The bible is nothing more than a book of myths and folklore.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I follow the entire Bible. You think that we should have been allowed to enjoy things too much? There was only one rule after creation. They only had to do one thing right and they screwed it up. That is sin.

You follow it? What, like down the road?

Frankly, given some of the things you've said here, I think you can only make that statement because you think it's OK to reinterpret just about everything in it and the interesting thing about that position is that, by such reinterpretation, you admit you do not like or believe exactly what the words say and that the only difference between you and me is a matter of degree ... you disbelieve some aspects of it and interpret your way out of the bits or senses you don't like, I disbelieve pretty much all of it (apart from recognising it cautiously as an historical source).

Kyu

[Daystar]

The bible says quite clearly 6 (SIX) days with God resting on the 7th (SEVENTH) ... it does not say 6 periods that many or may not be 24 hours in length and may be reinterpreted according to the personal wishes/biases of the person reading it, it says DAYS! Anything else is a personal interpretation of yours and not backed up by the available evidence.

I will repeat this for those who have not had the opportunity to consider it before. The Bible uses the Hebrew word yohm which is translated as day. In the Genesis account of creation that word is used in three different ways - all three of these are used in modern English so there is nothing misleading about the translation or the use - the confusion is derived from the fact that the misunderstanding about the period of time being a literal 24 hours is what you are accustomed to rejecting and the best you can do is dismiss any new information as interpretation. Lazy stubbornness.

The term day (Hebrew yohm) means any given period of time within a narrative so if the creation account says that a day is the daylight hours that is correct, when it says a day is the day and night hours a 24 hour period that is also correct, when it uses the entire 6 creative periods as one day that is correct just as it is used today. My grandfather’s day wasn't only one literal 24 hour period.

The fact that the seventh day was still in process thousands of years later would confirm that the Bible didn't imply that these were 24 hour periods. The term yohm is often applied in a similar manner as periods lasting anywhere from hours to thousands of years depending upon the context.

The upshot of this is that the Bible doesn't disagree with science on the age of the universe of about 4.5 billion years. That pisses some people off because they want to believe what they want to believe but it really isn't a question of science or religion it is a question of linguistics.

CPR my arse! It reads as magic!

What is an arse? I have always wondered what an arse is and why people use that term rather than ass. Bottom. Buttocks. Anyway ...

2 Kings 4:32 - 34 - At last Elisha came into the house, and there the boy was dead, being laid upon his couch. Then he came in and closed the door behind them both and began to pray to Jehovah. Finally he went up and lay down upon the child and put his own mouth upon his mouth and his own eyes upon his eyes and his own palms upon his palms and kept bent over him, and gradually the child’s flesh grew warm.

Yawn! I couldn't care less, they read as magic and as such cannot be considered to be in line with modern scientific thought.

Yes and that is so original. I think that is what the church used to say about Galileo's "Letters on Sunspots" in 1613. You don't see the similarities in the ignorant myopic emotional fixation of modern day science minded attempts to limit knowledge as the same?

Consider Astronomer Robert Jastrow, an agnostic in religious matters, who wrote: "The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

Armchair science is an excuse for a blinding rage, not much else.

Nothing stays at the scientific table UNLESS it is supported by validatable evidence ... these claims have no supporting validatable evidence and therefore can be discarded as non-scientific.

Uh-huh.

Well that's ... just ... bullsh1t isn't it? The fact is that the bible has both talking animals and plants in it and your reinterpretations of those stories are just weak-arsed attempts to retro fit your belief system into science and, sorry 'n all that, but it doesn't work!!!

Listen to that rage! You would think that your science could come up with a somewhat more scholarly criticism.

No it just shows the scientific ignorance of the writers of that age ... current day poetic expressions of the same kind derive from such biblical lunacy for the same reason that many think the heart is the centre of emotion (it isn't, it's a pump, nothing more) ... in fact I'll post another post on this subject by a friend and e-zine contributor of mine.

The term is used the same today. Get over it. The heart is the central organ of the body and is used figuratively as the heart of things like "the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40), "the heart of the sea" (Exodus 15:8 / John 2:3), and "the heart of the big tree" (2 Samuel 18:14), and "midheaven" literally means "the heart of the heavens." (Deuteronomy 4:11)

Again I couldn't actually care less about your weak attempts to reinterpret and retrofit the words of the bible into science, the fact is that it refers to the sky as a dome (it isn't) and it says there are windows in it that let the rain come through.

