- #31
radagast
- 483
- 1
Exactly! We would still have nights! Thanks for clearing that up.
End of the World Predictions & Dates of Different Religions
- Thread starter The Grimmus
- Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around interpretations of biblical prophecies regarding the end of the world and the return of Jesus. Participants express skepticism about specific predictions, noting that the Bible states no one will know the exact timing of these events. The Dead Sea Scrolls are mentioned as ancient texts that do not provide definitive timelines for the end of days. Some participants argue that prophecies can be interpreted in various ways, often linking current events to biblical references, while others caution against making specific claims about dates, emphasizing the uncertainty expressed in scripture.The conversation also touches on the concept of the "end of days" versus the "end of the world," suggesting that the former may not imply total destruction but rather a transition to a new era or kingdom. Various interpretations of biblical texts are debated, with some suggesting that technological advancements could signify a form of the kingdom rather than a literal return of Jesus. The discussion highlights differing beliefs about the implications of biblical prophecies and the nature of divine intervention in human affairs.
Exactly! We would still have nights! Thanks for clearing that up.
- #32
radagast
- 483
- 1
Hell:
Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the Judgement: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the counsil: but whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire."
Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell."
Proverbs 9:18 "But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guest are in the depths of Hell."
Matthew 5:29,30 "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into Hell.
"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into Hell."
Revelation 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever."
Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murders, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the Lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."
Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."
Psalm 9:17 "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."
Revelations 20:12,15 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."
"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
Now, it takes some pretty skewed thinking to rationalize all of that away.
Contradictions
[Should we own slaves?]
Leviticus 25:45-46 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever."
Genesis 9:25 "And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
Exodus 21:2,7 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. . . . And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the manservants do."
Joel 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it."
Luke 12:47,48 [Jesus speaking] "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."
Colossians 3:22 "Servants, obey in all things your masters."
vs.
Isaiah 58:6 "Undo the heavy burdens . . . let the oppressed go free, . . . break every yoke."
Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."
Pro-slavery bible verses were cited by many churches in the South during the Civil War, and were used by some theologians in the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid in South Africa. There are more pro-slavery verses than cited here.
[Are we punished for our parents' sins?]
Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9)
Exodus 34:6-7 " . . . The Lord God, merciful and gracious, . . . that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."
I Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, . . ."
vs.
Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."
Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Now, no matter how literal you want to get Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20 are in direct contradiction.
I could go on and on and on with this. A simple search engine check will turn up a few sites with the contradictions.
Here's one: http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html
I know it won't change you mind, but you were the one that brought this up.
You know, if you are going to debate this stuff, you really need to read you bible more.
One other thing. I'm not one to talk about spelling, as atrocious as I am, but it was hard to follow your post, the spelling was so bad. A trick I do is to copy my finished text into word or another text editor and have it's spell checker find and correct the misspellings. It would greatly increase you're readability.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #33
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 970
- 4
Great post Radagast.
I can tell you from Dark Wing that her belief in God is that he is just a prick doing what he wants (ie: Not omnibenevolent and not one who can't change his mind). But if the Bible says that God doesn't change his mind, and she believes that the bible holds the truth, then this must be rationalised out and solved, else the book must be discarded as fiction.
As far as I am concerned, internal contradictions constitute a good reason to doubt/dismiss a book which is said to speak absolute truth.
So, I await her reply, because she does know a lot more about the Book than I do...
The quotes against it were a little sketchy/vague/metaphorical even, but I believe most of these "What should we do" contradictions are only contradictions if we accept god as a stagnant being. Thats why the one important contradiction which I await explanation is the one from above RE "God Changes his mind VS God Does NOT change his mind". Because if the "God does NOT change his mind" option is shown to not actually be represented, then all of the apparent contradictions RE what God advocates and what god tells us to do become irrelevent.
I can tell you from Dark Wing that her belief in God is that he is just a prick doing what he wants (ie: Not omnibenevolent and not one who can't change his mind). But if the Bible says that God doesn't change his mind, and she believes that the bible holds the truth, then this must be rationalised out and solved, else the book must be discarded as fiction.
