It's been clear to Aaron for some time, and is just now becoming quite clear quite clear to me, that you have absolutely no interest in having a serious discussion. How can anybody with any intelligence at all deduce what you wrote from anything I have ever said in this thread? Anybody who seriously thinks that it is fundamentally problematic to distinguish between allegorical and literal meanings in genres of literature has to be a troll or nearly brain dead.
(And, by the way, I do think that the Garden of Eden and the talking serpent, etc. were literal.)

Peace.

Sure, use this new way to disengage and walk away, I wouldn't try to defend something as ridiculous and patently untrue as the flood story either. And even if was true, it would only serve to illustrate what a monster your god is.

By the way, we're not talking about 'genres of literature', we're speaking of the bible (really, try to stay on topic) and if you think you actually know which parts of the book that is the word of your god that you can't 'know', and who moves in mysterious ways, are allegorical and which aren't then congrats, you're now the world's foremost expert on the bible. And if you can't understand how claiming that some parts are meant to taken literally and some aren't gives you enormous wriggle room in this debate then really.... something here about being braindead? Not that I would ever resort to ad homs like that though, highly inelegant and logically pointless as they are....

Let's talk about the utterly ridiculous flood story, I can have some big time fun with that. And it's been a while.

I'll ignore the quarrel, I'm just interested in your belief in a literal reading of the bible.

If you take the story of Eden to be literal, then I presume you also take the rest of Genesis to be literal. In Genesis chapter 1 plants are created before man, in Genesis chapter 2 man is created before the plants.

How do you reconcile that?

There are other major differences between those two chapters, but we'll ignore those for now.

Jesus said:

To kill is to do violence to God and to man. To kill is to enter God's domain. To kill. is to go against the commandment of love. Who kills does not love God, because he dissipates one of His works: a man. Who kills does not love his neighbour, because he takes away from his neighbour what a murderer wants for himself: life."


There is no remorse for your killings and you are
defying My laws of nature by the evil science against
My plans for creation. Because of your mortal sins
and your defiant and unrepentant attitudes, I will
allow the coming disasters to destroy your cities and
the evil one world people to take you over.



So many of you believe in the law, an eye for an eye. How misguided you are. Do you not accept My Father’s Commandments? Thou shalt not kill.

. Still another one of a seemingly endless stream of false deductions. I will, with great joy no less, defend the flood, the talking serpent, Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt, etc. I'm not disengaging anything; but I will call people out when there is no apparent serious attempt by that person to understand what other people are saying.

While we can agree to disagree agreeably on whether or not God is a "monster" (for the record, I do not myself believe that God is a monster), even if He was a monster, what's wrong with that? How do you know that being a monster isn't a good thing? Is it immoral to be monster? If so, why? Maybe being a monster is kewl.

The Bible, as you probably know, is a compilation of 66 books by about 40 or so different authors written over about a 1000+ time period. And, yes, we are talking about genres of literature, because some of the books are historical narratives, some of the books are poetry, some of the books are prophecy, some of the books are "wisdom literature' (e.g. Proverbs), etc. While it's certainly true that it can sometimes be difficult to know if something in the Bible is to be taken literally or allegorically, typically it's not difficult at all. When Jesus referred to himself as a vine, for example, nobody deduced from that that Jesus had leaves.


Please give me even one example of something I have "wiggled" out of by playing the "that's not literal, it's allegorical" card? I'm on record as defending talking snakes, what more proof do you want that I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything?

I don't think that you are braindead at all. I actually believe that you are very intelligent. A very intelligent troll.

If anybody other than you wants to discuss the flood story, I'm up for it.

My "default position" when I read something (whether from the Bible or anywhere else) is to assume that the author wants me take what s/he is writing as literal unless the context or genre suggests otherwise.

I don't think that I have to reconcile anything, because I don't share your understanding of the timeline vis-a-vis plants and man.

Apparently only the seeds of plants were created initially (Genesis 1:11). God watered the seeds in 2:6. God created man in 2:7. God planted a garden in 2:8.

I don't see anything here that requires a reconciliation.

And you have claimed to actually know which are literal and which are allegorical, that's really quite astonishing, do all the world's theologians know that you posses this hitherto unthinkably certain knowledge about your holy book?


I didn't say you had, I said it gives you wriggle room. However, since you're saying that you take the flood story literally, great, let's do that. Most Christians, realizing that the flood story is totally ridiculous would play the 'allegorical' card at this point. Even more realistic Christians would accept the story likely arises from local flood myths going back into antiquity. Christianity isn't the only religion with a flood story.

Since you agreed with my first few requests for some basic facts, I'll start there. You agree that the earth was covered to the tops of the highest mountains (so let's say at least a few miles deep), and you agree that it was for a substantial period of time (I don't need more than a month or two actually). Since sunlight can't penetrate more than about 200 feet, all plant life on earth would have been extinguished, even sea weeds since they mostly grow in shallow coastal waters.

So, a couple of questions. What did the survivors breath now that there is nothing producing oxygen, or if you think it was replenished before they all asphyxiated, where is the oxygen depletion we should be seeing in the geological record, or the massive methane pulse created by a planet's worth of vegetation rotting all at the same time, or the sulfur dioxide pulse we should have seen from plankton dying off? I would ask about the layer of rotting vegetation but I don't want to have to deal with a 'that's the coal' claim.

