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.
As I believe I suggested above, a folk memory of a limited flood – even having worldwide effects – may indeed explain the number of Flood – legends that we have. However, the point is not that of a local flood which of course would not ‘blot out man….and beasts and creeping things and birds’ (Gen.6.7) Nor make an end of all flesh(6.13) and the idea of Noah just making an Ark for a few selected local animals dies not fit with the idea of taking a pair of all animals, clean and unclean to keep their kind alive(7.19) as all other living things would be blotted out (7,4-5) including the millions of bug species on their vegetation rafts in order to make the job of collation and storage look feasible in the Ark –apologists books.
If the idea was just to send a message: ‘Shape up mankind’ that is not what the book says, especially as 9.11 has God saying that he would never do the same thing again. So, you see, while I take your local flood point, it proves the Bible false in the most important respect; even if the history may be true, the God – claims attached to them have to be false.
As a rider, I would observe that Egypt doesn’t have a flood legend, Though there is Plato’s Atlantis story which he claims came from Egypt – but it is not known from any Egyptian source. There are the Mesopotamian flood stories, originating in Sumer and current in the ancient near east and arriving in Greece as ‘Deucalion’s flood’ derived from the Babylonian version via the Chaldeans.
I have to mention also that there is no Chinese flood – legend. It is sometimes claimed that there is, but this is just the story of an ancient official and his effective measures against the flooding of a river.
I have no problem with people discussing the Bible and debating the real vs. not real or the true vs. not true. I realize that your point is that the Bible is not real or true. That is fine. However, I do appreciate a consistent argument.
You said: However, the point is not that of a local flood which of course would not ‘blot out man….and beasts and creeping things and birds’ (Gen.6.7) Nor make an end of all flesh(6.13) and the idea of Noah just making an Ark for a few selected local animals dies not fit with the idea of taking a pair of all animals, clean and unclean to keep their kind alive(7.19) as all other living things would be blotted out (7,4-5)
I find it inconsistent to use part of the Bible as "true" in order to prove the point that the Bible is not true. Either it is all "true" or none is. Pulling an isolated verse here or there isn't proof of anything on either side of the debate. You quoted Gen 6:5 and 6:13. To dismiss a localized flood on the basis of these two verses is to assume that the planet was totally populated with God's children and beasts and that God wanted to make an end to all flesh planet-wide, therefore there could have been no localized flood. This basic assumption you have drawn is incorrect. The Bible does not say that the planet was populated with God's children and beasts, nor that God wanted to put an end to all flesh all over the planet. With all due respect to you and your opinion, it really is only right to represent the Bible accurately if you intend to reference it.
The Bible, whether "true" or not, has a specific story, "true" or not. Anyone who chooses to discuss the Bible should be respectful enough of the exchange of ideas principles to represent the book accurately. It would not matter which book we were discussing. The text should be represented accurately.
The book clearly states that there was a creation, where the whole planet was populated. Then it was done and finished. Then God *formed* a man and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and put him in a garden in Eden and called this man, Adam, his chosen. Adam and Eve were the foundation pair for the Jewish nation and no others. God then *formed* the animals for the garden of Eden and brought them to Adam. There is nothing to indicate that God put every animal on the planet within the boundaries Eden. This whole premise of a planet-wide account of God and his chosen is a product of organized religion. When the "sons of God" (the Jews) sinned with the "daughters of man" (everyone else created and put in the geographical area we now call Israel), God decided to kill all life "on the face of the earth" (Israel and the area of the garden of Eden [His holy place]). God had no reason to be angry with the creations and animals in the rest of the world for they had no interactions with the "sons of God", the Jews. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that his wrath extended beyond the area of his children. God was purging his holy place and his straying holy people (the Jews) and the corruptors of his chosen. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that there were any Jews anywhere but that limited area and there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God was concerned with anyone but the Jews - until much, much later in the text. From the text, there is no reason to assume that the flood was planet-wide, but instead limited in area to "God's holy land". That area may have been 100 miles long and 100 miles wide or 1000 or whatever or even an allegory, but there is nothing to support a planet-wide flood or even a partial planet-wide flood. That idea is organized religion, not text.
