Posts by frankiespeakin

82

Yet another example of how silly the Bible is...

by Abaddon in

okay, let's go along with the flood story for a moment, to the point where noah exits the ark.. here we have noah, with two of each animal and seven of the clean animals; maybe a few dozen animals that were not essential to the future survival of the species.. what does god do?.

tells noah he can eat animals now.. are you telling me an all-wise, all-knowing god isn't capable of better planning than that?

which strikes you as more likely?

frankiespeakin

Derrick,

If God were speaking inhighly scientific terms about creation, no one would understand it. Do you know what Absolute Reality is? Can God explain that useing human language, especially language as it was 3000 years ago? For this reason, and others stated in my previous posts, I think offers a reasonable explanation.

I accept that certain scientific terms would have been wasted on a primitive audience, but why replace them with lies? It's like a parent who's asked by a young child where babies come from. Just because the child wouldn't understand the mechanics of sexual reproduction doesn't mean a parent has to tell them that babies are brought by a stork or found in a cabbage patch. Likewise, telling humans that their species popped into existence 6,000 years ago and all their suffering was caused by a talking snake and a piece of food is absurd, insulting and unncessary.

I liked your illustration BTW, and I'm curious, what should we as parents tell our children about Santa Claus?

Most of us recognize the harmless nature in these stories that parents tell thier children, and realize that eventually the parent will explain to the child the truth or the child will find out on its own. There's nothing evil or devious about parents telling these stories,, that's why so many people who put high-value on truth still tell these stories to their children even though they know they're not true. They see them as absolutely harmless. Maybe they remember the fun they had, when they as children sat on Santa's knee told the Santa Claus all the things they wanted for Christmas, and so don't want them to miss out on this relatively happy time in the thier lives by finding out too early that there really isn't a Santa.

What exactly is the difference between the "metaphor" of the Biblical creation account, and the "myths" of other creation accounts?

Metaphors abound throughout the Bible, because that was the common way of speaking in the Near East back then, they didn't have words for abstract thoughts until the Greek culture and language dominated the Near East, for that reason they aways had to paint a picture, that's why they often told stories, that were not in themselves true, but the message conveyed inside story was true. That was just the way language was back 2000+ years ago. The study of ancient writtings lets us know that was the common form of communication.

Myths, also developed from this common form of communication. In fact many scholars of the Bible, beleive that God may have taken some of the common myths, and changed around some of the details to fit his purpose.

8

Asteroid to cause Armageddon in 2014??

by Nosferatu in

jw
friends

from http://www.smh.com.au/handheld/articles/2003/09/02/1062403508395.htm.

2014 asteroid collision threat .

september 3 2003 .

frankiespeakin

Has anyone ever heard about the "Hypenova" or refurred to as the Death-Star by some.

Here's a link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/deathstar.shtml

Some scientist think that these stars sterilize the universe on a regular basis allowing evolutions to progress only so far, which may account for the fact that since evolution takes place all over the universe, we have not been visited by a superior intelligence somewhere out there in space, since eventually they are destroyed by massive bursts of radiation from Hypernovas.

82

Yet another example of how silly the Bible is...

by Abaddon in

okay, let's go along with the flood story for a moment, to the point where noah exits the ark.. here we have noah, with two of each animal and seven of the clean animals; maybe a few dozen animals that were not essential to the future survival of the species.. what does god do?.

tells noah he can eat animals now.. are you telling me an all-wise, all-knowing god isn't capable of better planning than that?

which strikes you as more likely?

frankiespeakin

Derrick,

The account of Adam and Eve I believe, is highly metaphorical, my reasons for this, is because of the scientific evidence which indicate organize civilization existed in the promised land many thousands of years before a literal interpretation of Genesis concerning Adam and Eve would indicate. The scientific evidence is very substantial, and after careful examination, as careful as a layman like myself can make that is. I see no reason to doubt the scientific evidence.

Again, if it's not literally true, how is it any more true than any creation myth? The rest of the Bible seems to regard Adam and Eve as real people, so much so that the chronology of Jesus in the gospels goes right back to Adam. Now, perhaps that's meant to be "metaphorical" as well, but a metaphor for what exactly?

If God were speaking inhighly scientific terms about creation, no one would understand it. Do you know what Absolute Reality is? Can God explain that useing human language, especially language as it was 3000 years ago? For this reason, and others stated in my previous posts, I think offers a reasonable explanation.

