Belief in white Jesus linked to racism

[Ferrocyanide]

Unfortunately, most of the population between 1500 BCE to 1700 CE did not record a video stating whether they took the Genesis story literally or not.

They did take the Genesis story literally up until the 19th century

Source provided by FakeMessiah:
https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7xvn6p


==Yes, I agree. I would say that most likely that the majority of the people were Bible literalists, up until the 19 th century. The science of the 19 th century gave scientists clues as to the age of the Earth but I doubt that this spread in every school, from elementary and up in the 19 th century.
It’s probably after nuclear weapons were developed that the general public took notice of what a physicist does.
I have heard that the cold war between the USA and Soviet Russia helped in giving science education more importance. It became very important to learn about the atom, to learn about nuclear power, radioactivity, biology and evolutionary biology, etc.


For the 19 th century, data collection about various species gave clues that creatures change over time. The fossil record/layering and geology gave more clues. The temperature of the internals of the Earth gave more clues.


Without clues, without evidence, without data, what reason would anyone (jew, christian, muslim, mormon) have to think that the Earth is in the millions of years old?
What does their religion tell them? Where does it say that the Earth is billions of years old? No where.


Your video, why don’t you send it to Belacqua? He seems to disagree with these statements and keeps talking about Augustine.


--Ferrocyanide

[Belacqua]

==Yes, I agree.  

Attenborough is a TV personality who makes animal documentaries. Like other science popularizers, he is happy to repeat myths about subjects he doesn't know about.

If you can find a scholarly source that agrees with what he says here, I'll be very interested to see it. Three seconds in a pop documentary is insufficient. Please don't accept sources just because they agree with your prejudices. 

I would say that most likely that the majority of the people were Bible literalists, up until the 19 th century.

You keep repeating this. I'm looking for some kind of scholarly, historical source. 

The science of the 19 th century gave scientists clues as to the age of the Earth but I doubt that this spread in every school, from elementary and up in the 19 th century.

There were clues to the age of the earth long before that, too. Are you aware of these? 

It’s probably after nuclear weapons were developed that the general public took notice of what a physicist does.

Is there some evidence or reason to believe this, or is another thing you've made up because it sounds right? 

I urge you to read something by someone who has studied the field. Making shit up is not a reliable source for facts.

[Ferrocyanide]

What do you mean?


--Ferrocyanide

It is simple, really. Historical records are bare facts.

The bible cannot claim historical accuracy if it alludes to allegory and metaphor.

Historical facts of past figures we know to have existed don't include elements only found in tall tales. Honest Abe was honest, he didn't speak Slytherin and live to the age of four-hundred.

“It is simple, really. Historical records are bare facts.

The bible cannot claim historical accuracy if it alludes to allegory and metaphor.

Historical facts of past figures we know to have existed don't include elements only found in tall tales. Honest Abe was honest, he didn't speak Slytherin and live to the age of four-hundred.”

==There is important information that is present in the Bible with respect to the ages.
Once the fall occurred (Adam and Eve + fruit eating action), there is indication as to how long Adam lived. It says he lived 930 y.
Why was this age selected? What does it teach us?

If you keep reading, it mentions who his son is and how long he lives and so on.
It gives specific ages for the dudes.
Is that an allegory or a metaphor? Explain to me the meaning behind it?

From what I see, they are describing people who are real for them. It talks about the lives of the named people, who their sons are and what they do.
Also, an important clue is that the ages of these people shortens.
This explains why nobody is living to near 1000 y by the time Jesus came along. Perhaps there is a genetic degradation going on or the jewish god is shortening people’s lives.

Why would the typical average joe from centuries ago think that the Genesis story and the books following it, are just allegory and metaphor?
To you, a guy living to an age of 400 y might seem preposterous but that’s probably because you are an atheist and you stick with the observable world.
But when it comes to the jewish god, he is all powerful designer. That explains why Adam and Eve had an infinite life. They had the tree of life available to them. As long as you eat from the tree of life, you remain in perfect shape.

Honest Abe? I’ve heard that united statians call Abraham Lincoln honest Abe.
Abraham Lincoln
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
Born = February 12, 1809
Death = April 15, 1865 (aged 56)

That is too recent. Also, he existed in the 19 th century which is almost touching the information age, the nuclear age, the space age. Also, it is right in the middle of the modern scientific age which I claims to be from the ~1700 and on wards.
In other words, it is very difficult to make most historians and most scientists swallow that ---> “He spoke Slytherin and lived to the age of four-hundred.”

--Ferrocyanide

[Belacqua]

Is that an allegory or a metaphor? Explain to me the meaning behind it?

This is why people study hermeneutics. 

From what I see, they are describing people who are real for them. It talks about the lives of the named people, who their sons are and what they do.

What reasons do you have to reach this conclusion? Have you decided that the many many Christians who disagree with you are mistaken? For what reason?

[Bucky Ball]

Unless, like St. Augustine and every other theologian you can name, they read Genesis as allegory, symbol, etc.

How do you guarantee what you say? Do you have an argument or historical references? Or is it something you just know? I'd be interested to see evidence.


To determine this you have to use your brain. 

The old time people whom you consider to be naive were in fact often more sophisticated about reading texts than modern people. Today people assume that every sentence has to be a straightforward declarative sentence unless proved otherwise. But not in the old days. Have you read any Plato? 

Hermeneutics is an old field.

“Unless, like St. Augustine and every other theologian you can name, they read Genesis as allegory, symbol, etc.”

==This is what I need:
1. I can’t name them. You name them.
2.  St. Augustine.
He thinks that Jacob didn’t go out from Beer-sheba, and went toward Haran?

