U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 01-11-2011, 08:03 PM
 
Location: New York City
5,556 posts, read 6,708,938 times
Reputation: 1351

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
From the religiously-untutored and unscholarly perspective of a nonetheless vigorous religious critic, I still see the contradictions out of this intriguing debate:



Eusebius, on many other threads here you have made numerous so-called factual statements that are, in fact, only your opinion. Here you persist in re-routing interpretations that seem more than clear to an impartial outsider. The modern bible is an obvious conglom of numerous historically prior polytheisms. That much has been previously established: the Greeks & Babylonians, for instance. This video series, however, is eloquent, thorough and scholarly.

The bible's quite obviously a modified fantasy work of those seeking to assimilate power into a monotheistic dream come true.

Of course, from my geo-and bio-technical perspective, where I have some knowledge, it's also such an improbable story that it also falls on it's face on those merits alone, but I agree that we're not discussing those contradictions here. Lots of time to run them into the ground elsewhere (actually, we already have, but anyhow...).

I appreciate the relative civility you both are demonstrating here. Keep it up, even though, to me, the outcome is predictable.



Obviously a foregone pre-conclusion wrestling with itself. This is a highly academic religious philosophy and history discussion but burdened with the standard spiritual underpinnings and pre-conceived uniform direction by one of the players. I'm still willing to evaluate and be open to any new arguments however.

As Insane notes, the consequences of this argument to Christianity is staggering, and thus I'd expect the same vigorous denialism that attends, say, the proven facts of Evolution and man's micro-minor chance place in the greater, ancient chaotic universe. It's also obvious that the church's higher-ups would not allow the education of their general congregations on such controversial but historical writings. Talk about resulting chaos.

Argue on, McDuff et al! Quite entertaining!
Thank you sir. Glad someone else has chimed in and chimed in with some objectivity.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2011, 10:30 PM
 
Location: New York City
5,556 posts, read 6,708,938 times
Reputation: 1351
From the Eerdmans Bible Dictionary:

The "us" in "Let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26; cf. 3:22; 11:6-7) refers to the "sons of God" or lesser "gods" mentioned elsewhere (6:1-4; Job 1:6; Ps. 29:1), here viewed as a heavenly council centered around the one God (cf. Ps. 82:1). In later usage these probably would be called "angels." (p. 1019, "Trinity")

[sarcasm],Of course, the folks over at that publication cannot be True Christians and are visibly deceived by the devil.[/sarcasm]
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 01:43 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
3,381 posts, read 3,379,434 times
Reputation: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane View Post
From the Eerdmans Bible Dictionary:

The "us" in "Let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26; cf. 3:22; 11:6-7) refers to the "sons of God" or lesser "gods" mentioned elsewhere (6:1-4; Job 1:6; Ps. 29:1), here viewed as a heavenly council centered around the one God (cf. Ps. 82:1). In later usage these probably would be called "angels." (p. 1019, "Trinity")

[sarcasm],Of course, the folks over at that publication cannot be True Christians and are visibly deceived by the devil.[/sarcasm]
Hey, Insane. I remember eons ago (more like last May) there was a great discussion going on in the 'Mistranslations' thread. There was a poster who had given me the names of some good books to read on the subject you're writing about. I did read reviews on Amazon, and I also read the summary's, but I never got around to ordering the books. Too many things going on in my life to do so, I guess. But, maybe I'll take a look. I really am curious about this stuff, and I don't know enough right now to participate in your thread.

Here is the link to the post with the books: http://www.city-data.com/forum/reput...php?p=14341606

I like the debate between you and Eusebius. I really think there is a kind of spiritual evolution of thought going on in the Bible, after all, like Mystic says, which ended with a spirit of sacrificial love given for this whole wild planet, which really hadn't existed before, right? I don't know. Most of the gods before Jesus were bloodthirsty and pretty chaotic beings. I don't know how some guy wandering around 2000 years ago changed the whole world (or was supposed to) from "eye for an eye" to "love everybody," but he did, and for somebody to make that guy up? I don't know. Nobody really listened (or listens) to him even now, but why would somebody make him up when nobody even follows him (especially the religious, ironically)? For what reason? I know Jesus isn't the topic of your thread, but these are just some of the many questions I have, and I'm trying to understand how he ties in with the OT and all.

Anyway, thanks for the thread and thanks, Eusebius, for your posts.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 03:52 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
3,381 posts, read 3,379,434 times
Reputation: 437

Oops.

Wrong link in the above post. Here's the right one:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/14341606-post244.html
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 04:46 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,425,536 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Eusebius, on many other threads here you have made numerous so-called factual statements that are, in fact, only your opinion. Here you persist in re-routing interpretations that seem more than clear to an impartial outsider. The modern bible is an obvious conglom of numerous historically prior polytheisms. That much has been previously established: the Greeks & Babylonians, for instance. This video series, however, is eloquent, thorough and scholarly.

