Is the Bible the inerrent word of God?

[hobelim]

You like to dismiss the stories as fairy tales or fables but then balk at the revelation of the hidden teaching.

In any fairy tale with talking animals in a mythological place what it means, the teaching conveyed, is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Does this shock you? Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Are you still angry at God because he let grandma get eaten by the big bad wolf?

sheesh...

When a child asks you for something good to eat for breakfast would you give them a bowl of turds?

What makes you think that when bronze age Hebrew children were hungry to start learning about life in the greater world they were given a load of crap?

So you're comparing the Bible to a fairy tale. Which one? Goldilocks and the 3 bears?

lol....Is this your first day here? How many times have we had this discussion before? 5? !0?

What gives? No memory? You're stuck in some type of deficient intellectual loop? Science proves it false. snakes can't talk, oh its like a fairy tale? science proves it false. snakes cant talk, oh its like a fairy tale? snakes cant talk. science proves it false.. Oh its like a fairy tale?

And some people don't believe they can be struck with blindness by the invisible hand of a sky fairy.


Imagine that!

The people who wrote the bible believed every word to be taken literally, as an event that actually happened. It's people like you who realize that the bible is a false scientifically that feel the need to move the goalposts. So now there's no Adam and Eve, god talking, flood, walking on water, resurrection, nailing to the cross... Or are you a cherry picker and keep only what you like?

No, the people who wrote the bible used well known sophisticated figurative literary expressions., metaphors, allegories, parables, homonyms, hyperbole, etc.

Hate to break the news to you but a talking donkey 5000 years ago had the same implications a talking donkey has in any story written today - in any language.

I'm sure your mudda tried to warn you.

If you stay of Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.....(Pinocchio 3:14)


Remember? I guess not.

Now you're trying to rewrite history. Mudda is correct. But, I'm not gonna bother giving you a history lesson. However, you have yet to tell us why, if the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale, should we treat the Bible any different than any other book? You seem to be indicating that the Bible is absolutely not the word of God, but is the creation of Men.

The Word of God like manna from heaven is symbolic of teaching from above, a higher realm of conscious existence, in the same way the flesh of Jesus represents teaching from God as shown in the verse, and the word became flesh, a new metaphor for enlightened teaching.

Of course it is the creation of men who learned something from and about life.


Why should "we" treat it differently than any other book?

No other book is the basis for how billions of people perceive reality, their very notion of good and evil, right and wrong, the basis for ideas of crime and punishment, war and peace, and for so many nations...

We both agree that the professed beliefs of organized religions based on scripture are perverse. You see the detrimental effect it has on the mental health of people who do not think very deeply about the subject.

Why wouldn't you treat it differently?

 

[hobelim]

So, go ahead...

Act surprised, again, at the revelation that the Bible is like a collection of fairy tales.

ugh....

I see what you did there. You start out by insisting that it is absurd to think that a book with talking snakes, and donkeys as anything other than a collection of fairy tales. But, now, you end with The Bible is like a collection of fairy tales, implying that you think there is some difference between the Bible, and other fairy tales. And what would that difference be?

Excellent question.

See above response.

 

[Mudda]

So you're comparing the Bible to a fairy tale. Which one? Goldilocks and the 3 bears?

lol....Is this your first day here? How many times have we had this discussion before? 5? !0?

What gives? No memory? You're stuck in some type of deficient intellectual loop? Science proves it false. snakes can't talk, oh its like a fairy tale? science proves it false. snakes cant talk, oh its like a fairy tale? snakes cant talk. science proves it false.. Oh its like a fairy tale?

And some people don't believe they can be struck with blindness by the invisible hand of a sky fairy.


Imagine that!

The people who wrote the bible believed every word to be taken literally, as an event that actually happened. It's people like you who realize that the bible is a false scientifically that feel the need to move the goalposts. So now there's no Adam and Eve, god talking, flood, walking on water, resurrection, nailing to the cross... Or are you a cherry picker and keep only what you like?

No, the people who wrote the bible used well known sophisticated figurative literary expressions., metaphors, allegories, parables, homonyms, hyperbole, etc.

Hate to break the news to you but a talking donkey 5000 years ago had the same implications a talking donkey has in any story written today - in any language.

I'm sure your mudda tried to warn you.

If you stay of Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.....(Pinocchio 3:14)


Remember? I guess not.