You said: If the idea was just to send a message: ‘Shape up mankind’ that is not what the book says, especially as 9.11 has God saying that he would never do the same thing again. So, you see, while I take your local flood point, it proves the Bible false in the most important respect; even if the history may be true, the God – claims attached to them have to be false.
Nothing in my post should have been interpreted as God's intent was to say, "Shape up, mankind". The only people God wanted to "shape up" were dead (the inhabitants of the holy land), because He punished them with death.
As far as the rainbow, that was God's covenant (promise) to Noah that He would not destroy His people (the Jews) with a flood again.
You said: As a rider, I would observe that Egypt doesn’t have a flood legend
If there had been a planet-wide flood, wouldn't Egypt have some kind of account?
This, per se, seems to refute a planet-wide flood, but it certainly doesn't prove the Bible a lie.
I have no problem with people discussing the Bible and debating the real vs. not real or the true vs. not true. I realize that your point is that the Bible is not real or true. That is fine. However, I do appreciate a consistent argument.
You said: However, the point is not that of a local flood which of course would not ‘blot out man….and beasts and creeping things and birds’ (Gen.6.7) Nor make an end of all flesh(6.13) and the idea of Noah just making an Ark for a few selected local animals dies not fit with the idea of taking a pair of all animals, clean and unclean to keep their kind alive(7.19) as all other living things would be blotted out (7,4-5)
I find it inconsistent to use part of the Bible as "true" in order to prove the point that the Bible is not true. Either it is all "true" or none is. Pulling an isolated verse here or there isn't proof of anything on either side of the debate. You quoted Gen 6:5 and 6:13. To dismiss a localized flood on the basis of these two verses is to assume that the planet was totally populated with God's children and beasts and that God wanted to make an end to all flesh planet-wide, therefore there could have been no localized flood. This basic assumption you have drawn is incorrect. The Bible does not say that the planet was populated with God's children and beasts, nor that God wanted to put an end to all flesh all over the planet. With all due respect to you and your opinion, it really is only right to represent the Bible accurately if you intend to reference it.
The Bible, whether "true" or not, has a specific story, "true" or not. Anyone who chooses to discuss the Bible should be respectful enough of the exchange of ideas principles to represent the book accurately. It would not matter which book we were discussing. The text should be represented accurately.
The book clearly states that there was a creation, where the whole planet was populated. Then it was done and finished. Then God *formed* a man and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and put him in a garden in Eden and called this man, Adam, his chosen. Adam and Eve were the foundation pair for the Jewish nation and no others. God then *formed* the animals for the garden of Eden and brought them to Adam. There is nothing to indicate that God put every animal on the planet within the boundaries Eden. This whole premise of a planet-wide account of God and his chosen is a product of organized religion. When the "sons of God" (the Jews) sinned with the "daughters of man" (everyone else created and put in the geographical area we now call Israel), God decided to kill all life "on the face of the earth" (Israel and the area of the garden of Eden [His holy place]). God had no reason to be angry with the creations and animals in the rest of the world for they had no interactions with the "sons of God", the Jews. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that his wrath extended beyond the area of his children. God was purging his holy place and his straying holy people (the Jews) and the corruptors of his chosen. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that there were any Jews anywhere but that limited area and there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God was concerned with anyone but the Jews - until much, much later in the text. From the text, there is no reason to assume that the flood was planet-wide, but instead limited in area to "God's holy land". That area may have been 100 miles long and 100 miles wide or 1000 or whatever or even an allegory, but there is nothing to support a planet-wide flood or even a partial planet-wide flood. That idea is organized religion, not text.