I don't give a rat's ass more about science than you do the Bible and your weak ass defense of your own religion (science) is a great deal more pathetic than mine of the Bible. You might want to think about that. Almost everything I have ever heard any Atheist say about the Bible, blowing the horn of science as a defense, was flat out wrong and based upon an irrational hatred and ignorance and they haven't even begin to scratch the surface. They have said next to nothing on the dietary and sanitary regulations or the hydrologic cycle! If we use the Pythagoras as a point of reference Job was about 1000 years ahead of science. Its a joke.

---

Some of the most outlandish lessons in anatomy and physiology are contained in the Bible. We are told that bats are birds, that there are insects that have only 4 legs, and that rabbits chew their cud. Well, let's take a look at what the Bible says about human anatomy.

Bats And Birds

Leviticus 11:13 - 20 And these are what you will loathe among the flying creatures. They should not be eaten. They are a loathsome thing: the eagle and the osprey and the black vulture, and the red kite and the black kite according to its kind, and every raven according to its kind, and the ostrich and the owl and the gull and the falcon according to its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the long-eared owl, and the swan and the pelican and the vulture, and the stork, the heron according to its kind, and the hoopoe and the bat.

Insects On Four Legs.

Moses referred to insects as walking 'on all fours,' since we the Bible lists insects as edible it is logical to assume that the Bible writers, including Moses, who wrote the law regarding this knew that they had six legs. When he wrote that insects walked on four legs he might have been referring to bees, flies, and wasps that walk on six legs like four legged creatures or more likely, specific references to insects with leaper legs that actually do walk on all four legs like the locust.

Leviticus 11:20 - 23 - Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth. These are the ones of them you may eat of: the migratory locust according to its kind, and the edible locust after its kind, and the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to you.

Rabbits That Chew Their Cud

The Hebrew term translated "chewing" literally means "bringing up." The Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1940, Vol. 110, pp. 159-163, Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt, Head Curator, Department of Zoology of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C, Ivan T. Sanderson, in Living Mammals of the World, 1955, p. 114 all agree that rabbits do in fact chew their cud.

---

You follow it? What, like down the road?

Frankly, given some of the things you've said here, I think you can only make that statement because you think it's OK to reinterpret just about everything in it and the interesting thing about that position is that, by such reinterpretation, you admit you do not like or believe exactly what the words say and that the only difference between you and me is a matter of degree ... you disbelieve some aspects of it and interpret your way out of the bits or senses you don't like, I disbelieve pretty much all of it (apart from recognising it cautiously as an historical source).

No, I follow it like I know what I am talking about and can discuss it as such which is the only real differance between you and me.

[Jason Jarred]

Hi Daystar,
An "arse" is how we spell that word in Australia. We don't spell it "ass" because we're not American, we don't say "buttocks" because we're not upper class snobs, and we don't say "bottom" because we're not 5 years old :p

So you believe everything written in the Bible? Does that include Old Testament? I'm currently reading Old Testament, and have to say it bothers me if you're sacrificing animals to God every Sunday so that he can enjoy the 'sweet savor' (Do the neighbours complain? Just tell them to mind their own business, we're all entitled to practice our religion neh?)
I really am curious how you explain dismissing certain pieces of the Bible, and adhering to others - particularly given the dozens of chapters devoted to animal sacrifice in the Old Testament.

[Daystar]

Jason,

I looked up arse and found it somewhat interesting. Ears. Base, Orsos. Greek tail. British, buttocks; ass; now vulgar.

Do I believe everything written in the Bible? 1 John 4:1 - Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.

The terms Old Testament and New Testament are, though commonly used, incorrect. Older translations such as the German Septembertestament, Martin Luther's first translation of 1522 and the King James Version uses the term old testament at 2 Corinthians 3:14 from the Greek word diatheke. As the famous German theological encyclopedia Theologische Realenzyklopädie points out regarding diatheke (covenant) as used at 2 Corinthians 3:14, it actually refers to reading Moses or the Pentateuch not the entirety of the pre Christian scripture.

The accurate translation of diatheke is covenant rather than testament, which comes from a poor translation of the Latin testamentum. Edwin Hatch, in his work Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford, 1889, p. 48, states that "in ignorance of the philology of later and vulgar Latin, it was formerly supposed that 'testamentum,' by which the word [diatheke] is rendered in the early Latin versions as well as in the Vulgate, meant 'testament' or 'will,' whereas in fact it meant also, if not exclusively, 'covenant.'"

