Debate: Literal Interpretation of the Bible

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   
This is for you Infovacume.

I am fully prepared to debate this subject with anyone, but it is intended for infovacume.

Due to many inconsistencies in passages and messages in the bible, as well as inconsistencies with my own logical process in respect to the Bible, I have come to the conclusion that the bible cannot and should not be read in a literal sense.

There are many things I feel are true in the Bible. For instance, I feel that the entire New Testament is a true account of the life of Jesus. I came to this conclusion, surprisingly, from the inconsistencies I have found in it. The 4 Gospels in the Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) all provide separate accounts of Jesus and his life. Each of these books provide unique, yet similar accounts of Jesus, complimenting each other in many ways. Each has unique stories that the others do not have, some of the stories are the same. I think this could be compared to a car accident or any other similar event that has witnesses. Each witness would provide a different account of the same story. More than likely they all would be very close, with some minor twists and turns along the way. These twists and turns also appear in the New Testament.

Here are a few examples of these twists and turns. What were the last words that Jesus said while hanging on the cross? They may jump right out at you, or maybe not.

Matthew 27:46-50 “My God, My God, Why hast though forsaken me?”
Luke 23:46 “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit”
John 19:30 “It is finished”

These are all different accounts of the same story. Though, in reality to a believer in Jesus, it may be irrelevant that these contradictions exist (which as far as the accounts go, I do think it is irrelevant). That does not mean that they do not contradict eachother. In this instance, we cannot take the bible in a literal sense. It is impossible to do so. There are many other contradictions in the New Testament. Where did Jesus ascend into heaven from? What were the names of the 12 apostles? If you want more examples I will be glad to provide them.

I bring up the New Testament first, because I feel that it is where the most factual information is provided in the Bible (Personal Opinion). Even with that, we are still left reading this book for the story and morals behind it. When we get into literal interpretation though, problems arise.

In the Old Testament, the contradictions and inconsistencies get even worse. Does God repent for his mistakes or wrong doings??? Does God make mistakes period????

Ezekiel 24:14 “ I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent”
VRS.
Exodus 32:14 “And the Lord repented of the evil he thought to do unto his people”
Genesis 6:6-7 “And the Lord that he had made man on earth…And he said “I will destroy man whom I have created, for I repent that I have made them”

Which is it? If we read this book in a literal sense, we read contradictory statements about the Omnipotence of God and the instructions he gives us. You can explain these contradictions away by citing many things. Such as….”Yes that is what it says, but it needs to be out of context to get the real message”. Now that’s not literal is it?

I can provide thousands of contradictory statements (some of which shake the very foundation that supports the Christian community). Ask, and you shall receive. I feel that in order to appreciate the message and truth behind the Bible, WE MUST NOT READ IT IN A LITERAL SENSE. Or else we will be sacrificing cows as God commanded in Leviticus.

I kept this very short, not even scratching the surface considering the amount of information I want to share. Please ask any questions.


Also, refer to this post for more examples that no-one has bothered to address:
www.belowtopsecret.com...

I look forward to your response.




posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Cool thanks for dtarting the thread , I am going to print this out and go research it, do a draft and than post it, might take a hour , might take a day , who knows. But my post will leave you with answers.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Sorry Infovacume I beat you to it.
I love theology and thank Seapeople for the challenge.



When people cry contradiction in the bible they seem to always quote verses from a bible version that is hundreds of years old, the King James. While generally it is a good translation and its certainly done its job over the years, the English language inevitably will changes over a period of a couple hundred of years.
Let’s look at the same Old Testament verses you quoted in a modern translation more appropriate for our era, the New King James. The New King James is basically a revised version to accommodate the changes in modern English, all the thees and thous have been replaced amongst other things.


Ezek 24:14
14 I, the LORD, have spoken it; it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not hold back, nor will I spare, nor will I relent; according to your ways and according to your deeds they will judge you," says the Lord GOD.' "
(NKJ)

Exod 32:14
14 So the LORD relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.
(NKJ)

Gen 6:6
6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
(NKJ)

There is no contradiction here due to the fact that the verse in Ezekial and Exodus are two different situations separated by many years. In the Ezekial verse God is speaking specifically about the situation at that time and place, and the same goes for the exodus verse.
You can’t just pull two verses out of their context place them next to each other and cry contradiction because at first glance they seem to contradict.