You said: If the idea was just to send a message: ‘Shape up mankind’ that is not what the book says, especially as 9.11 has God saying that he would never do the same thing again. So, you see, while I take your local flood point, it proves the Bible false in the most important respect; even if the history may be true, the God – claims attached to them have to be false.
Nothing in my post should have been interpreted as God's intent was to say, "Shape up, mankind". The only people God wanted to "shape up" were dead (the inhabitants of the holy land), because He punished them with death.
As far as the rainbow, that was God's covenant (promise) to Noah that He would not destroy His people (the Jews) with a flood again.
You said: As a rider, I would observe that Egypt doesn’t have a flood legend
If there had been a planet-wide flood, wouldn't Egypt have some kind of account?
This, per se, seems to refute a planet-wide flood, but it certainly doesn't prove the Bible a lie.
Just curious, as there are other threads on the highlighted subject going on. How did you conclude that the "sons of God" in Genesis 5 means "the Jews?" Wouldn't this be an anachronism? If they were not Jews, then your argument going forward would be off, wouldn't it?
I have no problem with people discussing the Bible and debating the real vs. not real or the true vs. not true. I realize that your point is that the Bible is not real or true. That is fine. However, I do appreciate a consistent argument.
You said: However, the point is not that of a local flood which of course would not ‘blot out man….and beasts and creeping things and birds’ (Gen.6.7) Nor make an end of all flesh(6.13) and the idea of Noah just making an Ark for a few selected local animals dies not fit with the idea of taking a pair of all animals, clean and unclean to keep their kind alive(7.19) as all other living things would be blotted out (7,4-5)
I find it inconsistent to use part of the Bible as "true" in order to prove the point that the Bible is not true. Either it is all "true" or none is. Pulling an isolated verse here or there isn't proof of anything on either side of the debate. You quoted Gen 6:5 and 6:13. To dismiss a localized flood on the basis of these two verses is to assume that the planet was totally populated with God's children and beasts and that God wanted to make an end to all flesh planet-wide, therefore there could have been no localized flood. This basic assumption you have drawn is incorrect. The Bible does not say that the planet was populated with God's children and beasts, nor that God wanted to put an end to all flesh all over the planet. With all due respect to you and your opinion, it really is only right to represent the Bible accurately if you intend to reference it.
The Bible, whether "true" or not, has a specific story, "true" or not. Anyone who chooses to discuss the Bible should be respectful enough of the exchange of ideas principles to represent the book accurately. It would not matter which book we were discussing. The text should be represented accurately.
The book clearly states that there was a creation, where the whole planet was populated. Then it was done and finished. Then God *formed* a man and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and put him in a garden in Eden and called this man, Adam, his chosen. Adam and Eve were the foundation pair for the Jewish nation and no others. God then *formed* the animals for the garden of Eden and brought them to Adam. There is nothing to indicate that God put every animal on the planet within the boundaries Eden. This whole premise of a planet-wide account of God and his chosen is a product of organized religion. When the "sons of God" (the Jews) sinned with the "daughters of man" (everyone else created and put in the geographical area we now call Israel), God decided to kill all life "on the face of the earth" (Israel and the area of the garden of Eden [His holy place]). God had no reason to be angry with the creations and animals in the rest of the world for they had no interactions with the "sons of God", the Jews. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that his wrath extended beyond the area of his children. God was purging his holy place and his straying holy people (the Jews) and the corruptors of his chosen. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that there were any Jews anywhere but that limited area and there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God was concerned with anyone but the Jews - until much, much later in the text. From the text, there is no reason to assume that the flood was planet-wide, but instead limited in area to "God's holy land". That area may have been 100 miles long and 100 miles wide or 1000 or whatever or even an allegory, but there is nothing to support a planet-wide flood or even a partial planet-wide flood. That idea is organized religion, not text.