And your proof I have made "numerous so-called factual statements that are, in fact, only your opinion"?

Quote:
The bible's quite obviously a modified fantasy work of those seeking to assimilate power into a monotheistic dream come true.
You just removed yourself from giving a neutral perspective in this thread.


Quote:
I appreciate the relative civility you both are demonstrating here. Keep it up, even though, to me, the outcome is predictable.
It never helps to be uncivil.


Quote:
As Insane notes, the consequences of this argument to Christianity is staggering, and thus I'd expect the same vigorous denialism that attends, say, the proven facts of Evolution and man's micro-minor chance place in the greater, ancient chaotic universe. It's also obvious that the church's higher-ups would not allow the education of their general congregations on such controversial but historical writings. Talk about resulting chaos.

Argue on, McDuff et al! Quite entertaining!
Historical writings? By "historical" do you mean Evolution is undeniably scientifically proven? LOL. Hardly my friend. But the nice thing about these boards is that anyone can say anything and that right is granted you.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 05:41 AM
 
Location: New York City
5,556 posts, read 6,708,938 times
Reputation: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by herefornow View Post
Hey, Insane. I remember eons ago (more like last May) there was a great discussion going on in the 'Mistranslations' thread. There was a poster who had given me the names of some good books to read on the subject you're writing about. I did read reviews on Amazon, and I also read the summary's, but I never got around to ordering the books. Too many things going on in my life to do so, I guess. But, maybe I'll take a look. I really am curious about this stuff, and I don't know enough right now to participate in your thread.

Here is the link to the post with the books: http://www.city-data.com/forum/reput...php?p=14341606

I like the debate between you and Eusebius. I really think there is a kind of spiritual evolution of thought going on in the Bible, after all, like Mystic says, which ended with a spirit of sacrificial love given for this whole wild planet, which really hadn't existed before, right? I don't know. Most of the gods before Jesus were bloodthirsty and pretty chaotic beings. I don't know how some guy wandering around 2000 years ago changed the whole world (or was supposed to) from "eye for an eye" to "love everybody," but he did, and for somebody to make that guy up? I don't know. Nobody really listened (or listens) to him even now, but why would somebody make him up when nobody even follows him (especially the religious, ironically)? For what reason? I know Jesus isn't the topic of your thread, but these are just some of the many questions I have, and I'm trying to understand how he ties in with the OT and all.

Anyway, thanks for the thread and thanks, Eusebius, for your posts.
I understand and you're welcome.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 10:23 AM
 
Location: New York City
5,556 posts, read 6,708,938 times
Reputation: 1351
I did not bring Genesis 6 up as a focus in this discussion, but in light of Eusebius' claim that "sons of god" are NOT other gods, but rather, mortal men, how is Genesis 6:2, where the "sons of god" are explicitly mentioned and are contrasted with the "daughters of men," explained. Were they merely angels who supposedly are asexual (Matthew 22:30) or were they mere mortal men which damages the intended contrast of the passage? If they are neither of these, who then were these sons of god?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,061,524 times
Reputation: 3717
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcamps View Post
Atheism is chopping at the wrong tree if it thinks it by chopping at the tree of the christian bible,it will bring down the hope that every believer possesses. Truth is not written in ink , but impressed on the hearts and minds of those who believe .

I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.” Hebrews 10:16

The believer is led by the spirit, not the bible.
And yet the bible is oft quoted as"proof" of some various events, for which it's a poor source, since it steps on it's own neck time and again. Notice how Christian denialists will quote (mis-quote, more often than not..) some micro-error on the part of a peer-reviewed and published scientist, as inarguable proof that the entirety of all the accumulated scientific knowledge on Evolution or sedimentary deposits, for example, is therefore a bucket of horse droppings. Forget that science found the error within itself (rigorous self-monitoring), or that this does not auto-eliminate all the mass of proven and dependable results.

Such a process of factual establishment is, yes, kind of hard on the bible's claims. You can deny it for the preservation of your own personal philosophical safety net, but still; "Facts are acts, ma'am!" As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
And your proof I have made "numerous so-called factual statements that are, in fact, only your opinion"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rifle
Nope. Not going to do your homework for you. You've made many such unsupported claims often on the various Evolution threads, when I'd have to conclude you have absolutely no personal or formal education on the subject. Or do you, and you just like to argue known facts? as we may be witnessing here on this unique topic?
Historical writings? By "historical" do you mean Evolution is undeniably scientifically proven? LOL. Hardly my friend. But the nice thing about these boards is that anyone can say anything and that right is granted you.
Re my prior quote: "It's also obvious that the church's higher-ups would not allow the education of their general congregations on such controversial but historical writings. Talk about resulting chaos!"