As regards to the gospel accounts and the chronologies, I do not deny that they may have taken the Genesis chronology as literal, after all the apostle Paul said "we have partial knowledge, and prophesy partially... for at present we see in a hazy outlined by means of a metal mirror" 1Cor.13:9-12. If Genesis was written somewhere around the time of the exodus, that would put it about 1200 years before Christ. So then quite naturally, some misunderstanding of the "extent" of the metaphorical nature of Genesis very likely existed, I do not make the statement dogmatically, and may be in need of correction in my views. But I feel it reasonable because they definately did not have science back then to understand the what we now know, about the extent of man's origins.

Abbadon,

Thanks for an interesting reply. Your argument that the Bible was written for the time it was written rather than for today and thus interpretation today will vary from interpretation when it was written is an accurate observation, which just underlines its human authorship

I believe the Bible is fully human, and fully God's word, I know that may seem paradoxical too many. I don't believe that men just acted as secretaries while God dictated, is much more complicated than that. I do beleive that we have to allow some human mis-conceptions to be in the Bible and that not every single word is to be taken as revelation fron God. Cases in point,, the reporting of wrong veiws of God expressed by Job's comforters, or Satan's temptations of Jesus, I could go on and on but I think you get my point.

It ignores the argument that is prophecy can be told in a figurative form that can be decoded into a prediction of events, then history can also be put in figurative terms that would fill the requirement of the time AND carry a coded message that when decoded would validate the divine authorship of the Bible.

I think a lot of so-called interpretations of Bible prophecy, are purely human endeavors. And not of same nature as Daniel and Joseph's interpretations.

The only alternative to some form of 'coded validation' not being used is that god wanted to give no proof. I have yet to have anyone explain to me why this would be so without contradicting supposed characteristics of god as revealed in the Bible.

The word of God is alive, but I don't think it offers any kind of scientific proof. My understanding of God, leads me to believe the proof of his existence is that not so much in his word, but in his creation all around us, and if a person is really seeking God, he will not be disappointed, even though it may seem to take some time before God reveals himself to that person. I also believe that God reveals himself differently and at the same time in many ways similarly to different people, according to His good pleasure.

This just means that the Bible has nothing to do with god, other than accidentally (if there is such an entity) when 'nice things' are said, or that god is a joker who describes himself in his book one way and acts in another.

That's your take on, one in which you feel is quite logical, I and the other hand have a completely different viewpoint, which I formed according to personal experience. I do think, that God will reveal His presence to those that really seeking him. This is my opinion according to personal experience.

6

A World Without Suffering Posted Model

by frankiespeakin in

jw
friends

a world without suffering

let's make an imaginary model, a world without suffering.

the consequences would be far-reaching.. and for example if no one could ever injure anyone else, the would be murderers knife would turn to paper or his bullets to thin air.. or take for example the mountain climber, or steeplejack, or the playing child falling from a height, would float unharmed to the ground.. the reckless driver would never meet with disaster.

frankiespeakin

I think God is in the process of soul building, and the pressures, sufferings, we and mankind in general experience, serve a very good purpose, that we overlook, because we forget about "eternity" and tend to live very much in the present. I think the book of Job alludes to this.

82

Yet another example of how silly the Bible is...

by Abaddon in

okay, let's go along with the flood story for a moment, to the point where noah exits the ark.. here we have noah, with two of each animal and seven of the clean animals; maybe a few dozen animals that were not essential to the future survival of the species.. what does god do?.

tells noah he can eat animals now.. are you telling me an all-wise, all-knowing god isn't capable of better planning than that?

which strikes you as more likely?

frankiespeakin

I think this is related to our subject as it expresses my views on Genesis.

The account of Adam and Eve I believe, is highly metaphorical, my reasons for this, is because of the scientific evidence which indicate organize civilization existed in the promised land many thousands of years before a literal interpretation of Genesis concerning Adam and Eve would indicate. The scientific evidence is very substantial, and after careful examination, as careful as a layman like myself can make that is. I see no reason to doubt the scientific evidence.After looking at many different interpretations of Genesis, I opted for the theistic, interpretation which allows for the first three chapters of Genesis to be highly metaphorical. This by the way does not show any disrespect for the word of God. Because it takes into account, the purpose for the scriptures being written in the first place, which was not to relate scientific information about how God created, we must not forget that He was speaking to very primitive people, who had no knowledge of science, people who even though they were the offspring of Abraham, were polytheistic, the purpose for the book of Genesis first three chapters is not to relate exact details concerning the creation of the universe and man. But to show that God is the creator of everything and that there are no other gods but Yahweh. God certainly was at liberty to use the common form of metaphorical communication, to explain this to the Israelites in concepts that they understood, this was important for them in order to enter into the "law contract" with Yahweh, we must remember that Genesis is one of the five books that make up law, and is in effect a preamble to the "law".
A closer look at the book of Genesis, and the anthropomorphic terms used when speaking of the Creator indicate it is highly poetic and metaphorical in content. The purpose of Genesis is much better served, not by our 20th-century use of scientific terms but by the highly metaphorical genra which is superior for conveying the message God wanted to convey in the preamble to the "law covenant".
In ancient times storytelling was used to convey messages, the story was not the message itself, it was only the vehicle or packaging, the messages is inside the story, this according to archaeologists was the common ancient form of communication, the details of the story did not have to be exact, for that is just the vehicle.
The message that I get from the story of Adam(adam means man BTW) and Eve is: that God created man a free moral agents and they chose for themselves to turn away from God.
When you think of it, the very fact that God made man a free moral agent the odds are very great that somewhere along the line rebellion is going to take place.