Now you're trying to rewrite history. Mudda is correct. But, I'm not gonna bother giving you a history lesson. However, you have yet to tell us why, if the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale, should we treat the Bible any different than any other book? You seem to be indicating that the Bible is absolutely not the word of God, but is the creation of Men.

The Word of God like manna from heaven is symbolic of teaching from above, a higher realm of conscious existence, in the same way the flesh of Jesus represents teaching from God as shown in the verse, and the word became flesh, a new metaphor for enlightened teaching.

Of course it is the creation of men who learned something from and about life.


Why should "we" treat it differently than any other book?

No other book is the basis for how billions of people perceive reality, their very notion of good and evil, right and wrong, the basis for ideas of crime and punishment, war and peace, and for so many nations...

We both agree that the professed beliefs of organized religions based on scripture are perverse. You see the detrimental effect it has on the mental health of people who do not think very deeply about the subject.

Why wouldn't you treat it differently?

You don't believe the stories in the bible to be true. But now you believe the stories in the bible about Jesus? Please explain.

 

[Czernobog]

So you're comparing the Bible to a fairy tale. Which one? Goldilocks and the 3 bears?

lol....Is this your first day here? How many times have we had this discussion before? 5? !0?

What gives? No memory? You're stuck in some type of deficient intellectual loop? Science proves it false. snakes can't talk, oh its like a fairy tale? science proves it false. snakes cant talk, oh its like a fairy tale? snakes cant talk. science proves it false.. Oh its like a fairy tale?

And some people don't believe they can be struck with blindness by the invisible hand of a sky fairy.


Imagine that!

The people who wrote the bible believed every word to be taken literally, as an event that actually happened. It's people like you who realize that the bible is a false scientifically that feel the need to move the goalposts. So now there's no Adam and Eve, god talking, flood, walking on water, resurrection, nailing to the cross... Or are you a cherry picker and keep only what you like?

No, the people who wrote the bible used well known sophisticated figurative literary expressions., metaphors, allegories, parables, homonyms, hyperbole, etc.

Hate to break the news to you but a talking donkey 5000 years ago had the same implications a talking donkey has in any story written today - in any language.

I'm sure your mudda tried to warn you.

If you stay of Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.....(Pinocchio 3:14)


Remember? I guess not.

Now you're trying to rewrite history. Mudda is correct. But, I'm not gonna bother giving you a history lesson. However, you have yet to tell us why, if the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale, should we treat the Bible any different than any other book? You seem to be indicating that the Bible is absolutely not the word of God, but is the creation of Men.

The Word of God like manna from heaven is symbolic of teaching from above,

See, first you call the Bible a collection of fairy tales, then when asked why we should take it seriously, you come back with this word of God non-sequitur bullshit.

So, which is it? Is the Bible a collection of fairy tales written by men, or is the the very Word of God, and should be accepted as valid, honest, and an accurate record of events?

 

[Czernobog]

No other book is the basis for how billions of people perceive reality, their very notion of good and evil, right and wrong, the basis for ideas of crime and punishment, war and peace, and for so many nations...

Not even a little bit true. The Q'uran. The Book of Mormon. The Bhagavad Ghita. In short all of the religious books is the basis for "billions of people" to guide their lives, and their perception of reality.

Care to try again?

 

[Czernobog]

lol....Is this your first day here? How many times have we had this discussion before? 5? !0?

What gives? No memory? You're stuck in some type of deficient intellectual loop? Science proves it false. snakes can't talk, oh its like a fairy tale? science proves it false. snakes cant talk, oh its like a fairy tale? snakes cant talk. science proves it false.. Oh its like a fairy tale?

And some people don't believe they can be struck with blindness by the invisible hand of a sky fairy.


Imagine that!

The people who wrote the bible believed every word to be taken literally, as an event that actually happened. It's people like you who realize that the bible is a false scientifically that feel the need to move the goalposts. So now there's no Adam and Eve, god talking, flood, walking on water, resurrection, nailing to the cross... Or are you a cherry picker and keep only what you like?

No, the people who wrote the bible used well known sophisticated figurative literary expressions., metaphors, allegories, parables, homonyms, hyperbole, etc.

Hate to break the news to you but a talking donkey 5000 years ago had the same implications a talking donkey has in any story written today - in any language.

I'm sure your mudda tried to warn you.

If you stay of Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.....(Pinocchio 3:14)


Remember? I guess not.