Same as above...if God can change his mind...then this isn't a contradiction, its just God being a prick.
Don't worry, Dark Wing and I have a bet with each other. We are going to convince each other that one of us is right. Either the Bible is True, or it is False. Simple. One of them must be the correct answer, and both of us are willing to give up our current belief in the face of real evidence.
As far as I am concerned, internal contradictions constitute a good reason to doubt/dismiss a book which is said to speak absolute truth.
So, I await her reply, because she does know a lot more about the Book than I do...
- #34
Dark Wing
- 85
- 0
The first thing i would like to ask you to do is make sure when you are quoting you either use a King James bible (one of the 1st editions is best) or one of the really early NIV's. Why? simply due to translation issues. of course we have a probelm in the translation from hebrew/greek to english, and many of the churches use this as an excuse to basicly write what they want in the later editions, and change entire paragraphs of the text to suit their teachings, this is just what they do.
I don't have my concordances here to show you the original hebrew and show you the real manings of words, which is basicly what this argument comes down to. the meaning of the word "hell" as it is translated into english. what this basicly means (i will post the original hebrew word used with the explanation of what that word means when i am home, i am on the road at the moment, and it is hard enough to get online as it is here...)
)
Hell basicly means "to be in the ground" or underground. ie burried. dead. you are burried in the ground, and that is hell. as simple as that. i will go through yor quotes now with a little explanation, maybe that will make what i am trying to say clearer...
)
killing the soul is used here as killing your faith, your belief. ie. those who would persecute you for being a christian in the time of matthew can kill you and your body, but that's to no avail if you keep your faith. for even after you have been killed under persecution, you are ressurected on judgement day to see what happens next (possibility of eternal life doing Gods work around the place). do not fear those who would kill the body, fear the one that can take both your body and your chance for ressuraction, ie life. (this may need more explanation) so soul=life, God can take the chance of you having eternal life. fear him more than your persecutors.
yes, guests with in the depths of the earth. where they await ressurection...
cast into the ground... into death... get rid of part of you if you must, better that then your whole body die and rot in the grave.
ahhh, now we get to the interesting bit. yes, they will be cast into the fire, and welcome to revelations. here, you have to be careful what you are talking about when you say fire, again, there are diffrent hebrew words used for many of these terms...
the devil and the beast and the false phrophet- these are all symbols that have been explained in previous chapters. the lake of fire that they are talking about in these 2 quotes mean 2 things (in each context) 1. fire, being the already mentioned symbol for war and death around the world (at which point 2/3 of the jews will be killed the last 1/3 refined through the fire like gold) and 2. the lake of fire that will be in the middle of mt Zion when it splits along the tectonic plates there (also described previously) yes. very space, i know, but i will explain that in greater depth later if you want me to (that is about the end of days, after all, and that is what this thread was meant to be about...)
i am going to have to look this one up. i will get back to you.
yes, they will die. they will not become immortal. they will no longer have life. we are currently the walking dead anyway, we will doe, and turn to dust, its just a matter of time. these are the nations that do not believe. the people that do have the chance at eternal life. they will not be in hell for ever. the others will stay in the ground.
yes. this is the ressusrection. those found worthy become immortal. those who are not are killed. killed by being thrown in the lake of fire (flesh does not last long in a lake of fire)
So if Hell becomes the earth, and death with no chance of ressurection is death into hell with no soul, then most of these get cleared up. i will look up those matthews quotes, and write a whole post on revelations when i have my stuff in front of me (this is a rush job, am at work)
but hopefully this gives you a start onto what i am saying.
I don't have my concordances here to show you the original hebrew and show you the real manings of words, which is basicly what this argument comes down to. the meaning of the word "hell" as it is translated into english. what this basicly means (i will post the original hebrew word used with the explanation of what that word means when i am home, i am on the road at the moment, and it is hard enough to get online as it is here...)