Fire away!!

6

A World Without Suffering Posted Model

by frankiespeakin in

jw
friends

a world without suffering

let's make an imaginary model, a world without suffering.

the consequences would be far-reaching.. and for example if no one could ever injure anyone else, the would be murderers knife would turn to paper or his bullets to thin air.. or take for example the mountain climber, or steeplejack, or the playing child falling from a height, would float unharmed to the ground.. the reckless driver would never meet with disaster.

frankiespeakin

A world without suffering
Let's make an imaginary model, a world without suffering. The consequences would be far-reaching.
And for example if no one could ever injure anyone else, the would be murderers knife would turn to paper or his bullets to thin air.
Or take for example the mountain climber, or steeplejack, or the playing child falling from a height, would float unharmed to the ground.
The reckless driver would never meet with disaster. There would be no need to work, there would be no call for concern of others in time of need, or danger for such a world,... There would be no real needs, or dangers.
The laws of nature would have to be very flexible sometimes an object will be hard other times it would be soft so that no one could be injured.

There would be no such thing as courage, or fortitude,.. They would have no point in an environment in which there was no real dangers.
Generosity, kindness, agape love, prudence, unselfishness, could not ever be formed, we wouldn't even have a notions of what these things mean. A world such as this,.. However well it may promote pleasure would be ill adapted for the development of moral qualities of the human personality.

It seems that an environment intended to make possible the growth of free beings of the finest characteristics of personal life must have a good deal in common with our present world. It must operate according to general and dependable laws, it must involve real dangers, difficulties, problems, obstacles, and the possibility of pain, failure, sorrow, frustration, and defeat.

I believe God made the world the way it is,... Because he really does love us.

82

Yet another example of how silly the Bible is...

by Abaddon in

okay, let's go along with the flood story for a moment, to the point where noah exits the ark.. here we have noah, with two of each animal and seven of the clean animals; maybe a few dozen animals that were not essential to the future survival of the species.. what does god do?.

tells noah he can eat animals now.. are you telling me an all-wise, all-knowing god isn't capable of better planning than that?

which strikes you as more likely?

frankiespeakin

Run,

Who cares what Noah thought? Take a look at the quotes from Genesis. Those are God's words. HE should have known the size and shape of the earth.

Your use off quotes from Genesis, offer no proof, for what you are implying:

For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die - Genesis 6:17

When one reads these quotes one has to go back to the meaning they would have at the original time of their writting, and not at the time of your reading. You are giving it a meaning that suits your purpose, namely to disprove it as God's word. If one were to use a little reasonableness, the meaning would be more clear. Your interpretation doesn't even allow for "idioms" which is natural in all cultures, which to me is very unreasonable expectation, if we can't make any allowance for idioms. To rule out idioms is very arbritrary and unwarrented.

15

Bethel Memories Good and Bad

by joelbear in

jw
friends

dave inspired me with his story of his week at bethel.

the fish in the pond outside the e building at the watchtower farm would eat out of your hand, very cool.

the fall colors of the mountains with the morning sunshine on them outside the dining hall at the farm were spectacular.

frankiespeakin

I actually don't have any fond memories,spent only a year and a half there back in the middle seventies.Left to get married 1976.

Reading some of the memories posted made me recall one.

It was just after lunch, and I was filling the glue trays on the book signature sewing machines. When you did this you had to yell something to let the brother who was operatining the machine you were filling the glue tray, which I did but this brother was a real go getter and so didn't like to stop very long and started up the machine before I finished which caught my middle finger and smashed it pretty good.