Also, although I don't want to jump around too much, I'm curious how all those animals survived travelling many thousands of miles to get to the ark, and how they returned to habitats thousands of miles apart, and how the world was replenished from just two of every animal.... oh my gosh, there are just so many problems with the whole idea of the flood story. Where did the water come from, where did it go... are we all the product of incest...

I dunno, you pick something....

Please see Post #155 ITT. Especially the last sentence.

There are Christians who are in support of that with money and pushing for Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel.

No, sorry that doesn't work. Genesis 1 makes it clear that tree yielding fruits grow before man, but Genesis 2 makes it clear that trees which are good for food grows after man.

Okay, when I get some time later tonite I will research the matter and see what I can come up with.

Peace.

There are some Christians who believe that Christ's second coming cannot occur until the Jews rebuild the temple and resume animal sacrifices. As a result, they are financially supporting Jewish organizations that are diligently seeking a way to rebuild the temple.

Wow.... I should have gone with my initial read but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake. Won't be making it again.

If your initial read was "lagtight will no longer tolerate trolls", then, yes, you should have gone with your initial read.

Have to go somewhere tonite , so won't respond until tomorrow.

I know. They want Armageddon and non believers like me to be killed. Well they want me to convert then if not killed.

Yup.

The Bible says:

The Koran says:

Both of these have somewhat similar messages, although obviously the religion involved is different. Now, if one of these religions is true and the other false, you can accept one passage as good and true and the other as false. However, in that case, the objection is not that in the Koran (or Bible) God tells his followers to (in some cases) kill unbelievers. Rather, it is that this killing is in service to a false religion.

On the other hand, a liberal (in the broad sense) might object that regardless of the truth of a religion, it is still wrong to kill non-believers because of their lack of belief. This view is compatible via various theological sophistications (one of which you employ*) with both Christianity and Islam. So I don't really see the contrast you want to draw between Christianity and Islam on these grounds. I think you can plausibly argue that today more Christian-majority (or formerly majority) countries than Muslim-majority accept liberal ideas of religious freedom. Maybe this has something to do with the differences in the religions, I don't know. But I'm not persuaded by paraphrasing passages from Koran for which there are parallels in the Bible.

Good.

*For instance, you say that the passage in Deuteronomy applies only to God's covenant with the Hebrews. Fine, but presumably you still regard it as a command from God, even if no longer relevant, and so that it would not have been wrong for the Hebrews before Jesus to have followed.

Sorry for the delay in my responses. I've been super busy the past couple of days. Will endeavor to address the Genesis 1 and 2 topic tonite.

What are your standards to call these passages similar? The Quran verses clearly allow killing only in the case the infidels start a war. And it clearly forbids Muslims from starting a war.
The passage from the Old Testament are clear nonsense as advocating to kill anyone because of their belief is clearly nonsense. (There are lots of passages in the Old Testament which are nonsense.)
For those who are interested I would recommend to read this PDF file about Jihad in Islam: http://rissc.jo/jihad-and-the-islamic-law-of-war/

It is also clear nonsense that anyone comes back to earth to clean up the "physical world" from evil. I haven't read anything about the Second Coming of Jesus but I would really wonder if it would clearly say that Jesus comes back to earth to enable immortal physical bodies. I did read very fast through this: http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/topics/second-coming-jesus and non of the quotes from the Bible suggests a physical return.
Or let me put it this way: Where there is something forbidden to do, it cannot be called heaven or paradise or anything similar (for example in a physical world adultery is always possible unless someone would cut off everyone's penis) . To draw a line to other parts of this discussion the Heaven in Genesis cannot be taken literally.

+1

Here is my first ever "cut and paste" in this forum.

Source: gotquestions.org

Question: "Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?"

Answer: Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.

In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.

There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” So, which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for “vegetation” are different in the two passages. Genesis 1:11 uses a term that refers to vegetation in general. Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener. The passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation, and Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing “farmable” vegetation to grow until after He created man.

The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.

Your text gives the impression that this is spoken with clear authority. That is not true, those are suggested translations and do not really convey much linguistic authority. Modern and well-researched translations of the original texts are based on the works of hundreds of reputable scholars and their communities over decades, and carry far more authority than an unreferenced essay lacking a named author and credentials.

Case in point, the passages I used are even reflected in common translations of the Torah. I think you're really treading intellectual water if you claim Torah translations are done with a poor understanding of ancient Hebrew.

Not to mention that gotquestions.org is a well known site for promoting fundamentalist Christianity and conservative politics and which does not actually (as far as I know) employ any linguists or experts on ancient Hebrew.

If this is what literal Christianity looks like, I think it's fair to say it looks more like people taking a fundamental approach to their beliefs rather than to the Bible. There is also something ironic by a site defending a literal interpretation of the Bible by saying the Bible is not infallible unless you master ancient Hebrew as well as those who wrote it, because by that logic the Bible can't really be infallible for anyone.

What are your standards to call these passages similar? The Quran verses clearly allow killing only in the case the infidels start a war. And it clearly forbids Muslims from starting a war.

https://i.gyazo.com/58a7a13d6083ca3c...bcbe4140db.jpg