)Hell basicly means "to be in the ground" or underground. ie burried. dead. you are burried in the ground, and that is hell. as simple as that. i will go through yor quotes now with a little explanation, maybe that will make what i am trying to say clearer...
I am going to seriously question the translation use of hell fire here. not a good example to start my argument with , i know, but i will look that up through the concordance and the original hebrew (and if you want to get into an argument about how do you know its the original even in hebrew etc, then let's start up another thread, this one already has many issues...)
)
killing the soul is used here as killing your faith, your belief. ie. those who would persecute you for being a christian in the time of matthew can kill you and your body, but that's to no avail if you keep your faith. for even after you have been killed under persecution, you are ressurected on judgement day to see what happens next (possibility of eternal life doing Gods work around the place). do not fear those who would kill the body, fear the one that can take both your body and your chance for ressuraction, ie life. (this may need more explanation) so soul=life, God can take the chance of you having eternal life. fear him more than your persecutors.
yes, guests with in the depths of the earth. where they await ressurection...
cast into the ground... into death... get rid of part of you if you must, better that then your whole body die and rot in the grave.
ahhh, now we get to the interesting bit. yes, they will be cast into the fire, and welcome to revelations. here, you have to be careful what you are talking about when you say fire, again, there are diffrent hebrew words used for many of these terms...
the devil and the beast and the false phrophet- these are all symbols that have been explained in previous chapters. the lake of fire that they are talking about in these 2 quotes mean 2 things (in each context) 1. fire, being the already mentioned symbol for war and death around the world (at which point 2/3 of the jews will be killed the last 1/3 refined through the fire like gold) and 2. the lake of fire that will be in the middle of mt Zion when it splits along the tectonic plates there (also described previously) yes. very space, i know, but i will explain that in greater depth later if you want me to (that is about the end of days, after all, and that is what this thread was meant to be about...)
i am going to have to look this one up. i will get back to you.
yes, they will die. they will not become immortal. they will no longer have life. we are currently the walking dead anyway, we will doe, and turn to dust, its just a matter of time. these are the nations that do not believe. the people that do have the chance at eternal life. they will not be in hell for ever. the others will stay in the ground.
yes. this is the ressusrection. those found worthy become immortal. those who are not are killed. killed by being thrown in the lake of fire (flesh does not last long in a lake of fire)
So if Hell becomes the earth, and death with no chance of ressurection is death into hell with no soul, then most of these get cleared up. i will look up those matthews quotes, and write a whole post on revelations when i have my stuff in front of me (this is a rush job, am at work)
but hopefully this gives you a start onto what i am saying.
Last edited:
- #35
radagast
- 483
- 1
DW,
I won't be drawn into an debate on the bible. I've haven't accepted it as absolute truth for close to 35 years, so to me, this would only be some form of intellectual masturbation about an entity I accept as only the derivation of human consciousness. You asked for literal contradictions, I gave you literal contradictions.
You said that you took it literally, yet the very first thing you do is start interpreting what it means, in terms of you're take on the meaning of the ancient hebrew. Since many, many other hebraic and biblical scholars have had a completely different take, I hope you don't take offense that your views are taken with a grain of salt.
AG,
God can change his mind - no problem. If we were reading those portions of the bible as a chronicle of events, then god changed his mind.
But these, as I read them, were statements of what [guilt] children bear for the sins of their fathers - this cannot be some AND none. If it is, then some parts of the bible are invalid because god changed her mind and we are left not knowing what is valid and what isn't. Moreover, we are left trying to play a game whose rules can change at a whim, without being informed of the changes. This contradicts the biblical assertions that god is just.
If you want another:
James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
vs.
Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."
James 1:13 states that god doesn't tempt man, and Genesis 22:1 says he tempted Abraham.
This is not a case of changing ones mind - they are irreconcilable. One states an aspect of god, then contradicts it with a specific example.
