Is this a contradiction or am I reading it wrong? Genesis 5:28

[brewer]

Oh lord, why did I (re)enter this thread?

I'm waiting.............................................................

[arewethereyet]

Neo is trying very hard to convince himself through trying to convince us that his Holy Bibbly is truth.

No, he has made no argument to that effect. He has shown, however, that "Fake Messiah" makes arguments that are dumb.

Fake believes that all Christians believe that every word in the Bible is literally true. And since there are a lot of sentences in the Bible that are not literally true, Fake uses this as an argument to show that Christians are stupid. He believes that in the Song of Songs where it says "Your eyes are doves," Christians believe the woman in question literally has birds in her eye sockets. 

Some Christians believe a lot of the Bible is literally true. But not as many as Fake believes. In fact Fake has argued that until the 19th century, all Christians believed there was no allegory or metaphor or other non-literal expression in the Bible at all. This is obviously wrong, as any history of Christianity will show, but Fake clings to his preferred myth. 

So when Fake used an expression that isn't literally true, Neo pointed that out. If the use of expressions that aren't literally true is a sign of stupidity, then Fake did something stupid. He said "fairy tales," though there are no fairies in the Bible. To be charitable, we would assume that Fake knows this, and that he used the expression to refer to all kinds of folk tales and other myths. But being charitable is not something that one associates with Fake. If he gets to call other people stupid for doing something, then Neo gets to call him out for doing the same thing.

Don't use a response to something I said as a way to go off on a tirade about someone else.

If you have an issue with FM or anyone else don't include me in your fights.

[Ferrocyanide]

Neo is trying very hard to convince himself through trying to convince us that his Holy Bibbly is truth.

No, he has made no argument to that effect. He has shown, however, that "Fake Messiah" makes arguments that are dumb.

Fake believes that all Christians believe that every word in the Bible is literally true. And since there are a lot of sentences in the Bible that are not literally true, Fake uses this as an argument to show that Christians are stupid. He believes that in the Song of Songs where it says "Your eyes are doves," Christians believe the woman in question literally has birds in her eye sockets. 

Some Christians believe a lot of the Bible is literally true. But not as many as Fake believes. In fact Fake has argued that until the 19th century, all Christians believed there was no allegory or metaphor or other non-literal expression in the Bible at all. This is obviously wrong, as any history of Christianity will show, but Fake clings to his preferred myth. 

So when Fake used an expression that isn't literally true, Neo pointed that out. If the use of expressions that aren't literally true is a sign of stupidity, then Fake did something stupid. He said "fairy tales," though there are no fairies in the Bible. To be charitable, we would assume that Fake knows this, and that he used the expression to refer to all kinds of folk tales and other myths. But being charitable is not something that one associates with Fake. If he gets to call other people stupid for doing something, then Neo gets to call him out for doing the same thing.

We already talked about this. You provided the link
https://historyforatheists.com/2021/03/the-great-myths-11-biblical-literalism/

I’m not seeing a surveymonkey or Pew statistic there. There is just a few people wondering whether the jewish god really did make stuff in 6 days. They are wondering if their god is omnipotent and if it is omnipotent, then he could have made it in an instant.

Basically, all these guys are still literalists.

Origen of Alexandria and Philo of Alexandria are just wondering whether we can say that a day exists if there is no earth/moon/sun yet.

[Ferrocyanide]

You are not trying to understand the Bible but, rather, you are trying to take it seriously.

What makes you think those are mutually exclusive? I want to understand it so I take it seriously, meaning I approach scripture on its own terms, and
not trying to project my own personal and cultural biases onto the text. At the same time, I am cognizant of the fact that just as Western art is filled with biblical allusions, the various writers of scripture drew outside allusions from the art and myths of surrounding cultures. I take the Iliad seriously, too. MILF Manor…not so much.

What has convinced you that this is the one true faith and that the jewish god is real?

I believe you got the wrong guy :-) My attitude is very ecumenical towards other faith traditions.

Now if some people want to promote the notion that the only valid perspective on the human experience is from that of citizens living in a post-Christian Western democracy, they are free to do so. To me that sounds very narrow-minded.

I'm still curious as to what your position is.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What makes you think those are mutually exclusive? I want to understand it so I take it seriously, meaning I approach scripture on its own terms, and
not trying to project my own personal and cultural biases onto the text. At the same time, I am cognizant of the fact that just as Western art is filled with biblical allusions, the various writers of scripture drew outside allusions from the art and myths of surrounding cultures. I take the Iliad seriously, too. MILF Manor…not so much.


I believe you got the wrong guy :-) My attitude is very ecumenical towards other faith traditions.

Now if some people want to promote the notion that the only valid perspective on the human experience is from that of citizens living in a post-Christian Western democracy, they are free to do so. To me that sounds very narrow-minded.

I'm still curious as to what your position is.

Very simply I try to be a good reader and not insert my own modern cultural biases and expectations into ancient literature.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't tend to find contemporary believers who don't see their own religions in their own ancient magic books. To the extent that you or any of the rest try not to insert your own biases and expectations, from the outside it looks like a colossal failure. I suppose it would never really be anything other than a work in progress, though.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't tend to find contemporary believers who don't see their own religions in their own ancient magic books. To the extent that you or any of the rest try not to insert your own biases and expectations, from the outside it looks like a colossal failure. I suppose it would never really be anything other than a work in progress, though.

Well, clearly the literal-minded athiests are not faring any better...and let me know when you find any magic spells in the bible, since you keep calling it a magic book. Project much?

[arewethereyet]

I don't tend to find contemporary believers who don't see their own religions in their own ancient magic books.   To the extent that you or any of the rest try not to insert your own biases and expectations, from the outside it looks like a colossal failure.  I suppose it would never really be anything other than a work in progress, though.

Well, clearly the literal-minded athiests are not faring any better...and let me know when you find any magic spells in the bible, since you keep calling it a magic book. Project much?

The virgin birth isn't magic enough for you?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's full of them, which isn't surprising, since the culture in question believed in them enough to be afraid of witches? My personal favorite involves cattle and colored sticks - but that's my own bias showing. There are many other wonderful cantrips, spells, and curses in magic book.

[Anomalocaris]

I don't tend to find contemporary believers who don't see their own religions in their own ancient magic books.   To the extent that you or any of the rest try not to insert your own biases and expectations, from the outside it looks like a colossal failure.  I suppose it would never really be anything other than a work in progress, though.

Well, clearly the literal-minded athiests are not faring any better...and let me know when you find any magic spells in the bible, since you keep calling it a magic book. Project much?

Perhaps that’s because you are a sad pathetic failure of a Christian compare to these folks to not realize Bible is all about “our magic which by being ours is not magic, against their magic which by not furthering the rule of our priests is abomination”

Magic in bible