Analyzing and understanding Genesis

 
  • We are the ones enlightened today. We are the ones who have to solve these temporary puzzles! And some of you are not really helping...

    Wimme didn't say that he (or any other in here) is enlightened
    Yes he did.

    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
  • We may refer to humanity as well, you know...

    I've changed my opinion about everything. This post is old and my new views are way cooler. Can't wait to change them again.
  • wimme said:
    No, that's not the way it works.

    If we come up with a different conclusion, we both have to verify for both conclusions:

    - from which biblical statements the conclusion was derived;
    - whether the biblical rules were rigorously obeyed in deriving it;
    - which biblical statements further prove the conclusion,

    which is what I try to do for every post I make here.


    But you still came to a different conclusion by reading the same verse! According to you, this is not possible unless you are not enlightened enough, but who are you to decide that?!

    • wimme sa...
    • Användare
    • 1 jun 2009, 20:14
    What conclusion or verse are you talking about?

    • Waldheri sa...
    • Användare
    • 1 jun 2009, 20:18
    Any.

    Meshuggah: "A combination of the powerful and the avant-garde, the band is as visceral and imposing an act as you’ll ever see and hear, guitarists Fredrik Thordendal, Mårten Hagström, and bassist Dick Lövgren hammering out lurching, monolithic riffs as they headbang in robotic unison, vocalist Jens Kidman barking out surreal verses like a twisted drill sergeant while gesticulating like a puppet on strings. - Adrien Begrand (PopMatters)
  • Let's take a simple example, the verses about homosexuality. Some people take them quite literary to ascribe their own homophobism, some people say that it's an expression for its time and should not be taken literary or seriously in a modern context.

    Who is right and who is wrong here? Which group of people is not enlightened enough? This is exactly what I am talking about. If you are saying that "they are not true Christians" or "they are not enlightened enough", then you are just making it easy for yourself and simply not facing the fact that people do DISAGREE over the meaning of different verses, and probably always will. Simply because of how you interpret a verse is very personal and does vary between people, just like how some people think Gollum is evil, and some people think he is just misunderstood.

    Both people can probably argue quite well for their stances, but it all boils down to that neither group is entirely right or wrong, because this is how they simply choose to interpret the character Gollum.

  • LeaTalamon is right here. Biblical texts are historical documents (and erroneous ones at that) and nothing more. Products of their various eras and shifting moral ideas, which explains the contradictions. Old Testament morality could include smiting the enemies of God, New Testament morality was peace. If you want to use this book as a guide to living your life, obviously you can listen to all of it or none of it. Fine if you want to pick up some nice ideas from good ole' Nazareth, great big hippy that he was, but don't then pretend the whole book contains your philosophy of existence. I might read Freud or Aristotle and be very influenced by their ideas, but some of them have been revealed as complete nonsense now, so I'm not about to start calling my self wholly Aristotelean in my philosophies, because he though flies had four legs and snot was excess brain matter. And don't even get me started on the sex-pest that was Freud.

    My point is you can adopt ideas you read, but the whole thing is obviously not credible in modernity, and you shouldn't go around claiming the people who pick the wrong ideas (ie: the ones you didn't pick) from the same text are "unenlightened".

  • Oh hai Caco, I didn't know you would pop in ;) So I assume this discussion piqued your interest?

    As for Freud, I am surprised people actually continue his teachings as seriously as they were during the early 20th century.

  • The Great Flood - Not so great after all...

    We should probably start with the water's height. It was about 6.09 meters high.
    Genesis 7:20
    The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

    Rgarding Ararat, how could it have been covered by the flood? It's 5.000 meters high [wiki]!
    Genesis 8:3-5
    [...] the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

    The truth is, that it was not Ararat where the Ark landed. It was Jebel Judi (in Turkish: Judi Dagh).
    [wiki]

    http://origins.swau.edu/papers/global/noah/default.html
    http://www.noahsarksearch.com/BellGertrude/BellGertrude.htm

    Well, well, well...seems like Islam did help our cause!

    I've changed my opinion about everything. This post is old and my new views are way cooler. Can't wait to change them again.
  • We should probably start with the water's height. It was about 6.09 meters high.
    Genesis 7:20
    The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

    That's not a water height of 6.09 meters, it's 6.09 meters + mountain's height. It would indeed need quite a flood to do that

    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
  • Check the King James Version, it's more accurate.
    Greek & Hebrew text here for all.