The OP's video presents a large number of what are presented as valid historical writings on the subject at hand, all from periods well before the adoption of the official Christian version of the bible. That bible's obviously a revision into monotheism from the obviously rampant and pervasive poly-theism of it's ancestral contributors.

Thus I mean, obviously, that today's cautious Church's elders (already trying to staunch the general stampede out of their churches) would (and obviously have, BTW) denied such intellectual discussions as you and IIDM are having here; where controversy is rampant and viable alternate interpretations, with massive consequences to the overall veracity and viability of Christianity, are placed in imminent danger.

My comment has nothing to do with the facts of Evolution; they stand on their own, but at the same time do effectively demolish much of Christianity's claims to fame. The ancient historians could not possibly have written of Evolution in any ancient documents because no-one back then, with the absence of any widely accepted and proven formal scientific protocols to get unbiased answers, could have conceived of the "simple complexity" of DNA, it's mutations and adaptations. Not to mention the resulting new organisms ("species", we call them). Taken in toto, it's now defined as Evolution to us inquisitive types.

But, that's another thread. Maybe I'll see you there, where you'll get logically thrashed if you attempt to build a defense with the same sort of easily refuted old-line fairy-tales, tactical revisions and outright denials of the facts.
______________________

A quick, polite but directly philosophical question for you, Eusebius:

If atheists were, hypothetically, to present a knowingly false interpretation of the bible, like if they claimed "so and so" made "such and such" a statement in the bible, fully knowing "he" didn't, and you categorically proved them wrong, how would you then feel if they persisted, over and over, month after year, in relentlessly repeating that same tired old untruth, and simultaneously claimed it therefore showed up all the great fallacies in the bible?

So why is it that the theist crowd does exactly that in defense of their bible and it's so-called evidentiary truths? (and, on that other hypothetical thread, it's what we regularly see in the frantic Christian denials of Evolution's facts)

I mean... really now; is that all yah got, so to speak? Such a dirth of believable refutations here, man! This OP's fascinating but damaging video pretty clearly shows, at the very least, some REAL interesting revisions and alterations that strongly evince biblical revision into a newly evolved version. (sorry; I know how Christians hate that word, even if it's used in a secular, non-controversial context).

It's obviously a remake into a semi-convincing mono-theistic version (esp. since their target audience back then could not "read to refute", and had to take their local priest's word for, well, everything, including claims of miraculous events). This is certainly in keeping with the growth of the greater Christian power structure at that time. The time was, apparently, ripe for monotheism amongst the masses, the better to efficiently and profitably manage their hearts and minds, and by Gawd, the higher-ups apparently took that opportunity.

No amount of frantic minutial (?) parsing of individual words into all their alternative definitions can obfuscate the overall, combined evidence, to my open mind at least.

But, as I say, I'm always open to more and better evidence. But PUH-LEEZE! Just don't trot out that same-old, same-old stuff again and again, like deja-vu, all over and over and over again.

Yawn.

Last edited by rifleman; 01-12-2011 at 11:32 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 12:16 PM
 
Location: New York City
5,556 posts, read 6,708,938 times
Reputation: 1351
From Rifle-Man:

Quote:
The time was, apparently, ripe for monotheism amongst the masses, the better to efficiently and profitably manage their hearts and minds, and by Gawd, the higher-ups apparently took that opportunity.
This is a subject for another day, but it is one of the points I have pondered. I am not sure the Yahwehist had this in mind, but to allow other gods, their temples and their priests to thrive would mean COMPETITION and competition means less money coming your way, less loyalty and less control. When the 10 northern tribes picked up and started their own kingdom and left Judah and Benjamin on their own, this meant funds into the Jerusalem temple (pockets of the priests) probably took a huge plunge. Now what if one of those priests got a hold of a pen and a scroll? I wonder how they would paint those renegade northern tribes?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 12:22 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,425,536 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
And yet the bible is oft quoted as"proof" of some various events, for which it's a poor source, since it steps on it's own neck time and again. Notice how Christian denialists will quote (mis-quote, more often than not..) some micro-error on the part of a peer-reviewed and published scientist, as inarguable proof that the entirety of all the accumulated scientific knowledge on Evolution or sedimentary deposits, for example, is therefore a bucket of horse droppings. Forget that science found the error within itself (rigorous self-monitoring), or that this does not auto-eliminate all the mass of proven and dependable results.

Such a process of factual establishment is, yes, kind of hard on the bible's claims. You can deny it for the preservation of your own personal philosophical safety net, but still; "Facts are acts, ma'am!" As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say.
This is not the place for proving or disproving evolution. But since you brought it up I can just as easily say there are well renouned scientists who have proven evolution and all that goes with it a bunch of horse droppings. But I will leave their fight amongst themselves since I am not a scientist involved in evolution tales or non evolution facts. (How do you like how I said that last sentence? LOL!)