A Bible Commentary for English Readers edited by Charles Ellicott, New York, Vol. VIII, p. 309, said: "in the old Latin translation of the Scriptures testamentum became the common rendering of the word [diatheke]. As, however, this rendering is very often found where it is impossible to think of such a meaning as will (for example, in Ps. lxxxiii, 5, where no one will suppose the Psalmist to say that the enemies of God 'have arranged a testament against Him'), it is plain that the Latin testamentum was used with an extended meaning, answering to the wide application of the Greek word."

Furthermore there was never a new covenant.

Do you know why animals were sacrificed? To demonstrate to the people their sin and the need for getting rid of it. The laws of Moses were an imperfect foreshadow of things to come; The Messiah. They were no longer in effect after Christ.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I will repeat this for those who have not had the opportunity to consider it before.

And I will repeat this in case you did not get my drift ...in the bible it says DAYS, it doesn't say weeks or months or years or decades or indeed any other period of time, it says DAYS. Anything else you try to layer on it is INTERPRETATION and one that not every biblical scholar or believer accepts.

What is an arse? I have always wondered what an arse is and why people use that term rather than ass. Bottom. Buttocks. Anyway ...

Bum, backside, ass, bum cheeks, fanny (US) ... "xxxx my arse" is a UK expression comparing whatever was said with "my arse" and in this context essentially means meaning, "you're having a laugh", "you're reaching", "you're insane", "you're deluded".

Yes and that is so original. I think that is what the church used to say about Galileo's "Letters on Sunspots" in 1613. You don't see the similarities in the ignorant myopic emotional fixation of modern day science minded attempts to limit knowledge as the same?

I couldn't care less if it's the least original explanation in the world that is how your book of fairy tales reads.

Consider Astronomer Robert Jastrow, an agnostic in religious matters, who wrote: "The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

Agnostic my arse! Jastrow is a creationist, why should we take anything a creationist says as valid?

Armchair science is an excuse for a blinding rage, not much else.

"Where knowledge ends, religion begins." Benjamin Disraeli

Uh-huh.

Indeed!

Listen to that rage! You would think that your science could come up with a somewhat more scholarly criticism.

If you think a mild curse is rage you're an idiot.

The term is used the same today. Get over it. The heart is the central organ of the body and is used figuratively as the heart of things like "the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40), "the heart of the sea" (Exodus 15:8 / John 2:3), and "the heart of the big tree" (2 Samuel 18:14), and "midheaven" literally means "the heart of the heavens." (Deuteronomy 4:11)

It demonstrates little but poetry or ignorance.

I don't give a rat's ass more about science than you do the Bible and your weak ass defense of your own religion (science) is a great deal more pathetic than mine of the Bible. You might want to think about that. Almost everything I have ever heard any Atheist say about the Bible, blowing the horn of science as a defense, was flat out wrong and based upon an irrational hatred and ignorance and they haven't even begin to scratch the surface. They have said next to nothing on the dietary and sanitary regulations or the hydrologic cycle! If we use the Pythagoras as a point of reference Job was about 1000 years ahead of science. Its a joke.

You're a joke!

No, I follow it like I know what I am talking about and can discuss it as such which is the only real differance between you and me.

You should be proud ... you defend your scriptures like a true fundamentalist.

Kyu

[chatpilot]

Daystar the bible is chock full of contradictory information and insane concepts regarding science.Talking snakes and mules,people living to 900 plus years old,unicorns etc.I suggest you take a closer look at that book of fairy tales.

[Edwardo Piet]

Bum, backside, ass, bum cheeks, fanny (US) ... "xxxx my arse" is a UK expression comparing whatever was said with "my arse" and in this context essentially means meaning, "you're having a laugh", "you're reaching", "you're insane", "you're deluded".

I think sometimes arse sounds better sometimes ass sounds better. For example I think "kickass" sounds better than "kickarse" (especially when Cartman from South Park says it). But I think "X my arse" sounds better than "X my ass" but it all depends, and depends what you're used to, and variety is good too.
I think asshole does sound better as something to shout, but I think arsehole is funnier.
Oh yeah and Daystar, you say we can't argue properly with scripture, but at least my argument regarding scripture is very simple and a very strong and direct argument: You can't use scripture as an argument from God! Valid evidence please!