I won't be drawn into an debate on the bible. I've haven't accepted it as absolute truth for close to 35 years, so to me, this would only be some form of intellectual masturbation about an entity I accept as only the derivation of human consciousness. You asked for literal contradictions, I gave you literal contradictions.
You said that you took it literally, yet the very first thing you do is start interpreting what it means, in terms of you're take on the meaning of the ancient hebrew. Since many, many other hebraic and biblical scholars have had a completely different take, I hope you don't take offense that your views are taken with a grain of salt.
AG,
God can change his mind - no problem. If we were reading those portions of the bible as a chronicle of events, then god changed his mind.
But these, as I read them, were statements of what [guilt] children bear for the sins of their fathers - this cannot be some AND none. If it is, then some parts of the bible are invalid because god changed her mind and we are left not knowing what is valid and what isn't. Moreover, we are left trying to play a game whose rules can change at a whim, without being informed of the changes. This contradicts the biblical assertions that god is just.
If you want another:
James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
vs.
Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."
James 1:13 states that god doesn't tempt man, and Genesis 22:1 says he tempted Abraham.
This is not a case of changing ones mind - they are irreconcilable. One states an aspect of god, then contradicts it with a specific example.
Last edited:
- #36
megashawn
Science Advisor
- 449
- 0
So, if I go dig a hole and burry myself, I can be a mortal in hell? I'm sorry, either a large majority of the bible has been mistranslated, or you are wrong. Which is it?
But in a sense, could I to also kill your soul? Assuming god exists, suppose I convince you that god doesn't exist. Would this not mean that your soul would be killed as a direct effect of my actions?
So in a way, Man does have the power of god.
__________________________________________________________
Ok, back to reality.
Ouch. Awfully pesimistic are we? See, that's my problem with religion. You just give up. Let god handle it. I'm just a walking dead man. Hell no. I'm alive, to my knowledge, the most an individual can be alive. I've got numbered days, but medicine and science is adding to that number daily.
I think it makes sense though, that god would not keep an army (because all of us in hell will definately out number those in heaven) of enemies around for eternity. We're sneaky enough, and with satans help we'd probably take this whole universe over given enough time.
But basically what your saying is as others have suggested, hell is not a real place, but more so being without god. Losing consciousness and being burried in the ground would probably be pretty crappy, but hey, that's life, er, death, well, you get it.
Interesting in seeing the hebrew meaning for Hell.
- #37
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 970
- 4
That is a point: Many many Christians themselves (well, 2 or 3 anyway) have told me that Hell is quite simply being without God. They point out that there is nothing worse than being without God. And while I don't think being without God is so bad, the point stands that what DW is saying, and what many christians actually believe isn't too far separated at all.
- #38
radagast
- 483
- 1
I wouldn't disagree with the above, for the most part. However, I was responding to her statement that there was no hell people were sent to after death (assuming some degree of sinning), AND that she took the bible exactly and literally.
Most christians do accept an actual hell (vs separation from god) and heaven.
- #39
Dark Wing
- 85
- 0
what other way is there to be a litralist that to find the meaning of the words? words, especily the ones used in these passages, have very specific meansings that oftern get translated into just one english word. they have specific meanings in hebrew, that's why there are so many words describing the same thing. i do not understand how i can not be litral in taking it back to the meaning of the words. others 'have a diffrent take' when they start going into inturpratation of what the words mean as an over all symbology. that's not what i do. i simply look uo the word, and find out what it means. how else can one be a litralist? maybe i have not understood your argument properly.
as far as hell being a separation from god - this is not entiry what i meant. Hell is simply the state of you being dead in the ground. you turn to dust. you stay there if you are not ressurected for judgment, and the only way to get this chance is to believe the gospel (things concerning jesus christ, the kingdom and the promises made to the people of israel). i guess then you can all separation from god hell, but only after death, and only in virtue of the fact that you will not raised again, not even for judgment.
i haven't 'inturprated' anything. its just what the meaning of that hebrew word is.