Matt 27:46-50
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, "This Man is calling for Elijah!"
48 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.
49 The rest said, "Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him."
50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
(NKJ)

John 19:30
30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
(NKJ)

Luke 23:46
46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.'" Having said this, He breathed His last.
(NKJ)

I have looked at these three verses carefully and in my opinion this was the order of Jesus’ last words:

My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? (Matthew 27:46)

Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink. (Matthew 27:48)

So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" (John 19:30)

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice ("Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.'" Having said this, He breathed His last.{Luke 23:46}),and yielded up His spirit.(Matthew 27:50)

If you can follow what I have just presented here I think it clears up that problem.
Jesus said a few things in His last moments on the cross, perhaps the gospel writers recorded which words impacted them most, or something.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
To People of the Sea-

You sound like the way I used to be. I think the response before mine hit it right. Most of the inconsistencies in the bible arise from the TRANSLATION of the bible. The way I understand it, the Hebrew language is a strange one. By that I mean that one specific word can have ten different meanings. When you read in that language, you have to take the words in context to the others words around it forming a sentence. I think in order to get a better grasp of the bible; you would have to read it in its original form. This is where many of the different splinters of Christianity come from. Catholics believe one-way, Baptist another, Assemblies Of God another, Protestants another, and so on and so on. Of course, how many people can read ancient Hebrew? It all comes down to INTERPRETATION.

Here is one thing I just came upon in my new NCV version Bible:

Exodus 4:24-26
As Moses was on his way to Egypt, he stopped at a resting place for the night. The Lord met him there and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife and circumcised her son. Taking the skin, she touched Moses' feet with it and said to him, "You are a bridegroom of blood to me." She said, "You are a bridegroom of blood," because she had to circumcise her son. So the lord let Moses alone.

Or as in the KJV:

Ex 4:24
And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
Ex 4:25
Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
Ex 4:26
So he let him go: then she said, a bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

After seeing this, I was saying to myself, "Now why would God tell Moses all of these detailed instructions on what to tell the Pharaoh, and give him a walking stick to perform all of the soon-to-come miracles with, then as Moses is heading back to Egypt with his wife, try to kill him?" "WHAT IS THAT ABOUT?"

Well, I had to do some reading in other text (Easton) to come upon the realization that:

Gershom
The elder of the two sons of Moses born to him in Midian (Ex 2:22; 18:3). On his way to Egypt with his family, in obedience to the command of the Lord, Moses was attacked by a sudden and dangerous illness (Ex 4:24-26), which Zipporah his wife believed to have been sent because he had neglected to circumcise his son. She accordingly took a "sharp stone" and circumcised her son Gershom, saying, "Surely a bloody husband art thou to me", i.e., by the blood of her child she had, as it were, purchased her husband, had won him back again.

Now, when you read the bible, it says that the Lord came to Moses and tried to kill him, but when taken directly from the original Hebrew form, it can be read that Moses became very sick, and was about to die, and after his wife circumcises there son Gershom, Moses gets well again.

Now, I was confused after reading this, and I think many other people would be as well. Moses had not followed the law laid down by God about circumcision of your sons after eight days from being born. But when you read those passages and take it LITERALLY from the our versions of the Bible, you made to think that God appeared in human form to Moses and went after him a sleeper hold or something.

It all comes down to the translation.

In regards to the passage from Exodus, about God repenting, here is what I could find:

"Ex 32:14
v7-14 God says to Moses, that the Israelites had corrupted themselves. Sin is the corruption of the sinner, and it is a self-corruption; every man is tempted when he is drawn aside of his own lust. They had turned aside out of the way. Sin is a departing from the way of duty into a by-path. They soon forgot God's works. He sees what they cannot discover, nor is any wickedness of the world hid from him. We could not bear to see the thousandth part of that evil which God sees every day. God expresses the greatness of his just displeasure, after the manner of men who would have prayer of Moses could save them from ruin; thus he was a type of Christ, by whose mediation alone, God would reconcile the world to himself. Moses pleads God's glory. The glorifying God's name, as it ought to be our first petition, and it is so in the Lord's Prayer, so it ought to be our great plea. And God's promises are to be our pleas in prayer; for what he has promised he is able to perform. See the power of prayer. In answer to the prayers of Moses, God showed his purpose of sparing the people, as he had before seemed determined on their destruction; which change of the outward discovery of his purpose, is called repenting of the evil." From Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary.