You said: If the idea was just to send a message: ‘Shape up mankind’ that is not what the book says, especially as 9.11 has God saying that he would never do the same thing again. So, you see, while I take your local flood point, it proves the Bible false in the most important respect; even if the history may be true, the God – claims attached to them have to be false.
Nothing in my post should have been interpreted as God's intent was to say, "Shape up, mankind". The only people God wanted to "shape up" were dead (the inhabitants of the holy land), because He punished them with death.
As far as the rainbow, that was God's covenant (promise) to Noah that He would not destroy His people (the Jews) with a flood again.
You said: As a rider, I would observe that Egypt doesn’t have a flood legend
If there had been a planet-wide flood, wouldn't Egypt have some kind of account?
This, per se, seems to refute a planet-wide flood, but it certainly doesn't prove the Bible a lie.
I appreciate the points you make in your post. Apart from "Either it is all "true" or none is." which is clearly a false dichotomy (the Exodus could be true, but that God arranged might not - or that God arranged for the Jews to leave Egypt could also be true, but not via the roundabout route in Exodus; Some things true, some not), I take your reading that the Bible doesn't need to be talking about more than a local area - In fact that is the case, as the ancient middle-eastern Flood legends never envisaged the whole globe and its peoples as we know it today being flooded.
I am prepared (after noting that the Creationist use of Genesis as source material does read it as the whole world as we know it today) to consider the idea of a purely local flood, though the idea of a man being given pre-warning so he could build a floating zoo to preserve all the local animals - with no extras to make up viable breeding - groups or take care of collateral wastage from a year cooped up in a floating box, sounds pretty much like folklore to me, plus of course that the legend originated in Mesopotamia in the first place. So it still looks 'untrue' as it appears in Genesis, even as a local flood.
You said: "Nothing in my post should have been interpreted as God's intent was to say, "Shape up, mankind"."
Nor did you. I was anticipating a possible (creationist) argument that God (since the complete destruction of all humankind seems unsupported by fact) just intended the flood as a warning. From that point of view, complete obliteration of 'All flesh' is (as I pointed out with my list of relevant and consistent (if you don't mind ) quotes, plus the wording of the covenant would nullify any such argument. Global or local,it was intended to wipe out all but one righteous man and his family.
As to the Bible being a lie, while this thread is about the first 7 books being folklore (which is not quite the same thing), as I say, there are some things in the Bible that I must credit as true - the sack of Lacheish and the siege of Jerusalem - though the latter has some 'spin' about it. Some as false - the Creation, the flood (on either a global or local basis), plus Exodus now looks to have no factuality other than (possibly) as a folk memory of the Egyptians driving the Hyksos out of the delta up into Canaan, where they came from.
And some true and not - as in the 'prophecy' of Tyre. That is true, or near enough, as regards the attack by Nebuchadnezzar and the later one by Alexander, including the causeway. But it is not true that the city never recovered, which also means that it is history presented retrospectively as prophecy and presenting the false prediction of never being rebuilt as information given by God is a false claim. While avoiding the term 'Lie', as that implies a deliberate deceit, Not True' is on the money. And that means that the Bible is not to be trusted, especially as regards the god -claims.
I appreciate the points you make in your post. Apart from "Either it is all "true" or none is." which is clearly a false dichotomy (the Exodus could be true, but that God arranged might not - or that God arranged for the Jews to leave Egypt could also be true, but not via the roundabout route in Exodus; Some things true, some not), I take your reading that the Bible doesn't need to be talking about more than a local area - In fact that is the case, as the ancient middle-eastern Flood legends never envisaged the whole globe and its peoples as we know it today being flooded.
I am prepared (after noting that the Creationist use of Genesis as source material does read it as the whole world as we know it today) to consider the idea of a purely local flood, though the idea of a man being given pre-warning so he could build a floating zoo to preserve all the local animals - with no extras to make up viable breeding - groups or take care of collateral wastage from a year cooped up in a floating box, sounds pretty much like folklore to me, plus of course that the legend originated in Mesopotamia in the first place. So it still looks 'untrue' as it appears in Genesis, even as a local flood.
