Bible Content 2
 

The omnipotent God was jealous or scared of human accomplishments

Firstly I'd like to say that I have no intention of picking up an small wording inconsitencies or even errors between the historical accounts. I think that is too pedantic and occurs even in real historical work.

I think the stronger discrediting is from the macro-level human errors in the writing of the stories, or to put it another way, the silliness of the whole thing. I was laughing out loud as I approached the end of Exodus, thinking "jesus christ(!;)) people take this seriously"

Anyway, a jealous or scared omnipotent God?

I'm not even needing to prove whether this story was a reasonable source for our different languages. Im sure if we wanted we could show that the biblical story is very unlikely. I guess DS would poll the top most intelligent language experts and see how many think we built a tower that was too high. Do you think many would think that?

Re: Bible Content 2
 

This just occured to me:

If God got upset when we built a big tower, wouldn't he have intervened when we sent a rocket to the moon?

I think miracles will be far sparser with the increase in cctv.

Poltergeist people happen to say that electrical interference (video cameras) makes ghosts less likely. Funny that [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Bible Content 2
 

Look...

Either God is being very tricky and purposely setting us up by making it very hard to believe this incredible story, or... The story simply isn't true.

Then again, I'm not so sure if the first possibility is far fetched or not...

Willy Wonka did the same thing! He SET THOSE KIDS UP!! He made it Soooo easy for them to fail his little test! Presumably he did this to make sure he found the "purest" of the pure.

Might not God be doing the same thing?

So what say you theists? Is God trying to trick us?

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
This just occured to me:

If God got upset when we built a big tower, wouldn't he have intervened when we sent a rocket to the moon?

I think miracles will be far sparser with the increase in cctv.

Poltergeist people happen to say that electrical interference (video cameras) makes ghosts less likely. Funny that [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it even worth it? I mean, sure, if I wanted to make a competition out of hitting a baby and stealing his lollipop I could.

Anyway, I would still like to see tax bullshit his way out of this one.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Willy Wonka did the same thing!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the first time that god has been compared to W.W. Nice one.

[ QUOTE ]
So what say you theists? Is God trying to trick us?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer should be obvious here, obviously-huh?

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
The omnipotent God was jealous or scared of human accomplishments

[/ QUOTE ]

So your interpretation is God is scared or jealous. Mine is different.

I see this as typical humanism. Man building a monument to man saying "look what I can do". This also goes along with the thinking God helps those who help themselves, when God helps the helpless, the undeserving, those who don't measure up etc alike.

I would also think that if God was scared or jealous that he would destroy the tower, and not just scatter the people.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

Apologies, I have my wires slightly crossed as I didnt intend to project my opinion at all. I thought the Bible described God as jealous in that section. Its about a year since I read it, it turns out the 'jealous' bit is in the 10 commandments.

I think my points are still valid, but now separate:
1)Omnipotent and jealous??
2)The origin of language thing sounds a bit silly

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
1)Omnipotent and jealous??


[/ QUOTE ]

Again I suppose that depends on your view of God.

[ QUOTE ]
2)The origin of language thing sounds a bit silly

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a biblical scholar by any means, and am still "out" on this and other old testament statements. However I do think that we should read the Bible as literature taking into account the style, and context that the author is/was using.

How's that for vaguery? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Bible Content 2
 

<font color="blue">How's that for vaguery?
</font>

Perfect. I would expect no less.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">How's that for vaguery?
</font>

Perfect. I would expect no less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mmm sarcasm. Don't think i'm sidestepping here cause that's not the case.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
The omnipotent God was jealous or scared of human accomplishments

Firstly I'd like to say that I have no intention of picking up an small wording inconsitencies or even errors between the historical accounts. I think that is too pedantic and occurs even in real historical work.

I think the stronger discrediting is from the macro-level human errors in the writing of the stories, or to put it another way, the silliness of the whole thing. I was laughing out loud as I approached the end of Exodus, thinking "jesus christ(!;)) people take this seriously"

Anyway, a jealous or scared omnipotent God?