This leads to your other passage quote from Genesis 6:6. God sees how evil people have become; can you imagine what it must be like for him to see what he sees us do? And even back then, when people would witness all of the miracles he would perform, they often times would brush him aside and continue on with their own wickedness. The evil men did made God bring about the great flood, only sparing Noah and his family. And after doing that deed, God vows never again to kill mankind off with water- but of course he states only water, and I'm sure he could bring his wrath down many other ways!

The way I see it, God is mad at us because we use our free will to do evil rather than good. God does not want billions of mindless followers doing his will, or he would have made us without the choice of free will. And I don't think God can un-make things either. Or else he would have just Un-Made the fallen angels, and been done with evil once and for all. Why not just totally un-make Satan, and be done with it? God either cannot un-make things, or else he simply loves Satan so much that he will not destroy him. And that love for Satan lead to Eve doing the big No-NO in the garden with the fruit of knowledge.

Sorry about the ramblings, but any way you look at it, it can make your head spin! The thing that always brings me back is Jesus. When I read the New Testament, and the teachings of Jesus, it makes you want to cry from all of the truth Jesus had. The harmonies of the gospels in the New Testament truly are amazing, and the love that Jesus showed for us was beyond measure!

SevenAngels



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Thats pretty much what I came up with Seapeople, I mean I didn't even post a response at first because I thought I missing part of the question. Just because the are badtrans;ations in the Bible, doesn't mean it is incorrect or can not be taken litteraly, It simpl means effort and research are needed to fully understand it. This is what a preacher is for if you don't have time to devot your life to reading Hebrew.



posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
The english changes; however, the hebrew does not. The New King James version is simply a translation that TRIES to handle the contradictions by changing the words; which you have demonstrated.
The word repent is nacham in hebrew. In every one of those verses its the same hebrew word that appears.
God is not a man that he shall repent(nacham)- I Sam 15:29/ numbers 23:19; I think this is referring to "changing ones mind"
Jeremiah 18:8, 26:3=God repents or changes his mind.
Jonah 3:9-10= This essentially says god can repent
This repenting is not referring to a turning away from any sort of sin. Its simply talking about changing your mind. which according to these verses, God can change his mind. Which is a contradiction.
Sea, it's quite alright though. The bible is not gods infallible word, it was changed and edited by man. You don't have to believe its 100% gods word to be saved. Those that say otherwise need to explain these contradictions with something other than interpretation.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Ok, so you are all telling me, that even though there is no true direct translation from hebrew and aramaic to english, and that there are glaring inconsistencies at least as a result (let alone before translation), that you can still interpret this literally?

Even when translation is clearly not the issue in cases like the last words of Jesus?

Let me be clear. I am completely aware that the the it is all about the person and their individual interpretation. For instance, not only do we have to translate from a strange language as you said, but when it comes out just a bit funny, we have to make our own interpretations. Does that mean we can take it literally? Interpretations are based on individual oppinion when it comes to the bible.

These contradictions that I proposed in the start of this thread are mearly the very surface of thousands of them. The last words of Jesus for instance. How relevant is that really? In my opinion, not very as far as the overall teachings that are supposed to come through. I have seen much greater problems with the bible.

Jesus died on the cross for our sins right? More specifically to save us from the sins that we were born with..I.E. Adam and Eve. To save us from Original sin.

Exodus 20:5- "For I the Lord Thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and forth generation"

Exodus 34:6- "The Lord God, Mercyful and gracious, that will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and from the childrens onto the childrens"

Corinthians 15:22- " For as in adam all shall die"

These are the fundamental reasons behind Jesus' journey. The fundamental reasons behind the Christian faith. Yet we have this slight problem. This is not a problem with interpretation or translation. These are contradictory statements.

Ezekiel 18:20- "The son shall not bear the iniquity of thy father"

Deuteronomy 24:16 is another one that talks like this.

Where does that leave you? Are we or are we not responisble for our ancestors sins? If you are christian, you believe that we are, and you probably through a lot of science out the window too while we are on the topic. Just for a book that contradicts itself thousands of times.