You said: "Nothing in my post should have been interpreted as God's intent was to say, "Shape up, mankind"."
Nor did you. I was anticipating a possible (creationist) argument that God (since the complete destruction of all humankind seems unsupported by fact) just intended the flood as a warning. From that point of view, complete obliteration of 'All flesh' is (as I pointed out with my list of relevant and consistent (if you don't mind ) quotes, plus the wording of the covenant would nullify any such argument. Global or local,it was intended to wipe out all but one righteous man and his family.
As to the Bible being a lie, while this thread is about the first 7 books being folklore (which is not quite the same thing), as I say, there are some things in the Bible that I must credit as true - the sack of Lacheish and the siege of Jerusalem - though the latter has some 'spin' about it. Some as false - the Creation, the flood (on either a global or local basis), plus Exodus now looks to have no factuality other than (possibly) as a folk memory of the Egyptians driving the Hyksos out of the delta up into Canaan, where they came from.
And some true and not - as in the 'prophecy' of Tyre. That is true, or near enough, as regards the attack by Nebuchadnezzar and the later one by Alexander, including the causeway. But it is not true that the city never recovered, which also means that it is history presented retrospectively as prophecy and presenting the false prediction of never being rebuilt as information given by God is a false claim. While avoiding the term 'Lie', as that implies a deliberate deceit, Not True' is on the money. And that means that the Bible is not to be trusted, especially as regards the god -claims.
Sorry, false. It was rebuilt and prospering within decades. Tyre was far from destroyed and never rebuilt. I read that Tyre continued as major trading entity. The prophecy only really works in respect of Nebuchadnezzar as the first of 'many nations' that attacked Tyre.
Does the prophecy become fulfilled in the case of Alexander's attack in 332 B.C.? As the next of the 'many nations' that attack Tyre, Alexander takes 'mainland Tyre' and uses the rubble to make a causeway out to 'Island Tyre' to which he laid seige with engines and a navy. The city was taken. Whether the mainland city was scraped down to the rock and the debris dumped into the sea to make the causeway, that was not the end of Tyre. After Alexander's death, a successor was investing Tyre - unsuccessfully.
Jerome wrote of Tyre as having become once more one of the richest and most splendid trading city of the east. That is a far cry from never being rebuilt and a place where there was nothing but fishermen spreading their nets.
Tyre was again under siege in the Crusades. Was it the same Tyre? A recent satellite map shows that the causeway has been built up on north and south by drifting sand and forms a triangular peninsula with 'island Tyre' at the tip. Present Tyre occupies the area of 'mainland Tyre'. Called 'Sur' today, it certainly appears to be a continuation up to the present day of a city that has never needed to be rebuilt, as it has never really ceased to exist. It is an important port; during the recent Lebanon war, it was from here that food was ferried in by ship to the starving city and escapees were ferried out. 'Island' Tyre also appears to be built up apart from the south part. It is certainly much more than just a place to spread nets.
The prophecy does work, after a fashion, up to the time of the Selucids - which is when I would date the 'prophecy', but the prophecy about never being rebuilt and apparently ceasing to exist is certainly incorrect. The argument that modern 'Tyre' is unimportant and in the wrong place does not seem to be correct either.
Just curious, as there are other threads on the highlighted subject going on. (1) How did you conclude that the "sons of God" in Genesis 5 means "the Jews?" (2)Wouldn't this be an anachronism? (3)If they were not Jews, then your argument going forward would be off, wouldn't it?
I'm not sure I understand your questions. Your second question would indicate that your interest is in the words "the Jews". To the best of my knowledge, Adam and Eve were not identified by race. Their subsequent generations were called Hebrews. Somewhere along the line the Hebrews were then called Jews (if the Bible tells us when and where, I missed it). As far as "Jews" being an anachronism, it would only be in the terminology, not the people, for Jews, Hebrews, sons of God, God's children, God's chosen, etc. etc. were all the same group of people.
