Zone1 For the Love of God...

[Meriweather]

That calls for something specific for my answer.

In general, that which the bibles presented back in the 18th. century was meant to be taken literally, and it was!

It seems likely that most who read the first English versions of the Bible thought it word-for-word translations from the Hebrew, Greek, Latin. In Hebrew, their word 'day' might have been better translated as, "the first time period" or a period of time that had a beginning and an end (just like a day has a beginning and an end).

Likewise, the word that was translated as "generation". The 'son of' someone would have been more accurately translated as 'descendant of'. Because Bishop Ussher thought it had the same meaning in use in England (father to son) he multiplied the number of "generations" and came up with a six thousand year old earth. Have to admire the logic and the try, but it was doomed to error because of the difficulties it is in translating one language to another.

 

[Meriweather]

In the 21st. century, that which the bibles present to the believers in large part on what we are discussing, can't possibly be taken literally.

In the 21st century, we have more knowledge and more scholars who have learned more than one language. Biblical scholars, especially began taking a much closer look at wording.

Also, most middle school students can now identify the various types of literature. Some of these a Just So Stories, fables, legends, folklore, mythology, fiction, science fiction, poetry, plays, etc. I am confident that most middle school students who paid attention in English class can pick out which type of story any bible account is. (And yes, some are fully non-fiction.)

 

[Donald H]

Any will do, but as you offered me first choice, I'll select the Ark, and then you can select the next.

The Biblical story of the Great Flood was one of many that used the story as the setting for their own tale. Think of the many fictional stories that used a true setting--i.e., the Civil War, for example. Each story has a different theme. Also keep in mind the Biblical story was written well after the flood. The story of Noah's Ark certainly was not the first. So what made it different?

Forget the Civil war. I'm completely capable of understanding what you're saying without it.

Setting: The Great Flood using the backdrop of human misbehavior.
Characters: Noah and his sons
Theme: Warning that immediately after the flood, why human misbehavior was starting up again.
Question to be addressed: If human behavior caused the flood, what behavior was that?

And I understand the lesson and the theme you're presenting.

Take a close look at how Noah was described. He was described as a righteous man, but he spoke not a word--not even to warn his community. The story continues without Noah ever speaking.

I understand the lesson and the theme and I understand your interpretation of it as being wise and insightful.

Remember how the story ends? Noah curses one of his sons. In ancient times, people understood the power of words. They could wound and divide and that led to quarrels and war. That is exactly what Noah's words did.

I'll accept that in principle, and I won't belabour how it questions reality in certain aspects.
There's no need to disagree, for the purpose of this discussion.

The theme, then is : Watch your language, take care when you speak.

Other stories of the flood, as we might expect, carry different themes.

You failed to understand what I said, to which you have offered this reply.

If you will go back and read it, you will find that I suggested that you and all other Christians will believe the Ark story in their own separate ways. You, as I completely suspected, would not believe the Ark literally existed.

And so, due to you level of intelligence, I as an atheist and you as an above average intelligent Christian, have arrived at agreement!

Fwiw, I can't raise the topic with my sister-in-law, and would never attempt to do so. She buys it complete with the Giraffe's heads poking out the top. There's just no way it can't be true!

And so, also worth mentioned for the contrast, Ding continues to wallow in his ignorance and his attempts to insult.

 

[Donald H]

It seems likely that most who read the first English versions of the Bible thought it word-for-word translations from the Hebrew, Greek, Latin. In Hebrew, their word 'day' might have been better translated as, "the first time period" or a period of time that had a beginning and an end (just like a day has a beginning and an end).

I understand your interpretations and the reason why you suggest some different possibilities.

Likewise, the word that was translated as "generation". The 'son of' someone would have been more accurately translated as 'descendant of'.

An excellent example to make the point on how 'you' interpret the stories.

Because Bishop Ussher thought it had the same meaning in use in England (father to son) he multiplied the number of "generations" and came up with a six thousand year old earth. Have to admire the logic and the try, but it was doomed to error because of the difficulties it is in translating one language to another.

I wish my sister-in-law believed the same. You have quite effectively presented your version of the Ark story that can work for you.

Or more honestly in her case, I don't 'wish' to disturb any of her beliefs

 

[Meriweather]

You, as I completely suspected, would not believe the Ark literally existed.

I think it is almost a certainty that some survivors of the great flood survived by being on a boat or ark.

 

[Donald H]

In the 21st century, we have more knowledge and more scholars who have learned more than one language. Biblical scholars, especially began taking a much closer look at wording.

Also, most middle school students can now identify the various types of literature. Some of these a Just So Stories, fables, legends, folklore, mythology, fiction, science fiction, poetry, plays, etc. I am confident that most middle school students who paid attention in English class can pick out which type of story any bible account is. (And yes, some are fully non-fiction.)