I'm not even needing to prove whether this story was a reasonable source for our different languages. Im sure if we wanted we could show that the biblical story is very unlikely. I guess DS would poll the top most intelligent language experts and see how many think we built a tower that was too high. Do you think many would think that?

[/ QUOTE ]
"Design and purpose, not height, was the issue at hand."

Here is a great article about The Tower of Babel that will explain a bit more.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

Hi txag007,

I wasn't going to, but I am enjoying myself at the moment, so I went and look at the link that you provided. Interestingly, it is a link that emphasises the exegis of the bible. This, to me, means that all those believers that quote and respect the bible (in english or whatever modern language) are and probbaly will be wrong (if you are multilingual that will be obvious).

Your god has a preference for aramaic and hebrew, has it, or does it only knows those two languages?

So, i guess we need be very conversant and knowledgeable about hebrew, for thye OT, and with aramaic, for the new. No wonder some many got it wrong.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi txag007,

I wasn't going to, but I am enjoying myself at the moment, so I went and look at the link that you provided. Interestingly, it is a link that emphasises the exegis of the bible. This, to me, means that all those believers that quote and respect the bible (in english or whatever modern language) are and probbaly will be wrong (if you are multilingual that will be obvious).

Your god has a preference for aramaic and hebrew, has it, or does it only knows those two languages?

So, i guess we need be very conversant and knowledgeable about hebrew, for thye OT, and with aramaic, for the new. No wonder some many got it wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Old Testament was primarily written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was primarily written in Greek. When questions arise as to the meaning or intent of a passage, Biblical scholars go back to the original text for interpretation.

The Bible was written by men inspired by God. What seems to be the problem?

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible was written by men inspired by God. What seems to be the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that, as any reasonably fluent multi-lingual person will tell you, is that there are no "exact" translation from language to language. In fact, some of the people that have a deeper knowlege about language, will also tell that perception of reality is conditionned by language hence it varies accross cultures. Now, if you say that tyhe bible, the supposed word, of a supposed god, is rooted in each language, it will be different for each culture, and, indeed, for each individual! So there is no standard, unless the bible, or whatever, is read in the original language and in the original cutural environment, of which we have only an approximation.

Sounds like glossolalia (speaking in tongues) to me. But meanwhile don't make any conclusion from your understanding unless you are fluent in hebrew and ancient greek. (I stand corrected about aramaic.. Lets just say that the greek meaning is different from the aramaic, when it comes to the historical Jesus.. as when it comes to tranlating in modern langauges, well it seems we get further and further from the original intentional meaning))



You could say that god got snookered by its reaction to the Babel tower.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible was written by men inspired by God. What seems to be the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that, as any reasonably fluent multi-lingual person will tell you, is that there are no "exact" translation from language to language. In fact, some of the people that have a deeper knowlege about language, will also tell that perception of reality is conditionned by language hence it varies accross cultures. Now, if you say that tyhe bible, the supposed word, of a supposed god, is rooted in each language, it will be different for each culture, and, indeed, for each individual! So there is no standard, unless the bible, or whatever, is read in the original language and in the original cutural environment, of which we have only an approximation.

Sounds like glossolalia (speaking in tongues) to me. But meanwhile don't make any conclusion from your understanding unless you are fluent in hebrew and ancient greek. (I stand corrected about aramaic.. Lets just say that the greek meaning is different from the aramaic, when it comes to the historical Jesus.. as when it comes to tranlating in modern langauges, well it seems we get further and further from the original intentional meaning))



You could say that god got snookered by its reaction to the Babel tower.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why, when questions arise, scholars go back to the original text to interpret the Bible's true meaning. The problem is certainly not as drastic as you make it sound, as reasonable translations exist in any language. If you are concerned about it, though, may I suggest you learn Hebrew and Greek.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

Did dinosaurs live at the same time as man?

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did dinosaurs live at the same time as man?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did dinosaurs live at the same time as man?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

We already know the answer is no. But, I assume he is asking you how the heck they got on the friggin' Ark.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did dinosaurs live at the same time as man?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

We already know the answer is no. But, I assume he is asking you how the heck they got on the friggin' Ark.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I figured, but why is he asking that in this thread?