Now you're trying to rewrite history. Mudda is correct. But, I'm not gonna bother giving you a history lesson. However, you have yet to tell us why, if the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale, should we treat the Bible any different than any other book? You seem to be indicating that the Bible is absolutely not the word of God, but is the creation of Men.

The Word of God like manna from heaven is symbolic of teaching from above, a higher realm of conscious existence, in the same way the flesh of Jesus represents teaching from God as shown in the verse, and the word became flesh, a new metaphor for enlightened teaching.

Of course it is the creation of men who learned something from and about life.


Why should "we" treat it differently than any other book?

No other book is the basis for how billions of people perceive reality, their very notion of good and evil, right and wrong, the basis for ideas of crime and punishment, war and peace, and for so many nations...

We both agree that the professed beliefs of organized religions based on scripture are perverse. You see the detrimental effect it has on the mental health of people who do not think very deeply about the subject.

Why wouldn't you treat it differently?

You don't believe the stories in the bible to be true. But now you believe the stories in the bible about Jesus? Please explain.

More importantly, he doesn't believe the stories in the bible actually happened, but, magically, the Bible is still the "Word of God". Apparently, God is a conman who made shit up to get people to believe in him. I'm getting a mental image of the Wizard of Oz. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

 

[hobelim]

lol....Is this your first day here? How many times have we had this discussion before? 5? !0?

What gives? No memory? You're stuck in some type of deficient intellectual loop? Science proves it false. snakes can't talk, oh its like a fairy tale? science proves it false. snakes cant talk, oh its like a fairy tale? snakes cant talk. science proves it false.. Oh its like a fairy tale?

And some people don't believe they can be struck with blindness by the invisible hand of a sky fairy.


Imagine that!

The people who wrote the bible believed every word to be taken literally, as an event that actually happened. It's people like you who realize that the bible is a false scientifically that feel the need to move the goalposts. So now there's no Adam and Eve, god talking, flood, walking on water, resurrection, nailing to the cross... Or are you a cherry picker and keep only what you like?

No, the people who wrote the bible used well known sophisticated figurative literary expressions., metaphors, allegories, parables, homonyms, hyperbole, etc.

Hate to break the news to you but a talking donkey 5000 years ago had the same implications a talking donkey has in any story written today - in any language.

I'm sure your mudda tried to warn you.

If you stay of Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.....(Pinocchio 3:14)


Remember? I guess not.

Now you're trying to rewrite history. Mudda is correct. But, I'm not gonna bother giving you a history lesson. However, you have yet to tell us why, if the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale, should we treat the Bible any different than any other book? You seem to be indicating that the Bible is absolutely not the word of God, but is the creation of Men.

The Word of God like manna from heaven is symbolic of teaching from above,

See, first you call the Bible a collection of fairy tales, then when asked why we should take it seriously, you come back with this word of God non-sequitur bullshit.

So, which is it? Is the Bible a collection of fairy tales written by men, or is the the very Word of God, and should be accepted as valid, honest, and an accurate record of events?

Don't be silly.

There are many more options than that.

Suffice it to say that we are living on a planet filled with people trying to create a civilization according to the historical record provided by a collection of disney stories from a distant past interpreted by a bunch of baboons..

Thats insane.

That does not mean that there is no truth to be found in those stories.

But baboons will never get it...

 

[Czernobog]

The people who wrote the bible believed every word to be taken literally, as an event that actually happened. It's people like you who realize that the bible is a false scientifically that feel the need to move the goalposts. So now there's no Adam and Eve, god talking, flood, walking on water, resurrection, nailing to the cross... Or are you a cherry picker and keep only what you like?

No, the people who wrote the bible used well known sophisticated figurative literary expressions., metaphors, allegories, parables, homonyms, hyperbole, etc.

Hate to break the news to you but a talking donkey 5000 years ago had the same implications a talking donkey has in any story written today - in any language.

I'm sure your mudda tried to warn you.

If you stay of Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.....(Pinocchio 3:14)


Remember? I guess not.

Now you're trying to rewrite history. Mudda is correct. But, I'm not gonna bother giving you a history lesson. However, you have yet to tell us why, if the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale, should we treat the Bible any different than any other book? You seem to be indicating that the Bible is absolutely not the word of God, but is the creation of Men.

