Bible criticism

[hobelim]

So snakes can talk then?

It was a talking serpent. Serpent in Hebrew is both a noun and an adjective. And just like in every language a talking snake would be a reference to a type of person. In the bible a talking serpent is a specific reference to a religious deceiver.

You are arguing with talking serpents and yet you don't believe in talking serpents?

ugh.

for shits sake, you are smarter than that.....

Bible genesis chapter 3 says "now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the lord God had made"

At that time God had only made beasts of the field and Adam and Eve so the serpent was not a human being.
Yet the serpent speaks at genesis 3.4

The story, Animal Farm, by George Orwell, clearly has farm animals talking and debating the merits of the ten commandments.

Does that mean the author intended for people to believe that animals can talk?

Smarten up.

People have been comparing other people in every culture, nation, and language according to similar attributes ever since people could talk to either honor or insult.

Am I telling you something that you don't already know?
'
The only animals that could ever talk to other people were animals of the human sort.

 

[hobelim]

I am tired of reading all the bible thumping threads telling us the bible is the word of God, and we will burn in hell if we do not believe it. So here is a thread to dismantle the bible and prove it cannot be from God, and it has not been preserved unchanged.

Have you ever considered the possibility that it was your teachers, not the Bible, who were in error? I agree that some Evangelical-types announce a "Burn in Hell" version of the Bible. Forget them, and forget what they teach.

The best way to properly understand the Bible, is to understand the language in which it was written, the history, people, and cultures of ancient times. Who was the audience the original authors were addressing? What issue/moral were they addressing?

The story of Noah is a prime example. In the original language, different words were used for the entire planet and ordinary earth the ground is made of. I have earth in my garden. When that earth floods, I'm not referencing an entire planet. Neither were the author(s) of the Great Flood referencing the planet--but all the earth around them.

The "I'm not going to believe the Bible because Evangelicals insist the entire planet was flooded" compounds error. Jews (that I know) do not believe the entire planet was effected. In fact, some point to one of the Psalms that teaches that after God separated water and land, never again was the entire planet covered with water.

There is a difference between people's understanding of the Bible being incorrect and the Bible being incorrect. Heck, I was just a child when I noticed that the ages of the ancients corresponded better to a lunar cycle than a yearly one. I've held that possibility in my mind ever since, but I also decided it doesn't really matter. The intent of the Bible is to address something greater than how long people lived. Those are side notes. Did someone mistake lunar count for yearly? Possibly. Perhaps not. We don't know, but we can decide what makes the most sense to each one of us personally.

I agree the flood myth probably has its origins in a local flood , but the bible says at genesis 6.7 " And the Lord said , I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth" He can only have done that if the whole earth were flooded.
In any case the flood myth entails the story of Noah gathering two of every creature aboard the ark.

I suppose that he also included talking serpents because they are frikin everywhere.

 

[Dajjal]

So snakes can talk then?

It was a talking serpent. Serpent in Hebrew is both a noun and an adjective. And just like in every language a talking snake would be a reference to a type of person. In the bible a talking serpent is a specific reference to a religious deceiver.

You are arguing with talking serpents and yet you don't believe in talking serpents?

ugh.

for shits sake, you are smarter than that.....

Bible genesis chapter 3 says "now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the lord God had made"

At that time God had only made beasts of the field and Adam and Eve so the serpent was not a human being.
Yet the serpent speaks at genesis 3.4

The story, Animal Farm, by George Orwell, clearly has farm animals talking and debating the merits of the ten commandments.

Does that mean the author intended for people to believe that animals can talk?

Smarten up.

Nobody is claiming that ' animal farm' is the word of God, but they are claiming that of the bible.

 

[hobelim]

So snakes can talk then?

It was a talking serpent. Serpent in Hebrew is both a noun and an adjective. And just like in every language a talking snake would be a reference to a type of person. In the bible a talking serpent is a specific reference to a religious deceiver.

You are arguing with talking serpents and yet you don't believe in talking serpents?

ugh.

for shits sake, you are smarter than that.....

Bible genesis chapter 3 says "now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the lord God had made"

At that time God had only made beasts of the field and Adam and Eve so the serpent was not a human being.
Yet the serpent speaks at genesis 3.4

The story, Animal Farm, by George Orwell, clearly has farm animals talking and debating the merits of the ten commandments.

Does that mean the author intended for people to believe that animals can talk?

Smarten up.

Nobody is claiming that ' animal farm' is the word of God, but they are claiming that of the bible.

OK., Then. relax. Even if they claimed that Animal Farm was the word of God would that mean that God intended to for people to believe that farm animals of different species could talk to each other?

The battle is already won.....

Why get into a rational debate with people whose position is completely irrational? Its not like they are trying to impose their perverted perceptions on everyone else.........

Wait a minute!

Nevermind, carry on.

Just keep in mind what Meriwhether said, the problem is not with the book, the problem is with the people who try to tell you what it means without knowing, and then presto alakazam!

There, right in front of your eyes, in living color, a genuine descendant of that ever elusive species of talking serpent.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
" Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me".

they worship their own fallacy and its path of Idolatry ...


not shared by Jesus -

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?

.

 

[Dajjal]

Some scholarly criticism of the bible.

Criticism of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biblical criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biblical Criticism

 

[Dajjal]

The only animals that could ever talk to other people were animals of the human sort.

So how come a donkey talks in the bible, Numbers 22.28

 

[Dajjal]

According to genesis there were giants in the earth. So where are the fossils to prove it? We have fossils of the dinosaurs, but none of giants.

