A serious flaw in the bible...

the bible is better than aesops fables. a 600 year old man built a huge ark and managed to get 2 of every animal on the planet on it. very believable. being 600 years old he must have some super vitamins.
and the red sea parting. also very believable.

i prefer aesops fables.

Originally posted by Anuberial
reply to post by Nventual

 

First of all, the Bible is the word of God...It is true that man wrote it, but God told them what to say and how to write it. They did not just interpret it

Yes man did interpret the Bible:
It started with Constantine who couldn't "beat them" so he "joined them." Back then, there were epistles all over the place. Funny thing was this: Saul - later called "Paul" was the most quoted and revered by the Roman Emperor, while Thomas "The Twin" and possible relation to Jesus was file 13'ed with a ton of books and epistles far older and more pertinent to the teachings of Jesus. Oh and those guys, for all their transcription services, got killed.
Since then it has been interpreted by:
Catholics (which break themselves down into Holy Roman and the like)
Protestants
Baptists
etc
etc
etc
The moral of the story: Everyone plagiarizes - this is no different except the amount of blood in the binders that made them. Or "There's nothing new under the sun!"
Now you two go to separate corners of the playground. You know Church and State are not allowed to play together. LOL (sorry I couldn't resist!)

reply to post by undo


Childish antics! Thank you so much! I'm glad that at 41 y/o I still have a sense of humor.

We can't all be super serious. I will leave that job to you though.

The time since the creation of adam is around 6000 years, not the whole creation. The creation took around 13.5 billion years or six days in Gods time. Check out Dr Gerald Shroeder on You tube and I bet theres a couple of threads here concerning his work and understand what the bible says about the creation from a world reknown physist and believer.
id=VideoPlayback video.google.com...#

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Barkster]

reply to post by Brain Damaged


7 male, 7 female , in pairs.
air breathers only.
the flood doesn't have to be global. it can be the black sea flood and still be devastating to pretty much every civ, most of which were on waterways of some kind.
the word "all" is not in the original text.
the word "every" is not in the original text.

here's a video series by the history channel, in which two geologists from oxford, discover the epic of gilgamesh and biblical account of the flood may have been the black sea flood and documented their findings

reply to post by JonInMichigan


well you're tilting straw men, since no one in the thread is claiming the earth is 6000 years old from what i can see, other than the op. which is why the thread generated so much debate. no where in the bible does it say the earth is only 6000 years old.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by JonInMichigan

 

well you're tilting straw men, since no one in the thread is claiming the earth is 6000 years old from what i can see, other than the op. which is why the thread generated so much debate. no where in the bible does it say the earth is only 6000 years old.

Look.... it was just a joke ok. It wasn't designed to have substance.

This is an old debate and one that has been argued 100 times better than the OPs very thin post filled with old material. He brought absolutely zero to the table and I would give him an anti-star if there was such a thing.

I feel posting about carbon dating, like it hasn't already been hashed out on hundreds of forums over the years, is monotonous and boring! I thought I would add a little life to the party by taking a poke at the fundies who actually believe that Jebus hung with the Dinos.

So why don't you pull you panties out of the bunch there in and take it for what it was.... just a little color in an otherwise dull OP that somehow has 13 pages of responses. I guess it must have been a slow news day!

Hi Undo--

There's actually a lot of textual background to this theme, so bear with us...

[Technically 'Chavvah' is supposed to mean 'gossipy'--either way there seems to be a play on words as well as letters here in the hand copied texts.]

As you might already know, the post-exilic Vav and the Yod in later Hebrew script are often iconfused/nterchanged with each other either by accident or on purpose (especially the Dead Sea Scroll fragments, which were (sometimes curiously sloppily !) hand-copied often with highly idiosyncratic lettering -- thus making certain letters very confusing) especially Daled and Resh and Vav and Yod.

[this is even more of a problem with Daled and Resh since both in later Aramaic handwritten script and in the earlier paleoHebrew script these two letters look vrery similar...].

Unfortunately we do not have original autographs for the torah (post Javneh Council copies of the torah basically follow the proto-Masoretic, but before 90CE, the text was still fluid and the further you go back in time the more fluid the text appears: the Jews in Palestine and the Diaspora did not start the habit of 'counting middle letters' on a column of text (i.e. for accuracy) until around the time of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir or slightly later, after the 2nd failed Jewish Revolt Against Rome in 136CE when it was clear there was NOT going to be a 3rd Temple built and that the text was all that Judaeism was going to have for a very long time to come...

Textually, we see a lot of letter moves in the Pentateuch-Torah between the years BCE 420 and BCE 100 if one compares the SamPent with the Hebrew 'underlay' i.e. Vorlage to the Greek LXX versions (e.g. Theodotion, Symmachus, Aquila etc.) and the protoMasoretic (this last one became 'standardised' in terms of actual consonants chosen) that Origen had to deal with when working out his cumbersome Hexapla.

It is interesting that in this case, the later copies use VAV for what might have been originally a YOD (in the name *Chayyyah*) since she is 'the mother of all Living' (from 'Chayyah' lit. 'life' in the sg.)