The Word of God like manna from heaven is symbolic of teaching from above,

See, first you call the Bible a collection of fairy tales, then when asked why we should take it seriously, you come back with this word of God non-sequitur bullshit.

So, which is it? Is the Bible a collection of fairy tales written by men, or is the the very Word of God, and should be accepted as valid, honest, and an accurate record of events?

Don't be silly.

There are many more options than that.

Suffice it to say that we are living on a planet filled with people trying to create a civilization according to the historical record provided by a collection of disney stories from a distant past interpreted by a bunch of baboons..

Thats insane.

That does not mean that there is no truth to be found in those stories.

But baboons will never get it...

There are truths to be found in Harry Fucking Potter! I wouldn't advise building a fucking religion around it! And I certainly wouldn't suggest that the books were the "Word of God"!

 

[hobelim]

No, the people who wrote the bible used well known sophisticated figurative literary expressions., metaphors, allegories, parables, homonyms, hyperbole, etc.

Hate to break the news to you but a talking donkey 5000 years ago had the same implications a talking donkey has in any story written today - in any language.

I'm sure your mudda tried to warn you.

If you stay of Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.....(Pinocchio 3:14)


Remember? I guess not.

Now you're trying to rewrite history. Mudda is correct. But, I'm not gonna bother giving you a history lesson. However, you have yet to tell us why, if the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale, should we treat the Bible any different than any other book? You seem to be indicating that the Bible is absolutely not the word of God, but is the creation of Men.

The Word of God like manna from heaven is symbolic of teaching from above,

See, first you call the Bible a collection of fairy tales, then when asked why we should take it seriously, you come back with this word of God non-sequitur bullshit.

So, which is it? Is the Bible a collection of fairy tales written by men, or is the the very Word of God, and should be accepted as valid, honest, and an accurate record of events?

Don't be silly.

There are many more options than that.

Suffice it to say that we are living on a planet filled with people trying to create a civilization according to the historical record provided by a collection of disney stories from a distant past interpreted by a bunch of baboons..

Thats insane.

That does not mean that there is no truth to be found in those stories.

But baboons will never get it...

There are truths to be found in Harry Fucking Potter! I wouldn't advise building a fucking religion around it! And I certainly wouldn't suggest that the books were the "Word of God"!

Alrighty then.

Lets close these books and then write new ones for the children of the future.

You could be the star!

A surly curmudgeon condemned by a sky fairy living behind a locked door in a very dark room oozing bile and giving off putrid smells who dreams of eating the brains of naughty boys and girls.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You like to dismiss the stories as fairy tales or fables but then balk at the revelation of the hidden teaching.

In any fairy tale with talking animals in a mythological place what it means, the teaching conveyed, is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Does this shock you? Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Are you still angry at God because he let grandma get eaten by the big bad wolf?

sheesh...

When a child asks you for something good to eat for breakfast would you give them a bowl of turds?

What makes you think that when bronze age Hebrew children were hungry to start learning about life in the greater world they were given a load of crap?

So you're comparing the Bible to a fairy tale. Which one? Goldilocks and the 3 bears?

lol....Is this your first day here? How many times have we had this discussion before? 5? !0?

What gives? No memory? You're stuck in some type of deficient intellectual loop? Science proves it false. snakes can't talk, oh its like a fairy tale? science proves it false. snakes cant talk, oh its like a fairy tale? snakes cant talk. science proves it false.. Oh its like a fairy tale?

And some people don't believe they can be struck with blindness by the invisible hand of a sky fairy.


Imagine that!

The people who wrote the bible believed every word to be taken literally, as an event that actually happened. It's people like you who realize that the bible is a false scientifically that feel the need to move the goalposts. So now there's no Adam and Eve, god talking, flood, walking on water, resurrection, nailing to the cross... Or are you a cherry picker and keep only what you like?

No, the people who wrote the bible used well known figurative literary expressions.

Hate to break the news to you but a talking donkey 5000 years ago had the same implications a talking donkey has in any story written today.

I'm sure your mudda tried to warn you.

If you stay of Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.....(Pinocchio 3:14)


Remember? I guess not.

You are totally wrong and you know it, the people back then thought that these stories were true, you can't deny that. It's only since the advent of science that people are slowly stopping to believe in them.

Now you're trying to rewrite history. Mudda is correct. But, I'm not gonna bother giving you a history lesson. However, you have yet to tell us why, if the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale, should we treat the Bible any different than any other book? You seem to be indicating that the Bible is absolutely not the word of God, but is the creation of Men.