If you are asking in question 1 whether or not the "sons of God" could have been a bunch of different people, the text does not support that. The "sons of God" possessed the "breath of life" (a soul, a spirit, an essence from God that God could redeem that the creatures [creations, created] didn't have (redemption). (That is Genesis chpt. 2.). The offspring of Adam and Eve (son, Seth [Able is dead and Cain's line is not recorded] and generation after generation ) were born with "the breath of life" and were God's chosen people. The Old Testament (OT) [as much as this rankles Flipflop; sorry Flipflop] is a Jewish history book. It outlines the generations of the Jews from Adam and Eve through the last Jewish King (and his story) in an unbroken genealogy. It is the account of the Jewish people from its inception, their journey through history (as far as it goes in the text) and their relationship with God. The gentiles noted are supporting characters only and are of no consequence (as much as that irks the organized Christian religion) to God until much, much later in the text when God decides that He wants the world to know that He is the "real, living God".
Re: (3): If they were not Jews, my argument would be off. However, the text is very clear that they were the Hebrews/Jews/ sons of God/children of God/ the chosen/possessing the breath of life people and were different from everyone else. Organized Christian religion seems to be the only one with a problem with the text (not that I don't understand "why", but the text is clear just the same).
Ella said (in the post in question): [Creation is Genesis Chpt 1; Formation is Chpt. 2] "The book clearly states that there was a creation, where the whole planet was populated. Then it was done and finished. Then God *formed* a man and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and put him in a garden in Eden and called this man, Adam, his chosen. Adam and Eve were the foundation pair for the Jewish nation and no others. God then *formed* the animals for the garden of Eden and brought them to Adam."
Sorry, false. It was rebuilt and prospering within decades. Tyre was far from destroyed and never rebuilt. I read that Tyre continued as major trading entity. The prophecy only really works in respect of Nebuchadnezzar as the first of 'many nations' that attacked Tyre.
Does the prophecy become fulfilled in the case of Alexander's attack in 332 B.C.? As the next of the 'many nations' that attack Tyre, Alexander takes 'mainland Tyre' and uses the rubble to make a causeway out to 'Island Tyre' to which he laid seige with engines and a navy. The city was taken. Whether the mainland city was scraped down to the rock and the debris dumped into the sea to make the causeway, that was not the end of Tyre. After Alexander's death, a successor was investing Tyre - unsuccessfully.
Jerome wrote of Tyre as having become once more one of the richest and most splendid trading city of the east. That is a far cry from never being rebuilt and a place where there was nothing but fishermen spreading their nets.
Tyre was again under siege in the Crusades. Was it the same Tyre? A recent satellite map shows that the causeway has been built up on north and south by drifting sand and forms a triangular peninsula with 'island Tyre' at the tip. Present Tyre occupies the area of 'mainland Tyre'. Called 'Sur' today, it certainly appears to be a continuation up to the present day of a city that has never needed to be rebuilt, as it has never really ceased to exist. It is an important port; during the recent Lebanon war, it was from here that food was ferried in by ship to the starving city and escapees were ferried out. 'Island' Tyre also appears to be built up apart from the south part. It is certainly much more than just a place to spread nets.
The prophecy does work, after a fashion, up to the time of the Selucids - which is when I would date the 'prophecy', but the prophecy about never being rebuilt and apparently ceasing to exist is certainly incorrect. The argument that modern 'Tyre' is unimportant and in the wrong place does not seem to be correct either.
Just becauase a near by island city was named Tyre doesn't mean that this great city was rebuilt. The site of the mainland city remains buried.
