>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> Darvin a NUT?
Bookmark topic
Just the fact that the books in the bible were not originally written in English, should be a major consideration already not to interpret them literally. You have to be aware of how the original message was delivered and understand the culture and tradition of the people during the time when it was written.
This is a bit off topic but just take for example "it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle..." If you just take it literally, you would probably laugh. In those times however, there were entrances for camels and another for people which they call something that we can only interpret as "the eye of a needle". This makes a whole lot of difference in the meaning doesn't it?
In the same way, the words in Genesis, describing creation shouldn't be taken literally. The formation of the planets, the plants, the animals, and human beings may actually have taken place but who knows what the actual words really meant in the original context.
--
Posted: 2005-07-18 04:40:24
Edit :
Quote
you also need to consider the understanding of the original author, and that the author was trying to convert his level of knowledge into concepts people of the time would understand.
_________________
Whomsoever you see in distress, recognize in him a fellow man
Gelfen's special place where people talk to him[ This Message was edited by: gelfen on 2005-07-18 04:38 ]
--
Posted: 2005-07-18 04:47:58
Edit :
Quote
okso now lets all look at history and people that made it and start interpreting what they said based on what WE think their mental level/knowledge/life was.
so when galileo invented the telescope- its main purpose was to look into his neighbours window. We can't judge them as we wish as its not right. We don't know everything but God does and its mentioned every where in the bible that God wrote through people except the 10 commandment tablets that moses destroyed-those were written by God's own hands.
--
Posted: 2005-07-18 12:24:00
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-07-18 04:40:24, blackspot wrote:
Just the fact that the books in the bible were not originally written in English, should be a major consideration already not to interpret them literally. You have to be aware of how the original message was delivered and understand the culture and tradition of the people during the time when it was written...
Which is why I own a NIV Study Bible. It has Maps of present day and ancient Israel, introductions to all books, study notes on many verses and an extensive concordance to find and compare passages.
Many sceptics falsely believe that Christians follow a vague fairytale full of out-landish statements and questionable history when in fact the opposite is true.
The Old Testament, originally written in Hebrew is the most accurate historical document ever written. It contains lists of Kings of Israel, Egypt, Persia, Roman Emporers etc, all of whom existed and can be verified by non-biblical means. Also it mentions Kings who were not known about by any other means until recent achaeological discoveries confirmed them. The OT in it's earliest forms was copied with an incredible amount of accuracy, by hand, and any more than 3 errors meant a copy was destroyed. That's 3 errors in approx 500,000 words! The New Testament was compiled (in Greek) from a number of eye-witness accounts, letters, autobiographies and prophetic writings,
by a Church Council who wanted a book which accurately summed up the Christian teachings. They did not write the book, they merely compiled it.
There are parts of the Bible which are non-literal. Those bits are called Prophecy. The rest is literal when taken in context. However, saying that you can pick and choose which parts to believe and which to take with a grain of salt as it suits you, simply devalues your own beliefs. The Bible is the word of God - we measure ourselves by it, we don't change the measure to suit our denials, guilty consciences and whims as many would do.
--
Posted: 2005-07-18 14:25:39
Edit :
Quote
@car
--
Posted: 2005-07-18 18:53:33
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-07-18 14:25:39, carkitter wrote:
There are parts of the Bible which are non-literal. Those bits are called Prophecy. The rest is literal when taken in context. However, saying that you can pick and choose which parts to believe and which to take with a grain of salt as it suits you, simply devalues your own beliefs. The Bible is the word of God - we measure ourselves by it, we don't change the measure to suit our denials, guilty consciences and whims as many would do.
the point i was trying to make is that you need to understand the context. i was not arguing against its historical accuracy, only it's scientific accuracy.
the creation story does not stand up to any level of non-biblical scrutiny if taken literally. the context must be considered or you get a very odd view of reality. the creation story only works if you consider it to be either (a) metaphorical, or (b) highly imprecise.
there would have been little point in god revealing the intracacies of quantum theory and the big bang to an almost illiterate society. even if he did chose to reveal such to the author(s) of genesis, which may well have been the case, then it would have meant nothing to the ancient hebrews had it been written that way.
knowing where to distinguish between parable and historical fact is part of being christian.
--
Posted: 2005-07-19 01:41:33
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-07-18 14:25:39, carkitter wrote:
... saying that you can pick and choose which parts to believe and which to take with a grain of salt as it suits you, simply devalues your own beliefs. The Bible is the word of God - we measure ourselves by it, we don't change the measure to suit our denials, guilty consciences and whims as many would do.
I totally agree, and sadly I think this is the reason why there are so many religious sects cropping up everywhere.
I also think we should go back to the topic.
--
Posted: 2005-07-19 04:08:58
Edit :
Quote
I dont believe in this theory even if its proven, coz i choose to be stubborn!! but heres some links against the theory...
http://www.creationevidence.org/general_info/gnrl_info.html
http://www.creationevidence.o[....]_evid/scien_eviden_creatn.html
www.creationevidence.org
--
Posted: 2005-07-20 11:43:24
Edit :
Quote
@786KBR From the link above -
".......These original excavations yielded human footprints among dinosaur footprints (see the Director’s doctoral dissertation).He then realized that a museum needed to be established in order to appropriately display this evidence, along with sustained excavations and other areas of scientific research for creation."
What a load of old bollocks!!
Sorry, but that goes wholly against most modern intelligent human thinking. Your trying to tell me humans walked on the earth with Dinosaurs.
Before you respond, please bear in mind that it has been established that Dinosaurs became extinct 65 millions years ago and dominated life on earth for 180 million years!!
Tripe, Tripe, Tripe Tripe Tripe!
That is a prime example of the worst type of rubbish that can be found on the internet.
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2005-07-20 12:10 ]
--
Posted: 2005-07-20 13:07:23
Edit :
Quote
I never bothered reading everything, some guy sends me mail bout "the gospel of jesus"...
I keep telling him im not interested and asked bout darwins theory ..then he sent this crap.
--
Posted: 2005-07-20 13:52:50
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