The Word of God like manna from heaven is symbolic of teaching from above,

See, first you call the Bible a collection of fairy tales, then when asked why we should take it seriously, you come back with this word of God non-sequitur bullshit.

So, which is it? Is the Bible a collection of fairy tales written by men, or is the the very Word of God, and should be accepted as valid, honest, and an accurate record of events?

Don't be silly.

There are many more options than that.

Suffice it to say that we are living on a planet filled with people trying to create a civilization according to the historical record provided by a collection of disney stories from a distant past interpreted by a bunch of baboons..

Thats insane.

That does not mean that there is no truth to be found in those stories.

But baboons will never get it...

There are truths to be found in Harry Fucking Potter! I wouldn't advise building a fucking religion around it! And I certainly wouldn't suggest that the books were the "Word of God"!

Alrighty then.

Lets close these books and then write new ones for the children of the future.

You could be the star!

A surly curmudgeon condemned by a sky fairy living behind a locked door in a very dark room oozing bile and giving off putrid smells who dreams of eating the brains of naughty boys and girls.

Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubard pulled it off....

 

[Meriweather]

So, which is it? Is the Bible a collection of fairy tales written by men, or is the the very Word of God, and should be accepted as valid, honest, and an accurate record of events?

Are you familiar with the concept of a Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma? Perhaps think of the Bible as the Word of God, Wrapped in a Fairy Tale, Inside Truth.

If people only want to delve into it as far as the fairy tale, they will have a lot of fun, and even reach the conclusion they are the only adults in a children's playground.

 

[hobelim]

So you're comparing the Bible to a fairy tale. Which one? Goldilocks and the 3 bears?

lol....Is this your first day here? How many times have we had this discussion before? 5? !0?

What gives? No memory? You're stuck in some type of deficient intellectual loop? Science proves it false. snakes can't talk, oh its like a fairy tale? science proves it false. snakes cant talk, oh its like a fairy tale? snakes cant talk. science proves it false.. Oh its like a fairy tale?

And some people don't believe they can be struck with blindness by the invisible hand of a sky fairy.


Imagine that!

The people who wrote the bible believed every word to be taken literally, as an event that actually happened. It's people like you who realize that the bible is a false scientifically that feel the need to move the goalposts. So now there's no Adam and Eve, god talking, flood, walking on water, resurrection, nailing to the cross... Or are you a cherry picker and keep only what you like?

No, the people who wrote the bible used well known figurative literary expressions.

Hate to break the news to you but a talking donkey 5000 years ago had the same implications a talking donkey has in any story written today.

I'm sure your mudda tried to warn you.

If you stay of Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.....(Pinocchio 3:14)


Remember? I guess not.

You are totally wrong and you know it, the people back then thought that these stories were true, you can't deny that. It's only since the advent of science that people are slowly stopping to believe in them.

The Word of God like manna from heaven is symbolic of teaching from above,

See, first you call the Bible a collection of fairy tales, then when asked why we should take it seriously, you come back with this word of God non-sequitur bullshit.

So, which is it? Is the Bible a collection of fairy tales written by men, or is the the very Word of God, and should be accepted as valid, honest, and an accurate record of events?

Don't be silly.

There are many more options than that.

Suffice it to say that we are living on a planet filled with people trying to create a civilization according to the historical record provided by a collection of disney stories from a distant past interpreted by a bunch of baboons..

Thats insane.

That does not mean that there is no truth to be found in those stories.

But baboons will never get it...

There are truths to be found in Harry Fucking Potter! I wouldn't advise building a fucking religion around it! And I certainly wouldn't suggest that the books were the "Word of God"!

Alrighty then.

Lets close these books and then write new ones for the children of the future.

You could be the star!

A surly curmudgeon condemned by a sky fairy living behind a locked door in a very dark room oozing bile and giving off putrid smells who dreams of eating the brains of naughty boys and girls.

Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubard pulled it off....

Sure they did.

Now the wisdom of God can be seen in giving the command to keep dairy products, baby food, (fairy tales), separate from meat, (actual truth), the revelation of the hidden teaching, which is food exclusively for adults who have grown some teeth with which to ruminate.

 

[Mudda]

So, which is it? Is the Bible a collection of fairy tales written by men, or is the the very Word of God, and should be accepted as valid, honest, and an accurate record of events?