Benjamin of Tudela documented this distinction in his travels:
"
From Sidon it is half a day’s journey to Sarepta (Sarfend), which belongs to Sidon. Thence it is a half-day to New Tyre (Sur), which is a very fine city, with a harbour in its midst.... There is no harbour like this in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city.... In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea "
It's this ancient city that the Bible is saying will never be rebuilt. The city was destroyed exactly as the Bible predicted.
I'm not sure I understand your questions. Your second question would indicate that your interest is in the words "the Jews". To the best of my knowledge, Adam and Eve were not identified by race. Their subsequent generations were called Hebrews. Somewhere along the line the Hebrews were then called Jews (if the Bible tells us when and where, I missed it). As far as "Jews" being an anachronism, it would only be in the terminology, not the people, for Jews, Hebrews, sons of God, God's children, God's chosen, etc. etc. were all the same group of people.
If you are asking in question 1 whether or not the "sons of God" could have been a bunch of different people, the text does not support that. The "sons of God" possessed the "breath of life" (a soul, a spirit, an essence from God that God could redeem that the creatures [creations, created] didn't have (redemption). (That is Genesis chpt. 2.). The offspring of Adam and Eve (son, Seth [Able is dead and Cain's line is not recorded] and generation after generation ) were born with "the breath of life" and were God's chosen people. The Old Testament (OT) [as much as this rankles Flipflop; sorry Flipflop] is a Jewish history book. It outlines the generations of the Jews from Adam and Eve through the last Jewish King (and his story) in an unbroken genealogy. It is the account of the Jewish people from its inception, their journey through history (as far as it goes in the text) and their relationship with God. The gentiles noted are supporting characters only and are of no consequence (as much as that irks the organized Christian religion) to God until much, much later in the text when God decides that He wants the world to know that He is the "real, living God".
Re: (3): If they were not Jews, my argument would be off. However, the text is very clear that they were the Hebrews/Jews/ sons of God/children of God/ the chosen/possessing the breath of life people and were different from everyone else. Organized Christian religion seems to be the only one with a problem with the text (not that I don't understand "why", but the text is clear just the same).
Ella said (in the post in question): [Creation is Genesis Chpt 1; Formation is Chpt. 2] "The book clearly states that there was a creation, where the whole planet was populated. Then it was done and finished. Then God *formed* a man and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and put him in a garden in Eden and called this man, Adam, his chosen. Adam and Eve were the foundation pair for the Jewish nation and no others. God then *formed* the animals for the garden of Eden and brought them to Adam."
I am not as confident in the clarity of the text suggesting that the "sons of God" are Jews as you are, Ella. From my understanding, it appears these "sons of God" were supposedly, or I should say, BELIEVED to be, literal, breathing, male offspring of God himself. Incidentally, this notion is consistent with regional beliefs from Mesopotamia to the the Mediterranean, that being, God, or "the gods" had sons (and daughters).
The reason why I said placing Jews in this narrative is an anachronism is because when this alleged event took place, there were no Hebrews, no Israel, no Israelites and certainly no Jews. To say that "sons of God" in THIS particular context, would seem quite out of place, wouldn't you say?
Most Americans believe in God. Christianity is the largest religion in the world.
And McDonald's is the largest "restaurant" chain. Congrats.
Quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that atheists are the only people who can use reason and logic?
Are you seriously suggesting that atheists are the only people who see Christianity as a sham, who don't believe in Bible god and who reject revealed/mainstream religion?
Reason and logic do NOT lead to Christianity or belief in the Bible or its god. That is reality.
Quote:
Finally, the argument that the Jesus story is nothing more than a non-original myth is really old and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Even if it did, it doesn't prove that the gospels are fiction.
Yes it does, and yes it does.
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 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.
) quotes, plus the wording of the covenant would nullify any such argument. Global or local,it was intended to wipe out all but one righteous man and his family.
about it. Some as false - the Creation, the flood (on either a global or local basis), plus Exodus now looks to have no factuality other than (possibly) as a folk memory of the Egyptians driving the Hyksos out of the delta up into Canaan, where they came from. 