My entire nail was black from the being smashed, the pain was so unbearable I got a razor blade and dug 5 holes in my nail to relieve the blood pressure under itl. The next day the floor overseer(martin martinez?) came up to me and showed me the glue bar that was broken when it smashed my finger, and he also mentioned they had to adjust all the cams, because of this incident. He told me the glue bar cost $55. and gave me the impression that I was responcible for the expense, I just looked at him like he was an A$$ Ho!e, and walked away.

It's little incidents like these that made me sure I didn't want to spend the rest of my life in Bethel, for if you ever got into trouble (commit a serious sin)they would kick you out on your a$$ and if you spent 30 years there, you would really be in a fix.

12

GB on a Self Self-Destruct Course

by frankiespeakin in

jw
friends

the governing body continues to surround itself with yes-men.

protected inside the walls of watchtower's brooklyn bethel, they have practically no contact with the real world.

which means that the aging members of the governing body have little or no contact with anyone that can offer them corrective criticism.

frankiespeakin

Flip,

Unfortunately, the evidence of real estate acquisition paints a different picture. These guys, over many years, have developed into better American corporate businessmen than self-proclaimed benefactors of world spiritual enlightenment.

I agree financially, they maybe doing well, but one must remember, they are a "religion" as well as a "financial institution". Having money and acquisitions does not guarantee they will not self-destruct. If the exposure of the watchtower is severe, and their retorts express the views of a governing body that lacks touch with reality, then they are on a self-destruct course, with only a few of the real brain-dead hanging on.

I doubt, given the estimated net revenues generated year after year, that they give a flying fig over losing a few goof ball followers that finally got a clue, as long as the governments tax free standard of adherent population is maintained.

I think they have a lot more worries than thier current financial situation, thier credibility, to the public at large and to the flock under their thumb, even more important, for when that is gone, or severely eroded, so does their position as faithful discreet slave, lose its authority.

82

Yet another example of how silly the Bible is...

by Abaddon in

okay, let's go along with the flood story for a moment, to the point where noah exits the ark.. here we have noah, with two of each animal and seven of the clean animals; maybe a few dozen animals that were not essential to the future survival of the species.. what does god do?.

tells noah he can eat animals now.. are you telling me an all-wise, all-knowing god isn't capable of better planning than that?

which strikes you as more likely?

frankiespeakin

Derrick,

The Flood account in Genesis, can not rightly be interpreted as global. One has to be reasonable, and realize that Noah or whoever wrote genesis had no idea what the "earth" was. When the ancient book of Genesis speaks about the "earth" it is speaking of dry land

That's plausible, but it would make no sense for God to instruct Noah to build such a huge vessel, gather two (or seven) of every kind of animal and hole them up for a year for a local flood. Unless of course that part is allegorical as well, but that's almost indistinguishable from the story being completely made up.

I think archaeologist and geologist confirmed that Mesopotamia has suffered several floods, and at least one catastrophic one. Mesopotamia is a flatland that is trough like in nature. If information that was compiled in the book of Genesis, about the flood came from Noah, why would we expect Noah to know anything about the Earth real size and geometric shape? This is well over 4000 years ago, clearly such knowledge was not in existence at the time. It was indeed a gigantic flood, that inundated a large portion of Mesopotamia, and ark of that size seems to be appropriate, it would not be necessary for absolutely every species to be account for in the ark. I don't necessarily hold to all the details in the flood account to be historically accurate, but generally true. For this was not the purpose for which it was recorded. My faith is not altered in God's word. For it is clear scientific accuracy was in no way the common form of communication at the time genesis was compiled. We cannot compare our 20th century form of writting and reporting with ancient form to determine whether or not it is God's word. These were two different eras.

To even imply that genesis is talking about the whole earth(in our modern concepts), displays a lack of reasonableness. If you are reading an ancient document to properly understand it you have to understand the original audience, and what they thought and how they veiwed things.

It seems it was the whole earth being talked about. The account makes no sense otherwise. The only reason to believe there was no global flood is that the evidence we have today does not support it.

Well to you anyway seems to make no sense, according to your rules, that followed the partyline of the fundamentalists interpretation. There are many who have deep reverence for the Bible who view it quite differently, and with reasons that seemed to them quite logical.

To think that God would comunicate to an ancient people in our 20th century concepts and not their is shows a lack of comon disernment. I thought you guys rejected fundamentalism and all its non-sense.

Why would ancient people need to be told there was a global flood when clearly there was not? If the ancient people had an incorrect view of the way the world worked, why didn't God correct them, instead of reinforcing their incorrect beliefs my making up stories like the flood legend?

I'm beginning to think that you like the fundamentalists view because it's the easiest one to debunk(?????)