Even if these contradictions come from translation, how many christians in america know hebrew? How many of them pay attention the where there teachings come from? How many have even tried to read the bible?? The fact that most christians are uneducated on their own faith is disturbing. They believe other peoples oppinions when it comes to the bible. Listening blindly. Rejecting science and fact when not only are they not educated on the science and facts, but they are not educated in the bible.

Challenge:

According to the 4 gospels, what time did Jesus die on the cross? Please provide one time. Where did Jesus ascend into heaven from? Locations are specifically referenced... Locations translate directly mind you. Please give me one place. What where the names of the 12 apostles? 12 names only.

Even if the original text of the bible were not contradictory which, as this thread goes on, I will show you that it is, you must understand that you cannot take the Bible literally.

When a police detective is questioning three witnesses to a crime, will he get the exact same story from all of them? Not likely. Will he have a good idea of what happened when he is done? Most definitely. Will he be able to take all three witnesses accounts of the crime literally? Definitely not.

Corinthians 14:33, "God is not the author of confusion"

As Ksoze said wisely: The bible has been changed and edited by man.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by StationsCreation

There is no contradiction here due to the fact that the verse in Ezekial and Exodus are two different situations separated by many years. In the Ezekial verse God is speaking specifically about the situation at that time and place, and the same goes for the exodus verse.
You can’t just pull two verses out of their context place them next to each other and cry contradiction because at first glance they seem to contradict.



There is no contradiction??? If seperation of time has bearing in whether or not statements in the bible are contradictory...than what relevance does the words in the bible have today?

At first glance these things contradict. Upon further inspection they contradict....Unless you are assuming you knew exactly what the writer meant when he wrote it. Thats a pretty tall assumption...considering the SEPERATION OF TIME between now and then. You have refuted nothing of what I said. All you have done is said..."yes...at first glance they look and read to contradict...but I choose not to pay attention to that because I would have to rethink my belief system a bit so I will just say it is ok."



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Ok, I get you point, kinda, but thats not a contridiction, even if they have different wording do to tanslation if they are saying the same thing it is not a contridiction. If I said "I took a bus today" and then later said" I took public Metro transpertation today" Those do not contridict each other. Now I was under the impression that we were going to be talking about such things as, Noahs flood, the parting of the see, earths age, Gennisis, adam and eve,the Bible Codr, and other such things that would have to do with not takeing the bible literaly. Do you get what I am saying.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by infovacume
Ok, I get you point, kinda, but thats not a contridiction, even if they have different wording do to tanslation if they are saying the same thing it is not a contridiction. If I said "I took a bus today" and then later said" I took public Metro transpertation today" Those do not contridict each other. Now I was under the impression that we were going to be talking about such things as, Noahs flood, the parting of the see, earths age, Gennisis, adam and eve,the Bible Codr, and other such things that would have to do with not takeing the bible literaly. Do you get what I am saying.


I understand what you are saying. Describing the same thing with two different words or phrases is not what I am doing though. In the Bible, for instance, it describes the exact location that Jesus ascended into heaven. It describes this at least twice. With two totally different locations. These locations are not different as a result of translation. It is either one or the other, or neither. It just can't be both. Does that take away from the message of the story? No. Does it take away your ability to read it in the literal sense? Yes.

In Genesis and other Old Testament books, the word God is plural in several instances. You will not find this in todays translations, but if you go back to original texts, it is there. In the first sentence of the Bible, the word Elohim was used. This word means God"s" rather than God. In other words Genesis 1:1- "In the beginning, God"s" created heaven and earth" Now some scholars have brought up a case that the plural form of God in these ancient texts was also a means of indicating perfection. Or, Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, the Perfect God made heaven and earth". I am not sure about the true facts behind this translation. I would guess, that it is a religious person who brought this translation to light (reaching for straws). Even if it is not. There are plenty of instances. I believe it is in the hundreds where God is used in the plural form. It can't be as easily explained away with the above argument though as some think. You see, in sentences with plural nouns, you run across words like, "our", "theirs", "they", and so on. These words do appear hundreds of times in these old texts.

Is there more than one God? Could it be referencing the Trinity? It isn't clear. And when people try to answer this using the trinity they make things more difficult for themselves. So what actually can be taken literally? Are we supposed to have sex with our daughters? Its Ok in the Bible. Is that to be taken literally? Or is it a one time thing that is no longer allowed? It doesnt indicate that it is a one time thing. So if you feel that way, then you are interpreting based on your own gut feeling, from inside yourself. If you read the bible literally, you will only confuse yourself.