Re: Bible Content 2
 

"We already know the answer is no. But, I assume he is asking you how the heck they got on the friggin' Ark"

Excuse me RJT but his answer is, I believe, NOT no.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
"We already know the answer is no. But, I assume he is asking you how the heck they got on the friggin' Ark"

Excuse me RJT but his answer is, I believe, NOT no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"We already know the answer is no. But, I assume he is asking you how the heck they got on the friggin' Ark"

Excuse me RJT but his answer is, I believe, NOT no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol! Guys, relax. I already answered this in another thread a moment ago, but I'll post it here, too.

I did not claim www.answersingenesis.org to be infallible. What my link did do, however, was provide a reasonable answer as to how all the animals could fit on the ark, which was the purpose of my post.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

"Lol! Guys, relax. I already answered this in another thread a moment ago, but I'll post it here, too.

I did not claim www.answersingenesis.org to be infallible. What my link did do, however, was provide a reasonable answer as to how all the animals could fit on the ark, which was the purpose of my post."

That was no answer.

Will you go on record as stating that you do not believe dinosaurs lived at the same time as man?

Will you go on record as believing that the Earth is more than a million yaers old?

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"We already know the answer is no. But, I assume he is asking you how the heck they got on the friggin' Ark"

Excuse me RJT but his answer is, I believe, NOT no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol! Guys, relax. I already answered this in another thread a moment ago, but I'll post it here, too.

I did not claim www.answersingenesis.org to be infallible. What my link did do, however, was provide a reasonable answer as to how all the animals could fit on the ark, which was the purpose of my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is about the 5th time I seen you evade a question with a link. None of us want to navigate through a biblical apologist website to find out how 2 of every animal could possibly fit on a boat, as, for everyone that finds the notion ridiculous, it's akin to looking at a lunatic's website showing how it's possible that he sled down a rainbow and knifed a leprachaun to death for his gold. Give us your answer so we don't have to reply to what some website says. At the very least, summarize what the site says so we can reply. You obviously have a lot of xian website resources that you, I assume, have read, and therefore it shouldn't be all that difficult to rehash the main points.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"We already know the answer is no. But, I assume he is asking you how the heck they got on the friggin' Ark"

Excuse me RJT but his answer is, I believe, NOT no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol! Guys, relax. I already answered this in another thread a moment ago, but I'll post it here, too.

I did not claim www.answersingenesis.org to be infallible. What my link did do, however, was provide a reasonable answer as to how all the animals could fit on the ark, which was the purpose of my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is about the 5th time I seen you evade a question with a link. None of us want to navigate through a biblical apologist website to find out how 2 of every animal could possibly fit on a boat, as, for everyone that finds the notion ridiculous, it's akin to looking at a lunatic's website showing how it's possible that he sled down a rainbow and knifed a leprachaun to death for his gold. Give us your answer so we don't have to reply to what some website says. At the very least, summarize what the site says so we can reply. You obviously have a lot of xian website resources that you, I assume, have read, and therefore it shouldn't be all that difficult to rehash the main points.

[/ QUOTE ]
The link that I posted went directly to the page that answered the question about fitting animals into the ark. There was no navigation required. The reason I answered with a link rather than an explanation was because the answer was quite lengthy and there was no point in my retyping what was already there. It was also very easy to read by the way.

You may have missed all this because Sklanksy jumped threads. The question he asked in this thread actually had to do with a post in another thread. The link I posted was in that other thread.

Re: Bible Content 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Lol! Guys, relax. I already answered this in another thread a moment ago, but I'll post it here, too.

I did not claim www.answersingenesis.org to be infallible. What my link did do, however, was provide a reasonable answer as to how all the animals could fit on the ark, which was the purpose of my post."

That was no answer.

Will you go on record as stating that you do not believe dinosaurs lived at the same time as man?

Will you go on record as believing that the Earth is more than a million yaers old?

[/ QUOTE ]

While I may be answering in ignorance, I do not believe that dinosaurs lived at the same time as man. I also believe that the Earth is more than a million years old. Most importantly, though, neither of these have anything to do with the subject matter of this thread, which by the way was the Tower of Babel.