Genesis 6:4 (King James Version) There were giants in the earth in those days;

 

[Dajjal]

I am actually reading the bible myself, not just posting links, and here is something I noticed. Genesis 6.2 says God had SONS not just one son. Who were the other sons of God? This being from genesis, and the only son of God at that time should have been Adam, because Jesus was not even born then.

Genesis 6.2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men and that they were fair;

 

[hobelim]

The only animals that could ever talk to other people were animals of the human sort.

So how come a donkey talks in the bible, Numbers 22.28

Sometimes, when naughty boys stay on Pleasure Island too long, they retain the ability to speak before the transformation is complete and those donkey ears are there to stay.

Didn't you ever read the Gospel of Pinocchio?

 

[Meriweather]

I am actually reading the bible myself, not just posting links, and here is something I noticed. Genesis 6.2 says God had SONS not just one son. Who were the other sons of God? This being from genesis, and the only son of God at that time should have been Adam, because Jesus was not even born then.

Genesis 6.2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men and that they were fair;

Once read an analysis of this verse, which translates better into the sons of gods, possibly a reference to mythological gods, who were originally human rulers on earth and promoted to deities after their deaths. In other words, the sons of the rich and powerful found the daughters of commoners beautiful--the classic story of love on the wrong side of the tracks. In those times it was believed that God favored the rich, powerful, and famous--and the proof of this is that they were rich, powerful, and famous! The rich, powerful, and famous were supposed to intermarry within their own class.

The Bible is truly a wonderful book, but we will never understand the original intent of Biblical thought and stories until we erase modern thought and culture to read it with a true understanding of ancient thought and culture.

 

[Dajjal]

Back to the flood, the bible clearly says all the earth was covered.


Genesis 7:17-19

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered

 

[hobelim]

Back to the flood, the bible clearly says all the earth was covered.


Genesis 7:17-19

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered

There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean 25 times larger than meteor crater in Arizona that dates to the approximate time of the more than 300 flood 'myths' from around the world. An impact of that magnitude would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere, the tsunami would have wiped out all coastal civilizations and the resulting worldwide deluge of super-storms, tornadoes, and perhaps months of relentless torrential rain would have wiped out all settlements situated near rivers, streams, and even dry washes.

Is it any wonder why some people would have imagined and angry God up there somewhere of immense power who was displeased with the inhabitants of the earth but somehow favored the survivors?

It wouldn't have taken very much hyperbole when describing such a mind blowing event and penning stories to teach their children lessons learned.

 

[Dajjal]

Is it any wonder why some people would have imagined and angry God of immense power who was displeased with the inhabitants of the earth but somehow favored the survivors?

So you are saying the bible story of the flood is bunk then?

 

[Meriweather]

So you are saying the bible story of the flood is bunk then?

Not bunk, but the interpretation you give may well be. We're trying to help you debunk. Science confirms that the entire earth was never covered with water. It also confirms a great regional flood, and in a place where the earth was covered from horizon to horizon. Is it your wish to understand the Biblical account of the flood or to dismiss it?

 

[hobelim]

Is it any wonder why some people would have imagined and angry God of immense power who was displeased with the inhabitants of the earth but somehow favored the survivors?

So you are saying the bible story of the flood is bunk then?

Not at all. In fact I am saying there is enough evidence to conclude that a worldwide deluge actually happened. The entire ark, animals, and the story of the survivors and exaggerations were loosely based on actual events and used to convey a moral teaching for their children in the same way the three pigs, the pied piper, or the boy who cried wolf were used to convey a moral teaching to children.

BTW, Moses also built an ark that held the book of the law which describes many types of creatures either clean or unclean...maybe there's a connection? The authors could';nt have been any more obvious that there is much more to the story than what meets the eye according to the literal meaning of the words written down.

No one suggests that the story of the three pigs is a bunch of bunk because everyone knows that pigs cant talk or build houses....

 

[Dajjal]

. Science confirms that the entire earth was never covered with water.

I pasted in the bible verse that state the earth was covered, Genesis 7.19 in post 72.

So genesis is wrong as science confirms.

 

[hobelim]

. Science confirms that the entire earth was never covered with water.

I pasted in the bible verse that state the earth was covered, Genesis 7.19 in post 72.

So genesis is wrong as science confirms.

lol.....I guess the story of the three pigs is also wrong, and Charlotte's Web is a bunch of lies... as science confirms, and there is no humpty dumpty

What are we going to tell the children???

 

[Meriweather]

. Science confirms that the entire earth was never covered with water.

I pasted in the bible verse that state the earth was covered, Genesis 7.19 in post 72.

So genesis is wrong as science confirms.

No. Claiming that the entire earth in Genesis means the entire planet (rather than the earth from horizon to horizon) is wrong. In those days people had no idea of how large (or small) the entire planet was. They gave an account of what they saw--i.e., the earth from horizon to horizon.

If you wish to argue that those who saw and recounted the entire earth as far as the eye could see assumed that the entire planet--however big the planet might be--was covered, go with that. Personally, I don't know what they thought. I do know they gave an account of what they could see.

 

[Dajjal]

. Science confirms that the entire earth was never covered with water.

I pasted in the bible verse that state the earth was covered, Genesis 7.19 in post 72.

So genesis is wrong as science confirms.

lol.....I guess the story of the three pigs is also wrong, and Charlotte's Web is a bunch of lies... as science confirms, and there is no humpty dumpty

What are we going to tell the children???

If we have any sense, we are going to tell the children that the bible too is fiction.