Here are just a few ( among dozens !) of the Rabinnic explanations for the change from Y to V for 'Eve' and a link to read:

www.coverings-by-devorah.com...

see e.g. the Commentary taken from from Berachot 61a & Avot d'Rabbi Nosson 4:3 as well as some comments from: Osios d'Rabbi Akiva Atbash

QUOTE 'The Torah tells us that Adam named his wife Chavah because "she was the mother of all life," [and in Hebrew, "life" is Chayyah).

For this reason, Chavah's name should have been Chayyah. But her name contains an allusion that she listened to the serpent; in Aramaic, the word for serpent is Chivya. (Imrey Noam. 'This is also seen in Zohar Chadash'.)

Adam did not use the Hebrew for serpent ('Nachash') because this was the name associated with their sin, and he did not want the angels to be able to understand it.

He therefore alluded to the serpent in Aramaic (Chivya), since this is a language that the angels do not understand. (Shabbat 12b)

Some give another reason for the name Chavvah over Chayyah.

Adam saw that great troubles came about through Chavah's speech, since she had talked him into eating the forbidden fruit. He therefore regretted that he had called her Ishah [since this name was associated with him].

He then called her Chavah, which comes from the verb Chavvah, meaning "to speak." (see:Tehillim 19:3, Iyyov 13:17, 15:17, 32:6, 10, 17, 36:2)

Adam explained this name saying that she was

"The mother of all Chai." [Instead meaning "life," coming from the root Chayyah, the word Chai here can come from the root Chavvah, and meaning "talkers."]

The meaning of this verse is then that she "was the mother of all talkers." (Abarbanel)

Some Rebbes say that Chavah and the serpent could speak all languages.
Adam, on the other hand, did not have this power.

When animals made noises, he could not understand their meaning, he would ask his wife. She was therefore called Chavvah, because she declared (Chavvah) information. (see: Tehillim 19:3) and it was she who taught Adam all the languages of man... (Imrey Noam).

UNQUOTE

This is just so you can see some of the background to the reason for the possible change from Y to V in the handwritten text copies that have come down to us---unfortunately we don't possess anything close to an original text, just copies of copies of copies of copies that aren't always the same when compared letter by letter...until you get into the middle ages (i.e. aftere AD 300) when the protoMasoretic version became 'dominant' to paraphrase the mediaeval Mishnaic-Rabinnic expert Lawrence Schiffman.

reply to post by Sigismundus


interesting. but if it's meant to be a reference to creation of life,
then seems to me it would be a fitting tribute to use that part referring to creation that is in jehovah's name, to also refer to other creators of life (just in the sense of, as you say, life created in sin)?

in other words, i don't see what the big problem is?
you think it means eve was jehovah, when in fact you could say eve was like jehovah in the sense of creating life.

reply to post by JonInMichigan


okay. can get a bit unruly in here at times. one person starts up with the jokes and pretty soon the thread is closed due to jokes. happens alot on ufo sighting/encounters threads, moon anomalies threads and any thread that mentions sarah palin.

Hi again Undo--

This whole subject area of Torah letter replacement in the ancient handwritten copies (despite the public's general ignorance of the matter) is actually quite a complex subject for scholars to chew on--especially since the actual letter-for-letter text of the Torah over the years of hand written copies underwent a severe 'alphabet' change during Ezra's reform after the Exile around 430BCE where Paleo letters were dumped in favour of the now familiar square Aramaic letters---alot of the text at that time of the conversion was changes in terms of consonantal exactness (they did not get 'exact' about the text of the torah until later to judge from the different copies of the torah lying side by side in the Dead Sea Scroll Caves which show one version lying next to another sometimes 10-15% differential and YOD and VAV (and Daled / Resh) were the first casualites in the alphabet switchover process in the 5th century BCE...

It is curious how we can almost see (to cite one example) how the term YAH and YAHU eventually morphed into YHWH (in Exod chapter 3: the name is first expressed not as YHWH but as Yehei Esher Yehei --notice the divine name is expressed without the VAV i.e. spoken of in a form that existed before the VAV became part of the actual finalised form of the name of the post Exilic clan god YHWH)

Some now see this as having begun to take place under the growing late post-Exilic 5th century BCE 'Aramaic-Ezrahite' influence, at a time when the post Exilic Judaens were beginning to drop Heberew and adopt Aramaisms around 430BC --at a time when the text of Genesis and the Torah-Pentateuch as a whole in large sections was STILL being 'solidified' into something we recognise today -- this process took place under Ezra the scribe (who acted more as a Redactor of the various texts and oral traditions he received and who seems to have lived at a time when people were speaking a Aramaic-and late Hebrew admixture...

The same thing might have been the case in Genesis chapter 3:20 where the name 'Eve' seems to have come under the influence of Aramaisms (Hawah is Aramaic for 'to become').

There is also the Hebrew 'Chavvah' (to 'breathe', or may even mean something like a 'a farm' !) which is cognate to Chayyah ('living' or 'living thing' i.e. beast).

The entire etymology of Chayim/Chayyah/Chavva/hawa and its exact relationship linquistically to yehei/yhwh seems to be a grammatical nightmare for grammarians. (to this days, the Rebbes do not ALL agree to what YHWH actually means, syntatically speaking).

