by FreeAtLast1914 126 Replies latest jw friends
Perry
With your new religious beliefs are you now interpreting Genesis 1 in a literal short time frame or do you see some allegorical aspects to the account. What are your thoughts about some commentators who describe the different creation accounts as the Elohistic and Yahwistic traditions (see footnotes in the New Jerusalem Bible).
Thanks
lime,
You are the one who tried to say Jesus was just like the Horus myth. That is why I showed you evidence to the contrary. As far as other savior Gods, like Perry said there is simply none like Jesus. People have been making that claim to me for more than 20 years and whenever I ask them for specific references to this, they can never seem to provide them. I have personally looked into all the accusations by doing deep research into whether or not jesus was like Horus, Zeus, Gilgamesh, etc. and have always found this accusation to be grasping at straws. There is always much more difference between these stories then similiarities between them and jesus.
Do yourself a favor and don't just believe utube or someone else who puts an article up on the web with no references, go to the library yourself and check these things Out. Thats what I did and I am glad I did.I also have an extensive library in my home of books on religion, myths, etc. So I can go right to the source. Again, if you can give me any references I can varify, I am sure I have the book at home and will glady look it up.
Ham,
You said the bible leaves us in the dark about the age of the universe - the thing is that God never told mankind what the age of the universe is and why would he? Yes modern science can guess at its age and are probably close to it, but it is only a guess. Unless we were around when the universe was formed, we have no way of conclusively knowing for sure.
And since the bible is not a scientific textbook but rather a faith book, we shouldn't expect the answers to Q's like these to be addressed in it.
Lilly
The Bible lies. It is historically, morally, and scientifically inaccurate. And it gives details of events that are scientifically impossible, like the Flood.
This has been an interesting debate. I've enjoyed following its evolution (pun intended). But I feel the need to disclose my current take on the Holy Book. I do not think it is scientifically accurate. It was never intended to be. I think it is a book of stories told by believers about how they viewed their God. Nothing more. So much of it fable and myth, yet its overarching message (especially the New Testament) is love and peace and goodness to one's neighbor. (Of course you have to read the portions about the Jewish slaughter of innocent women and children with a grain of salt)
Still, even if very little of what is written in the Bible ever happened, it is still a book that contains lessons and encouragement to do good. Even fairy tales strive to teach morals...
This has been an interesting debate. I've enjoyed following its evolution (pun intended). But I feel the need to disclose my current take on the Holy Book. I do not think it is scientifically accurate. It was never intended to be. I think it is a book of stories told by believers about how they viewed their God. Nothing more. So much of it fable and myth, yet its overarching message (especially the New Testament) is love and peace and goodness to one's neighbor. (Of course you have to read the portions about the Jewish slaughter of innocent women and children with a grain of salt)
Still, even if very little of what is written in the Bible ever happened, it is still a book that contains lessons and encouragement to do good. Even fairy tales strive to teach morals...
An excellent and reasonable approach. It is dignified without resorting to the ridiculous to try to make the bible "scientifically correct" in modern day terms, which is is demonstrably NOT.
designs,
Philo of Alexandria, Egypt (Jew and Roman Statesman) was a sophistic pontificator of allegorical imaginations. He was contempory with Jesus and probably met the apostle Mark. He passed on to "Christians" this allegorical method of reading the bible through the likes of Clement and Origen right on through Jerome and beyond until you get to today.
The school at Antioch was known for it's literalness, it also had it's noteworthy figures all throughout history that identified with it's position. These figures were usually hunted down and killed by those from the former school of influence. 99% of all known ancient NT manuscripts can be traced to Antioch origin.
Fundamental Christians reject the clear demonic influence of Westcott and Hort as well as Catholic influences in general pretty much based on principle. The Jerusalem Bible is a product of all three influences described above. Sorry for the lenghty explanation...but I simply have no desire to look at any footnote from the Jerusalem Bible. I do not look down on other Christians who do not feel as strongly as I do. That is simply my personal position. Doesn't bother me in the least that other believers are not where I'm at.
As far as what I think of Genesis, I really have nothing to add to what I already wrote. I am intrigued by the Gap Theory. But, it wouldn't surprise me at all if every letter was literally true. Am I prepared to make that statement?, no. What I do know is that every letter is true with the proper viewpoint. I have absolute proof.
What I also know is that secualrists have so many holes in their theories regarding our origins that I would never in a "million years" make scientists my sole source of confidence. Science yes.... scientists who do the interpreting, no.
Perry - regarding your comments addressed to me, page 5.
Just when the hell did I invoke Darwin? My comments did not mention him, nor were they connected in any way to his theories. Just because the Bible is bunk, does not mean that those who understand that fact agree with Darwin for God's sake.
Jeff
Sorry about that Ak-Jeff. You got another theory besides Darwins' you'd like to bring up?
By the way, why do you claim the bible is bunk?
By the way, why do you claim the bible is bunk?
I consider myths, legends, lies, history written for the first time hundreds of years after it occured, failed prophecy, hypocricy spilling out from nearly every character mentioned bunk. Not to mention the horrible effects that believing this tripe has had on mankind in general. It has produced war in excess, inquisitions, corrupt churches, panderers, fraud, cults, murderous zealots, judgmentalism, and myriads of people so captured by it's charm that they believe anything it says no matter how stupid. Oh I know, not in 'your' church. Present company accepted.
Might just be me.
Jeff
It has produced war in excess, inquisitions, corrupt churches, panderers, fraud, cults, murderous zealots, judgmentalism,
If the bible caused all that, I can see why you would call it bunk. Who told you that the bible caused those things?
Sounds a lot like the Watchtower.