I have many many more examples. Ask and I will give you more. Sorry if the spelling is bad, its getting late.



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Yeah I understand, I only type when I am half way dead.. lol , well I am definately interested about the Jesus thing. And I am looking into that. But woudld you also care to talk about the subjects I listed, I mean we dont have to but it might be fun, we should though probably start a naw thread for those. Ok see you in the morning



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by infovacume
Yeah I understand, I only type when I am half way dead.. lol , well I am definately interested about the Jesus thing. And I am looking into that. But woudld you also care to talk about the subjects I listed, I mean we dont have to but it might be fun, we should though probably start a naw thread for those. Ok see you in the morning


Sure, we dont need to start a new thread. These things are important too, and I honestly was working to get at them. There is so much that I want to say sometimes that I try to spread it out. When I said earlier that I would get to things later on that is what I was referring to. I first wanted to at least establish my argument on taking other parts of the bible literally.

These stories in the old testament rarely have a second or third to back them up. So, unlike the New Testament, it is hard to find the same story saying something else. These stories are usually provided once, and sometimes referenced. When a story is provided once, there is nothing to compare it to directly for accuracy. Some people assume the stories to be truthful, while others are skeptical. I think the best way to look at the Old Testament is through absolute truths.

For instance, finding something that should be universal, something about God, and make sure it holds true throughout the Bible. If it doesn't, then you have to look for a reason why. The problem here is that people start to confuse personal interpretation with fact.

I will start with Noah's Ark later today. I will get into all of those things. I am positive that some people on this board know more about it than I do. So they will be able to discuss this too.



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Ok, I am at work with some free time so I will start this off. I do not have a Bible with me so this is going to be off the top of my head.

When you look at the story of Noah's Ark, there are several issues that jump out right away. Well, they jump out to me. Here are some major problems I have with the story.

1) Why would God have to destroy everything, and why does it say he repented what he was about to do?
2) Where did the water go?
3) How did Noah build an Ark big enough for every creature?
4) What about other continents, and their animals?
5) Why does the story seem outragious to me?

1)To answer the first question, you need to form an opinion. He was angry at what man had chosen to do with free will right? Well, how is that possible if He is Omnipotent? God either did not know of the actions that his creations would do before hand, or the story is wrong.

2)The water could have evaporated or something I guess.....absorbed itself into the ground. I am not sure where to go when I think about that.

3-4)This one is a huge problem for me. To give you an idea of why it isn't practical or possible, I have to reference another story in the new testement. The creation story. Most Christians are not willing to accept the theory of evolution, due to the story of Adam and Eve. I am not sure why it rubs people so badly. I will get into Adam and Eve in more detail in another post. In any case, if evolution does not exist (as result of creationism) then Noahs Ark isnt possible. That means that every animal in existence today, must have been in existence at that time. Plus more (due to extinction). Noah would have had to build an ark big enough to house every animal in existence today. Where have the different races of people come from? We should all be the same as Noah and his family, right? If you interpret these two stories literally, you have serious contradictions between them.

5) This story seems so outrageous to me only because of creationism. If God is as powerful as we would like to believe, then I am sure he could have created the water miracle. He could have helped Noah build the ark. But we would be restricted today for the actions that occured then. If God flooded the enitire world, killing everything but what was on the ark, and evolution does not exist, then we would all look like noah. ( I will get into evolution in way more detail another time in a seperate thread)

There are some issues with the story itself though. How deep did the water get? The older the version of the bible, the shallower the water. You think I am kidding? Check it out. I believe they reference the term 15 cubits in the story. The newer Bibles say.."15 Cubits above the tallest mountains". The older the bible goes, the more direct the translation. And the sentence changes into this ( I dont have a bible, but this will be close.) "The water rose 15 cubits". The tallest mountain is like 30 thousand feet. Thats like 6 miles of water, plus 15 cubits. Not logical. How many animals did Noah take on the ark. Read the story, and tell me when you are done. Common belief is two. Is that really what it says in the bible?