    The water reach 6 meters first and then it covered the mountains.

    I've changed my opinion about everything. This post is old and my new views are way cooler. Can't wait to change them again.
    • Waldheri sa...
    • Användare
    • 7 jul 2009, 15:50
    I think there are a few people here who might have a few words about the KJV, but that's not really relevant.

    And wow, congratulations Sherlock. Did you figure that out yourself, that water levels don't jump in height from naught to mountain-covering instantaneously? Let me ask you this, Sherlock: How does that support your belief that the flooding was local?

    Meshuggah: "A combination of the powerful and the avant-garde, the band is as visceral and imposing an act as you’ll ever see and hear, guitarists Fredrik Thordendal, Mårten Hagström, and bassist Dick Lövgren hammering out lurching, monolithic riffs as they headbang in robotic unison, vocalist Jens Kidman barking out surreal verses like a twisted drill sergeant while gesticulating like a puppet on strings. - Adrien Begrand (PopMatters)
  • No, like I said in my other posts that you are ignoring, you need to read 19 and 20 TOGETHER. Stop cherrypicking.

    Genesis 7:19. The water covers all the high hills.
    Genesis 7:20. The water goes up and additional 20 feet and covers the highest mountains.

    Alternatively.

    Genesis 7:19. The water covers all the mountains
    Genesis 7:20. The water raises an additional 20 feet.

    In this reading, hebrew word "har" = mountains, as it has the same word use in 19 and 20. The restating of "all the mountains were covered" reinforces the idea that the water is above the mountains, not equal to them.



    And of course, you'll conveniently ignore the whole "under the whole of heaven" bit.

    There's no problem a few frag grenades can't fix.

    Cookies for Godlessness
    My Twin in life, love, mind, and music: ISoS
    The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes. So do the spirits who are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be spirit. -Nietzsche
  • damn, I really need to read the bible more.

  • Exactly, it's still har.
    But that's the Bible; it does become repetitive lots of times and mentions things that can easily be implied. For example, check the Mosaic Law. It makes separate statements for men and women in its commandments, although it is obvious that it's a reference to both genders.
    Same here.

    Gen. 7:19; The water was raised and the mountains were covered.
    Question on the previous verse; [How high?]
    Gen. 7:20; Fifteen cubits upwards did the water rise.

    And heaven stands for Paradise etc. only in English. Both Hebrew and Greek use a word that may resemble the spiritual Heaven or the sky (see the lexicon in the links above).

    Plus, I've already said that it's a matter of point of view. Maybe the author believed that they were the only ones on Earth or that the flood was worldwide. Of course, we can't blame him, he didn't have access to any satellites.

    I've changed my opinion about everything. This post is old and my new views are way cooler. Can't wait to change them again.
  • And of course, you'll conveniently ignore the whole "under the whole of heaven" bit.

    And heaven stands for Paradise etc. only in English. Both Hebrew and Greek use a word that may resemble the spiritual Heaven or the sky (see the lexicon in the links above).
    Exactly. That's what she said. Under the whole of the sky means the whole world

    Plus, I've already said that it's a matter of point of view.
    You recently said you had proved it was regional.

    Maybe the author believed that they were the only ones on Earth or that the flood was worldwide. Of course, we can't blame him, he didn't have access to any satellites.
    He had access to god, didn't he?

    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
  • You recently said you had proved it was regional.Yes. But because he was ignorant of the rest of the world, he thought that his region was the whole world (like Paul did about the 'Gospel being preached all over the world').

    Millions of people "had access to God", but infallibility gets as far as Salvation. Historical and scientific inaccuracies (and common/petty mistakes too) can be found in the Bible.
    Why would anyone be interested in science when reading the Scriptures? If someone wants to learn some history and/or science, he'll probably have to find a scientific book, not a religious/philosophical one.

    I've changed my opinion about everything. This post is old and my new views are way cooler. Can't wait to change them again.
  • I still want to know how a "local" flood can cover MOUNTAINS.

    There's no problem a few frag grenades can't fix.

    Cookies for Godlessness
    My Twin in life, love, mind, and music: ISoS
    The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes. So do the spirits who are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be spirit. -Nietzsche
  • It's still fifteen cubits, so all hills can be covered, provided they are close.
    And like there are any actual "mountains in Jerusalem...! Mount Zion and the Mount of Olives are one of those "high mountains". But they are hills.