Are you familiar with the concept of a Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma? Perhaps think of the Bible as the Word of God, Wrapped in a Fairy Tale, Inside Truth.

If people only want to delve into it as far as the fairy tale, they will have a lot of fun, and even reach the conclusion they are the only adults in a children's playground.

Yet when it was written, everyone thought that the events depicted were real and actually happened. And if the stories about Creation and the Flood... aren't real, what makes you think that the stories about what Jesus said are real?

 

[Meriweather]

Yet when it was written, everyone thought that the events depicted were real and actually happened. And if the stories about Creation and the Flood... aren't real, what makes you think that the stories about what Jesus said are real?

1. When was it written?
2. Who is "everyone"?

I believe the flood actually happened, but that it was a regional, horizon-to-horizon flood, as far as the eye could see. Unlike you, I don't believe the original author of the story envisioned Noah loading kangaroos onto the ark. It was your later interpretations that change the story.

Because I do believe the Great Flood actually happened and that God is involved in creation, it naturally follows that I believe Jesus is real as well.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

lol....Is this your first day here? How many times have we had this discussion before? 5? !0?

What gives? No memory? You're stuck in some type of deficient intellectual loop? Science proves it false. snakes can't talk, oh its like a fairy tale? science proves it false. snakes cant talk, oh its like a fairy tale? snakes cant talk. science proves it false.. Oh its like a fairy tale?

And some people don't believe they can be struck with blindness by the invisible hand of a sky fairy.


Imagine that!

The people who wrote the bible believed every word to be taken literally, as an event that actually happened. It's people like you who realize that the bible is a false scientifically that feel the need to move the goalposts. So now there's no Adam and Eve, god talking, flood, walking on water, resurrection, nailing to the cross... Or are you a cherry picker and keep only what you like?

No, the people who wrote the bible used well known figurative literary expressions.

Hate to break the news to you but a talking donkey 5000 years ago had the same implications a talking donkey has in any story written today.

I'm sure your mudda tried to warn you.

If you stay of Pleasure Island for too long, those donkey ears are there to stay.....(Pinocchio 3:14)


Remember? I guess not.

You are totally wrong and you know it, the people back then thought that these stories were true, you can't deny that. It's only since the advent of science that people are slowly stopping to believe in them.

See, first you call the Bible a collection of fairy tales, then when asked why we should take it seriously, you come back with this word of God non-sequitur bullshit.

So, which is it? Is the Bible a collection of fairy tales written by men, or is the the very Word of God, and should be accepted as valid, honest, and an accurate record of events?

Don't be silly.

There are many more options than that.

Suffice it to say that we are living on a planet filled with people trying to create a civilization according to the historical record provided by a collection of disney stories from a distant past interpreted by a bunch of baboons..

Thats insane.

That does not mean that there is no truth to be found in those stories.

But baboons will never get it...

There are truths to be found in Harry Fucking Potter! I wouldn't advise building a fucking religion around it! And I certainly wouldn't suggest that the books were the "Word of God"!

Alrighty then.

Lets close these books and then write new ones for the children of the future.

You could be the star!

A surly curmudgeon condemned by a sky fairy living behind a locked door in a very dark room oozing bile and giving off putrid smells who dreams of eating the brains of naughty boys and girls.

Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubard pulled it off....

Sure they did.

Now the wisdom of God can be seen in giving the command to keep dairy products, baby food, (fairy tales), separate from meat, (actual truth), the revelation of the hidden teaching, which is food exclusively for adults who have grown some teeth with which to ruminate.

Uh....what? It's perfectly safe to give 6 month old babies pureed meat. Maybe I missed your meaning, there...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet when it was written, everyone thought that the events depicted were real and actually happened. And if the stories about Creation and the Flood... aren't real, what makes you think that the stories about what Jesus said are real?

1. When was it written?
2. Who is "everyone"?

I believe the flood actually happened, but that it was a regional, horizon-to-horizon flood, as far as the eye could see. Unlike you, I don't believe the original author of the story envisioned Noah loading kangaroos onto the ark. It was your later interpretations that change the story.

Because I do believe the Great Flood actually happened and that God is involved in creation, it naturally follows that I believe Jesus is real as well.

But we know that everything about the great flood story is demonstrably false.

 

[Czernobog]

Yet when it was written, everyone thought that the events depicted were real and actually happened. And if the stories about Creation and the Flood... aren't real, what makes you think that the stories about what Jesus said are real?