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   
The first verse reads smth like this if you were to read it literally...In a beginning created the Mighty One the heaven(s) and the Land.
In the Hebrew there isn't a plural form for god. Just like for the words heavens and water (shamayim and mayim). There is no plural for them either. However the word for created (bara) is in the singular form in this verse so it seems the correct translation is god not gods. We have to look at the verb to figure it out.
This is not referring to the trinity because there is no trinity. There is plenty of evidence for this given by history and by the words of jesus.
Yes, there are other gods in the OT. That is plainly stated. However, its clear that you are to worship the supreme god. The one and only god. He is above these lesser gods.
Okay enough about that, The first interesting thing I notice is that there are two creation stories which differ in order. Perhaps they describe two different events, I don't know. How can that be looked at literally?


[Edited on 20-4-2004 by KSoze]



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSoze
The first verse reads smth like this if you were to read it literally...In a beginning created the Mighty One the heaven(s) and the Land.
In the Hebrew there isn't a plural form for god. Just like for the words heavens and water (shamayim and mayim). There is no plural for them either. However the word for created (bara) is in the singular form in this verse so it seems the correct translation is god not gods. We have to look at the verb to figure it out.
This is not referring to the trinity because there is no trinity. There is plenty of evidence for this given by history and by the words of jesus.
Yes, there are other gods in the OT. That is plainly stated. However, its clear that you are to worship the supreme god. The one and only god. He is above these lesser gods.
Okay enough about that, The first interesting thing I notice is that there are two creation stories which differ in order. Perhaps they describe two different events, I don't know. How can that be looked at literally?


[Edited on 20-4-2004 by KSoze]


Ok, I double checked this. I am not sure where you got the information that you just presented about the plural form of the word God. "Elohim" is used in the Bible several times, and yes it is a plural noun. Browse through these opinions on it. They offer both sides of the fence. The one thing they all agree on is that it is a plural noun.

www.newadvent.org...
(this one is perfect to show what I mean, they admit right away it is plural but immediately go into making up reasons why this is ok)

mikeblume.com...

www.karaites-usa.org...

www.altupc.com...

Now, even if this can be explained away, we will never know the true meaning behind what was written originally. Only those who wrote it could know that. We can only make assumptions and excuses. We can only make up our own personal opinions. We can only change it to fit our current views.

You mentioned that there were more than one creation story in the Bible. Can you refer me to the other one. I am not really a bible scholar so I am not knowledgeable with it.



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   
To SevenAngels and Stationscreation.

You both have your own opinions on what I have said. It is good that you have made your minds up with some basis behind doing so. What you have done though, and admittedly so, is formed your own interpretations about the passages that I presented. Maybe with the guidance of others, but still interpretations and assumptions none the less. Now, what that means is that you found God inside you, and your own mind. The Bible was only a guide. You didn't need a literal interpretation to do that.

Believe in whatever you will, for whatever reasons you want. Just be proud to say that it is your own mind that led you to those conclusions. Forming your own opinions on the Bible is a good thing.



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Cool just to give you a heads up, I am working on the , Flood, and the Places that Jesus went into from as we speak, or type lol. Alright the Noah thing is gonna take me a while. I want to get everything right. Alright thanks



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Ok , I am sorry seapeople but I fell through a cieling today and I am ome realt good medication, i think its vikedine, so I will being taking a day or 2 off. See you soon this me right now ------------------->



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Seapeople, you called me on an error. I need to be more careful of the words I use. I shouldn't have said it wasn't plural. I meant only to show that Elohym doesn't necessarily mean plural as in gods(it could). The verb is singular so its either gods as in a single team or unit, OR god as in one. Of course, its possible it may not even mean god(s). What is even more fascinating is that its the plural of Eloah which has been said to be feminine.
You are so correct when you say we'll never know, we can only seek. The original text from what I understand had no spaces between the letters or vowels. So, we could very well be reading it all wrong.
The two creation stories I'm referring to are Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 and the second begins at 2:5. The chain of events are in a different order. If you read it literally as describing the same events of creation then its a contradiction. In one version he creates them male and female simultaneously and the other he creates man before woman, etc...



posted on May, 12 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Ksoze,

Thank you for pointing that out to me. I had read right through that without double checking it. (Second creation story) I think that it is important for us to realize that the only way to reconcile differences like those are to admit that we have to make our own assumptions.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join