“How do you guarantee what you say?”

==This is something that me and you have to explore. First off, what do you say?

What I say:
Unfortunately, most of the population between 1500 BCE to 1700 CE did not record a video stating whether they took the Genesis story literally or not. I’m not aware of any searchmonkey or askmonkey type of poll.
I don’t know. Is there such data available?

I just did a quick search and it turned up
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q...rmeneutics

Someone wrote:
“In the very earliest Church there were two chief schools of interpretation, coming out of two different catechetical centers: Alexandria and Antioch. The Alexandrian school, of which Origen is perhaps the examplar, favored allegorical interpretation. The Antiochene school, of which Theodore of Mopsuestia is perhaps the highest achievement, favored a more literal interpretation.”

but why was that happening?

“Have you read any Plato?“

==Yes, a long time ago in school.

--Ferrocyanide

The was no Genesis in 1500 BCE.

[Ferrocyanide]

Is that an allegory or a metaphor? Explain to me the meaning behind it?

This is why people study hermeneutics. 

From what I see, they are describing people who are real for them. It talks about the lives of the named people, who their sons are and what they do.

What reasons do you have to reach this conclusion? Have you decided that the many many Christians who disagree with you are mistaken? For what reason?

“This is why people study hermeneutics.”

==When you studied hermeneutics, what did you discover the meaning of the age of Adam meant? Same question, for the other ages of the people as mentioned in the Bible.

“What reasons do you have to reach this conclusion? Have you decided that the many many Christians who disagree with you are mistaken? For what reason?”

==I’m not exactly certain that I understand what you are on about to be honest.
What I am mistaken about? The christians are disagreeing with me about what exactly?

--Ferrocyanide

[Belacqua]

==I’m not exactly certain that I understand what you are on about to be honest.
What I am mistaken about? The christians are disagreeing with me about what exactly?

--Ferrocyanide

You continue to offer confident interpretations of Bible stories. In this case, you pronounced that the Genesis characters who live a long time are written of as real people. You continue with your unsupported assertion that these are meant to be literally true stories.

Do you draw this conclusion from any sort of reasoning? Or is it just a whim that you have? 

Lots of Christians don't think the Bible stories you refer to are meant as accurate history. Your interpretation disagrees with them. Why do you think they are wrong? What is it about their reasoning which is unpersuasive to you? 

Do you think that the opinions we offer should be supported by historical facts and scholarly sources? Or do you think it's enough to just make it up?

[Fake Messiah]

Your video, why don’t you send it to Belacqua? He seems to disagree with these statements and keeps talking about Augustine.

I did but he's delusional and thinks that nobody except him and the blog he follows checked the facts of history and that everyone is wrong except him and the blog he follows.

Here's for instance the Bishop of Oxford saying that the Church, and everyone else, took the Bible literally as a science book until the 19th century.

[Bucky Ball]

The conservative Aish HaTorah (in Jerusalem) takes the Biblical accounts literally today.
Why would the OT contain genealogies if they were not to be taken literally ?
Why would there be genealogies of Noah and Abraham, (and Jesus) if they were not to be taken literally ?
Are they "suggestions" ? Do Jews today believe the Exodus is true ? They do, as do most Christians.
Aquinas took them literally. Ancient Jews never even heard the Bible texts. There were no synagogues, and if they went to Jerusalem, the
texts were rolled up and locked away, and were not read from, in sacrificial ceremonies. The center of Hebrew life was not the Bible .. the Torah of Moses did not exist until at the earliest,
the return of the Judean priests, Ezra, and the king, (from Babylon), whom Artaxerxes sent back to Israel to reestablish a social system which would be viable enough to serve as a buffer-state between the Persian Empire and the invading Greeks. For that, they needed a "national story" and a set of laws. That's why there's a BIble. Ezra had under his arm the (newly minted) Torah of Moses, (the introduction of which in a fall festival, to the people is described in the Book of Nehemiah), and the decree from Artaxerxes saying the king he hand-picked, could rule in his name. The story (the Torah), and the laws, (Deuteronomy). The Persian Emperor is responsible for Temple II and the return of the "elite" (few) Jews who were in Babylon.

Even as late as Josephus and the first Christian writers, the Hebrew texts were taken literally.
Josephus presents them as literally true, as do some of the Christian writers. In Acts, Stephen presents them as literally true.
Today we know, thanks to archaeology mostly, that most of the OT is not historically true, but the process by which that is slowly, EVEN NOW being met with huge resistance,
is far from accomplished.

The modern era's questioning of the Bible as literal, began with Jean Astruc's looking at some of the "facts" about Moses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Astruc

[Ferrocyanide]

Your video, why don’t you send it to Belacqua? He seems to disagree with these statements and keeps talking about Augustine.

I did but he's delusional and thinks that nobody except him and the blog he follows checked the facts of history and that everyone is wrong except him and the blog he follows.

Here's for instance the Bishop of Oxford saying that the Church, and everyone else, took the Bible literally as a science book until the 19th century.

Source: Source provided by Fake Messiah
http://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x807fpw

==Delusional? Well, there must be something that has convinced him that the majority back then understood the Bible as metaphorical.
Of course, I am assuming that he wants to be reasonable, honest and that he cares about the truth.
It is also possible that he is a christian (old earth creationist) and wishes to defend his faith. I don’t know. I don’t know much about him. Did I mention that I am new here?

I will read the link he provided and extract the statistics later on.

I also noticed that when you responded to him that he didn’t respond to you. I hope you guys aren’t upset with each other. If there is a lack of conversation, then what I am feeding on?

--Ferrocyanide