Quote:
Re my prior quote: "It's also obvious that the church's higher-ups would not allow the education of their general congregations on such controversial but historical writings. Talk about resulting chaos!"

The OP's video presents a large number of what are presented as valid historical writings on the subject at hand, all from periods well before the adoption of the official Christian version of the bible. That bible's obviously a revision into monotheism from the obviously rampant and pervasive poly-theism of it's ancestral contributors.
It is not so much what those historical writings say but what the author of the video says they say.


Quote:
Thus I mean, obviously, that today's cautious Church's elders (already trying to staunch the general stampede out of their churches) would (and obviously have, BTW) denied such intellectual discussions as you and IIDM are having here; where controversy is rampant and viable alternate interpretations, with massive consequences to the overall veracity and viability of Christianity, are placed in imminent danger.
I wouldn't know since I am not a part of today's Christianity or Churianity but am a believer.
Quote:

My comment has nothing to do with the facts of Evolution; they stand on their own,
You meant "they fall on their own?" So you really do think two amoebas got together millions of years ago and within the genetic makeup of those two amoebas they, by their own intellect decided what all the different millions of life forms on our planet would be and would even know what an eye ball is with all its manifold complexities? One amoeba to the other: Hey, let's make an eye. An eye? What's that?
So these amoebas began in a bath of slime on earth? And somehow together they held a church meeting and planned the whole emergence of every living varried critter on planet earth, every millions of different critters of the sea, the land and their air? Wow, we should worship the amoeba! They are obviously more inteligent than mankind!

Quote:
but at the same time do effectively demolish much of Christianity's claims to fame. The ancient historians could not possibly have written of Evolution in any ancient documents because no-one back then, with the absence of any widely accepted and proven formal scientific protocols to get unbiased answers, could have conceived of the "simple complexity" of DNA, it's mutations and adaptations. Not to mention the resulting new organisms ("species", we call them). Taken in toto, it's now defined as Evolution to us inquisitive types.
I believe even with our greatest technological advances we have taken a step backwards from that of our ancient predecessors and are made to look more stupid than they by believing such garbage as evolution. Maybe you came from a stupid chimp or whatever but I came from a very intelligent human. (Don't take that personal.


Quote:
But, that's another thread. Maybe I'll see you there, where you'll get logically thrashed if you attempt to build a defense with the same sort of easily refuted old-line fairy-tales, tactical revisions and outright denials of the facts.
Yea, let's not get into the easily refuted old-line faery tales and tactical revisions and outright denials of evolution. That is not for this thread.
______________________

Quote:
A quick, polite but directly philosophical question for you, Eusebius:

If atheists were, hypothetically, to present a knowingly false interpretation of the bible, like if they claimed "so and so" made "such and such" a statement in the bible, fully knowing "he" didn't, and you categorically proved them wrong, how would you then feel if they persisted, over and over, month after year, in relentlessly repeating that same tired old untruth, and simultaneously claimed it therefore showed up all the great fallacies in the bible?
Yes, it is a tough row to hoe on these boards. I deal with it all the time with Mike555 and others who just can't get past their poor translations.



Quote:
So why is it that the theist crowd does exactly that in defense of their bible and it's so-called evidentiary truths? (and, on that other hypothetical thread, it's what we regularly see in the frantic Christian denials of Evolution's facts)
I wouldn't know.


Quote:
I mean... really now; is that all yah got, so to speak? Such a dirth of believable refutations here, man! This OP's fascinating but damaging video pretty clearly shows, at the very least, some REAL interesting revisions and alterations that strongly evince biblical revision into a newly evolved version. (sorry; I know how Christians hate that word, even if it's used in a secular, non-controversial context).
Again, I wouldn't know. I didn't know it was damaging. I thought it was pretty weak.

Quote:
It's obviously a remake into a semi-convincing mono-theistic version (esp. since their target audience back then could not "read to refute", and had to take their local priest's word for, well, everything, including claims of miraculous events). This is certainly in keeping with the growth of the greater Christian power structure at that time. The time was, apparently, ripe for monotheism amongst the masses, the better to efficiently and profitably manage their hearts and minds, and by Gawd, the higher-ups apparently took that opportunity.
"Christian power structure at that time"? What time?


Quote:
No amount of frantic minutial (?) parsing of individual words into all their alternative definitions can obfuscate the overall, combined evidence, to my open mind at least.

But, as I say, I'm always open to more and better evidence. But PUH-LEEZE! Just don't trot out that same-old, same-old stuff again and again, like deja-vu, all over and over and over again.

Yawn.
Funny but IIMB linked to a post positing all the minutia about elohim and still got it wrong.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top