All these cognates have something to do with giving or sustaining life, with Hayyah somewhat closer than Havvah---but there may have been poetic as well as theological reasons reasons for the change from 'living' to 'breathing' (one would imagine after the change, they would have added: 'because she was the mother of all breathing things...' rather than living things (hayyah)...

But you see what we mean here...!

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Sigismundus]

Originally posted by Jim Scott
reply to post by Angus123

 

Well, consider this:

What was the first miracle Jesus did in the Old Testament?

What was the first miracle Jesus did in the New Testament?

Seriously? Show me where Jesus is mentioned in the Old Testament, and none of that obfuscation stuff... prophesy or other references that you choose to interpret to mean Jesus. Show me the name J E S U S and what he specifically did.

reply to post by CHA0S



How old would Adam and Eve be one day after they were created? If a doctor examined them? They would have been adults right? There maturation age would be in their 20's right?

But in reality they were only one day old right?

OT

reply to post by Sigismundus


yahweh though is from jehovah. the two words are the same. this is like arguing that bel and baal are not the same word. lol

Originally posted by Angus123

Originally posted by Jim Scott
reply to post by Angus123

 

Well, consider this:

What was the first miracle Jesus did in the Old Testament?

What was the first miracle Jesus did in the New Testament?

Seriously? Show me where Jesus is mentioned in the Old Testament, and none of that obfuscation stuff... prophesy or other references that you choose to interpret to mean Jesus. Show me the name J E S U S and what he specifically did.

He's everywhere bro...

Are you looking?

see: www.answering-islam.org...

OT

reply to post by Jim Scott


With a bachelor degree in Bible & Theology [and Psychology...double majored...] you'd think I'd be able to explain it better

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Sigismundus

 

(just in the sense of, as you say, life created in sin)?

little bells are going off in my head right now. enlil impregnates so and so and she begets sin the moon god. there's a connection there. i'll unravel it somehow.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by undo]

Originally posted by Amagnon
reply to post by CHA0S

 

Where in the bible does it say the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

I despise all religions - and that silly book uyou quote. But if you are going to try and debunk it, at least show some intelligence about it.

The word day as used in genesis is widely known to have a very free interpretation - it means period of time - it could mean billions of years per each day. The literal interpretation of such passages is the prerogative of total fools - as opposed to the colossal fools who simply believe the whole story.


One of the crucial errors with the myth of Adam and Eve being the first humans is that Adam and Eves children went off and married into other existing tribes - now that makes the idea of no other humans before Adam and Eve a bit internally inconsistent to say the least.

I could be wrong over here, but if that were the case, then the day of rest (The Sabbath) is in "God's Time"? I've heard that argument before (God's time could be anything), and I just don't buy it. That's what it says in the bible. Any different interpretations of it is going against the bible in the first place, no?

If no one can agree on which interpretation is correct, then there are more people going to hell than we think...

And another serious flaw (imho) are these different denominations and spin-off's. So many different interpretations of the book, but each denomination claims that theirs is right.

I'll say it again: Different denominations. Now, I thought the bible was "All or nothing"? Taking it out of context is a sin, so...

That should be the biggest proof as well...

Not attacking you at all. Just thowing in my 2 cents.

Edit for grammar. Apparenty I can't type when I'm tired.

[edit on 10/21/2009 by impaired]

reply to post by impaired

I could be wrong over here, but if that were the case, then the day of rest (The Sabbath) is in "God's Time"? I've heard that argument before (God's time could be anything), and I just don't buy it. That's what it says in the bible. Any different interpretations of it is going against the bible in the first place, no?

Regardless of the length of time in a day, the Bible gives no date for creation.

If no one can agree on which interpretation is correct, then there are more people going to hell than we think...

And another serious flaw (imho) are these different denominations and spin-off's. So many different interpretations of the book, but each denomination claims that theirs is right.

The Christian belief is based on faith so its no wonder there are so many denominations.

I haven't read the whole thread, but it seems many here need to do a quick study on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of the oldest texts known to man, containing parts of every book in the OT except one. Studies of the texts have shown that the translations of the Bible are very accurate.

www.centuryone.com...

The Dead Sea Scrolls were most likely written by the Essenes during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D. The Essenes are mentioned by Josephus and in a few other sources, but not in the New testament. The Essenes were a strict Torah observant, Messianic, apocalyptic, baptist, wilderness, new covenant Jewish sect. They were led by a priest they called the "Teacher of Righteousness," who was opposed and possibly killed by the establishment priesthood in Jerusalem.

en.wikipedia.org...

WE are a blip in time.Lets try to at least look at how old Jesus was supposed to be. about 2000 years old give or take 60 years. and the Pyramids were there long before he was there right, maybe 3000 years earlier maybe that is Five thousand ... no wait ... doesn't the bible say it all started with Jesus? or wait was it Adam and Eve. yeah thats it, we all originated from just Two people about 5000 years ago. ( I'd hope we would all know what happens when people inbreed) yeah. the Bible less believable than the Enquirer.