    I have some parts (in Greek) from Woolley's work. He claims to have found evidence for a flood in Mesopotamia. In fact, he says that certain excavations in Ur indicate that not only a flood happened, but the Bible's numbers are very precise.

    I've changed my opinion about everything. This post is old and my new views are way cooler. Can't wait to change them again.
    Redigerad av the_gray_fox den 11 jul 2009, 11:49
  • Ararat isn't in Jerusalem, and it's quite high.

    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
  • You mean Jebel Judi.
    The text doesn't say that the mountain was covered, but that the ark rested there. If it had been covered, then it wouldn't rest on it, but it would rather keep on going until it found some land.

    I've changed my opinion about everything. This post is old and my new views are way cooler. Can't wait to change them again.
    • ISoS sa...
    • Användare
    • 11 jul 2009, 13:08
    the_gray_fox said:
    You mean Jebel Judi.
    The text doesn't say that the mountain was covered, but that the ark rested there. If it had been covered, then it wouldn't rest on it, but it would rather keep on going until it found some land.


    Once again, I have to ask. Have you ever read the Bible? Or is this your thing, do you just answer every thread in this trollish manner? Hammering on some notion that you can't even prove is true, even after it's been proven wrong. Why do you do this? It's like you don't actually care about the religion at all, it baffles me to think how this is what someone does as a hobby "for fun". Why bother? Are you unable to find a more worthwhile and interesting thing to do with your free time? Wouldn't you be better served going off and learning about something useful, that will give back to the world? All your doing is trolling forums on the internet. Seriously, what's the point of that? You're clearly not a Christian and you've clearly never actually read the Bible, so what is the point in everything you're saying?

    PS: The ark came to rest AFTER the waters receded, but you would only know that if you read the Bible.

    My other half: Anath
    Read Black/Death Metal reviews here!: Subjected to Metal
  • ISoS said:
    Once again, I have to ask. Have you ever read the Bible? Or is this your thing, do you just answer every thread in this trollish manner?
    To be honest, I haven't read the whole Bible. I have read the New Testament, the Mosaic Law (I think I missed some parts though), some Prophets and more. But I admit that I have never took time to read from Genesis to Revelation. I don't own an Old Testament.

    Hammering on some notion that you can't even prove is true, even after it's been proven wrong. Why do you do this? What's that thing that has been proven wrong? The flood? Or Christianity?

    You're clearly not a Christian and you've clearly never actually read the Bible, so what is the point in everything you're saying? I don't want to boast, but I think I've offered some answers from time to time. Like those about Hell, or the Mosaic Law, or the Flood, or about Jesus' genealogy. I still think I have contributed something good.

    PS: The ark came to rest AFTER the waters receded, but you would only know that if you read the Bible. Not the whole Bible, but just those chapters from Genesis. But you are mistaken. Now what? Are you the one who didn't read it?
    Genesis 8:3-5
    The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

    I've changed my opinion about everything. This post is old and my new views are way cooler. Can't wait to change them again.
    • ISoS sa...
    • Användare
    • 11 jul 2009, 22:03
    PS: The ark came to rest AFTER the waters receded, but you would only know that if you read the Bible. Not the whole Bible, but just those chapters from Genesis. But you are mistaken. Now what? Are you the one who didn't read it?
    Genesis 8:3-5
    The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.


    Thank you for proving my point on this. I still don't understand how you thought it didn't flood up to the mountain tops. At least I hope you understand what this passage is saying now.

    Now everyone can see for themselves that you were wrong though.

    My other half: Anath
    Read Black/Death Metal reviews here!: Subjected to Metal
  • the_gray_fox said:
    You mean Jebel Judi.
    The text doesn't say that the mountain was covered, but that the ark rested there. If it had been covered, then it wouldn't rest on it, but it would rather keep on going until it found some land.

    HOW THE HELL DID IT REST ON A BLOODY MOUNTAIN IF THE MOUNTAIN WASN'T COVERED? DID IT FALL FROM THE SKY??? OR DID IT CLIMB?



    At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
    Point me a local flood that needs 10 months (!) for the waters to recede, and also pay attention to the bold letters

    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Anonyma användare kan inte skriva inlägg. Vänligen logga in eller skapa ett konto för att göra inlägg i forumen.