You're preaching to the choir, but not the Christian believers choir. This is a choir that possesses a higher level of intelligence and understanding than what we're seeing out of Ding and most of the others.

Are you looking the gifthorse in the mouth on account of a need to be contrary with an educated atheist?

 

[Meriweather]

An excellent example to make the point on how 'you' interpret the stories.

It is merely an example of listening to someone whose first language was Hebrew. As he was equally fluent in English he was able to clearly present the difference. It started me studying Jewish rabbis and scholars and their commentaries.

 

[Meriweather]

I wish my sister-in-law believed the same. You have quite effectively presented your version of the Ark story that can work for you.

To be clear, it is not 'my' version. It is merely something I retained by following commentaries by Jewish scholars and rabbis.

 

[Donald H]

I think it is almost a certainty that some survivors of the great flood survived by being on a boat or ark.

You are quite welcome in my opinion to amend your beliefs as often as you consider it necessary.

Fwiw: My opinion is that some people survived a localized flood by taking refuge on a boat that was of a size that was possible for a boat at the time.

We've more than filled the bill between us on what is possible when various different interpretations of the bibles' stories are relied upon. We should probably get down to establishing what is 'not' possible?

Or just agree to agree!

 

[Meriweather]

Or more honestly in her case, I don't 'wish' to disturb any of her beliefs

I don't know her, but it seems it would be possible to both appreciate giraffes sticking their heads above the ark and note the fact that a silent man was considered righteous, and that man remained silent...until he voiced a curse (taking mankind back to the wickedness present before the flood). So watch your language!

 

[Donald H]

To be clear, it is not 'my' version. It is merely something I retained by following commentaries by Jewish scholars and rabbis.

Alright, then you accepted somebody else's versions.

 

[Meriweather]

Are you looking the gifthorse in the mouth on account of a need to be contrary with an educated atheist?

No offense, but I live with too many educated atheists to consider you a gift horse!

 

[Donald H]

So watch your language!

I'll accept that direction coming from you in good faith, due to the emoticon.

 

[nomadic5]

Christian bashers think Christians are stupid to believe Biblical stories such as you mention.

And yet the same people claim that Biden actually won the WH fair and square!

 

[Meriweather]

You are quite welcome in my opinion to amend your beliefs as often as you consider it necessary.

It is more like expanding on what I already know, something I have been doing since the days when it meant spending a great deal of time at the library. Before that, even. I can't remember a time I wasn't on the lookout for various perspectives. Easy to do in my family of multi-denominations and atheists.

 

[nomadic5]

I haven't called anybody stupid. I think you're assuming 'stupidity' in that most Christians in the 18th. century believed in the 6000 year old earth.

As with mental illness, what the majority believes can be said to be normal, and so those who didn't believe in the 6000 years, would have been judged to be abnormal back then.

I'm a Canadian and so what I believe is of no importance here. I think Americans are divided on the question about 60/40. Which is which isn't important to me, other than what is important is preventing Biden from escalating to a nuclear WW3.

I see so little logic in most of what liberals say. Then they have to nerve to ridicule someone's religious beliefs. Well, there are beliefs and then there are truths. I myself try to find the truth of something, whether it's the election debacle or whatever. Reality is for people who can't handle drugs... so that explains me--- trying to put truth and facts first. It seems people hate you for that.

 

[Meriweather]

I'll accept that direction coming from you in good faith, due to the emoticon.

And the fact it was directed to the world at large, not to you as a single individual. Probably should have said, "We should all watch our language."

 

[Donald H]

No offense, but I live with too many educated atheists to consider you a gift horse!

The point I made was, you don't seem to want to accept that we've reached agreement, after all your attempts to do what I perceive to be your effort to still disagree.

I've accepted your interpretation of the 6000 year old earth story! It's one hell of a lot closer to my interpretation than my sister-in-law's.

But I'll hazard to say that she is as good, kind, and generous as you will ever be!

 

[Donald H]

I see so little logic in most of what liberals say. Then they have to nerve to ridicule someone's religious beliefs. Well, there are beliefs and then there are truths. I myself try to find the truth of something, whether it's the election debacle or whatever. Reality is for people who can't handle drugs... so that explains me--- trying to put truth and facts first. It seems people hate you for that.

Attempt to insult me noticed.
Go play.

 

[Meriweather]

The point I made was, you don't seem to want to accept that we've reached agreement, after all your attempts to do what I perceive to be your effort to still disagree.

Chuckle. Truly, I never saw us as 'disagreeing'. Or, anyone else for that matter. I accept as truth people see things from different perspectives. For example, a friend and I were both looking at pictures the other day. I saw beautiful, snowy landscapes. She saw no way home. We were both right. Same with the two of us--or any two. A scene can hold more than one truth.