1. When was it written?
2. Who is "everyone"?

I believe the flood actually happened, but that it was a regional, horizon-to-horizon flood, as far as the eye could see. Unlike you, I don't believe the original author of the story envisioned Noah loading kangaroos onto the ark. It was your later interpretations that change the story.

Because I do believe the Great Flood actually happened and that God is involved in creation, it naturally follows that I believe Jesus is real as well.

Really? So what about the part where God told him to take about a pair of every animal on the planet? God didn't really say that either? Just completely reinventing the story to something you can find more palatable, huh?

And how do you explain that there are no geological strata, even in the local area, to indicate that any such catastrophic flood ever occurred? Then let's consider the story of the Olive Tree at the end. Gen 8:11 (NIV)- “When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth”. There are a few problems with this. There was an olive tree, and the tree had leaves. The tree must have been an adult tree as the water had only just receded. There would not have been time in the waters receding for the tree to sprout and grow. The second point is to do with the claim that the tree had leaves. Any query as to the growing habits of olive trees will inform the reader that olive trees do not like standing water. They will certainly not do well with being submerged under water for months. It is highly unlikely that the tree would have survived and so it is implausible that an olive branch was brought to Noah in the ark. Another point to consider with the olive tree is that as the waters were just receding the points of land that would have been visible would be the highest mountain points. We also know that olive trees don’t grow at high altitude. For this story to be true the tree would have needed to be growing before the flood so one may question how it is that an olive tree was growing at extreme altitude.

But, you "believe" the story of the flood? Even as a regional event, as you have reinvented the story, there are things that just don't fit. And your reinvented story simply does not fit with the text, context, and syntax of the story as written.

Once again, we don't get to just reinvent the Bible to a version we find more palatable; not, and still maintain the accuracy, and value of the Bible.

 

[Meriweather]

But we know that everything about the great flood story is demonstrably false.

So there haven't been any floods?

 

[Czernobog]

But we know that everything about the great flood story is demonstrably false.

So there haven't been any floods?

Not of the nature that the Bible describes - ones that would have put the entire region, including the mountains in the region, under water. At least there is no geological evidence of such. And, certainly no such global floods. One can't even count the glacial Ice Age, for that occurred some 2.6 billion years ago, predating the alleged story of Noah by just a bit.

 

[Meriweather]

Really? So what about the part where God told him to take about a pair of every animal on the planet? God didn't really say that either? Just completely reinventing the story to something you can find more palatable, huh?

And how do you explain that there are no geological strata, even in the local area, to indicate that any such catastrophic flood ever occurred? Then let's consider the story of the Olive Tree at the end. Gen 8:11 (NIV)- “When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth”. There are a few problems with this. There was an olive tree, and the tree had leaves. The tree must have been an adult tree as the water had only just receded. There would not have been time in the waters receding for the tree to sprout and grow. The second point is to do with the claim that the tree had leaves. Any query as to the growing habits of olive trees will inform the reader that olive trees do not like standing water. They will certainly not do well with being submerged under water for months. It is highly unlikely that the tree would have survived and so it is implausible that an olive branch was brought to Noah in the ark. Another point to consider with the olive tree is that as the waters were just receding the points of land that would have been visible would be the highest mountain points. We also know that olive trees don’t grow at high altitude. For this story to be true the tree would have needed to be growing before the flood so one may question how it is that an olive tree was growing at extreme altitude.

But, you "believe" the story of the flood? Even as a regional event, as you have reinvented the story, there are things that just don't fit. And your reinvented story simply does not fit with the text, context, and syntax of the story as written.

Once again, we don't get to just reinvent the Bible to a version we find more palatable; not, and still maintain the accuracy, and value of the Bible.

Where in the Bible does it say the flood covered the planet? Where does it say to gather all animals on the planet? Please use the original Hebrew for planet, keeping in mind that the English "earth" can mean dirt or planet, depending on usage. Also keep in mind there are two places in the Old Testament that state that after God separated land from water, the entire planet was never again covered in water.

Reinventing the Bible? Hardly. Going back to original sources and learning that modern man interpreted the English rendition somewhat differently than the original Hebrew indicates is called research. Doesn't the very fact that there was an olive branch verify that the original Hebrew was correct that this was not the planet-wide event the modern English speaking world decided it meant?