the best example that i can give you to describe what i mean is the case of noah's flood. it is a common misperception that what is writtern is that the whole world goes under. here we have to look at the word used in hebrew to figure out what's going on.
there are 3 words that are translated into 'earth' in the english - 'eretz' meaning a very specific strip of land in the middle east, and there are 2 others that i forget the hebrew for, but basicly the 2nd word is for an area a size larger than that, then another word for the whole globe. but all are translated into Earth in english. why? i don't know.
the word in noah's flood is eretz. that's what flooded. not the globe. and he didnt take 2 of every animal, just 2 of every clean animal (there again there are diffrent words for diffent grioups of animal, clean and unclean and another for the whole lot that all get translated into 'animals' in english)
this is what i am saying about translation. that's what i say about hell. there is no place your soul goes after death. not even for those who believe. you die, you go to hell. but those who believe don't stay there for ever. that's the only diffrence.
- #40
Dark Wing
- 85
- 0
yes, a large majority of the bible has been mistranslated. that is precisly my point. as for you burring yourself in a hole to be a mortal in hell, come on, we are talking about death and turning to dust here, not caving.
why is that pessimistic? its not pessimistic or optimistic, it just is. there is death. death is nothingness. that's not negitive (well, not in my opinion). yes you are alive now, and no matter how much you elongate that, when you die you no longer exist. i don't care how long or how furfilled you can live your life. that's not the issue. you could proberly live for thousands of years if you wanted to, and do everything you wanted to, and chage the world twice over, but when you are dead, you are still dead. you no longer exist. even if you decided to live forever, and realized how boring that could be (not saying you would, just if it got to a few millenia down the track) and you killed yourself to get out of it, you would again not exist. non existence is not a negitive thing. people who want to live forever to do the work of god have that option through religion. that's all i am saying.
well... that's kind of what i am saying (see above post) but i don't see eteral non exsistance as a bad thing. i really dont. anyway, you wouldn't know that it was a bad thing once you were there. you wouldent know anything, as there would no longer be a you.
)- #41
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 970
- 4
Earth from Erets translation
'erets
Definition
1. land, Earth
a.earth
1. whole Earth (as opposed to a part)
2. Earth (as opposed to heaven)
3. Earth (inhabitants)
b. land
1. country, territory
2. district, region
3. tribal territory
4. piece of ground
5. land of Canaan, Israel
6. inhabitants of land
7. Sheol, land without return, (under) world
8. city (-state)
c. ground, surface of the Earth
ground
soil
d. (in phrases)
people of the land
space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
level or plain country
land of the living
end(s) of the Earth
(almost wholly late in usage)
e. lands, countries 1e
f. often in contrast to Canaan
Now, in Genesis we see
And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
Ge 7:12 And the rain was upon the Earth forty days and forty nights.
Ge 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
Ge 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
Ge 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
Ge 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Ge 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
Using the definitions above, Earth (in every case here can taken from erets) can mean just about anything. From the whol earth, to that which isn;t heaven, to the people inhabiting the earth, to a city, a state, or a piece of ground.
Lets face it: Even translating from the original text doesn't take ambiguity out of it. The best we can do with this, is take it in context. What is the context? Well: "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered"
The WHOLE heaven part makes this appear to be the context of the whole earth. Another way to check this, would be to find out how high the mountains around this part of the Earth is (pretty high I think) and then compare that height to the rest of the world. Now if the water covers these mountains, and stays at that height for 40 days...then it is imposible that the water hadn't reached that general height world wide. Now that is a global flood.
Secondly. In the NIV Bible I have here, it says in GE 7:15 "Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to noah and entered the ark."
It says nothing of them being clean, but it says several times that it is every animal, all types etc.
'erets
Definition
1. land, Earth
a.earth
1. whole Earth (as opposed to a part)
2. Earth (as opposed to heaven)
3. Earth (inhabitants)
b. land
1. country, territory
2. district, region
3. tribal territory
4. piece of ground
5. land of Canaan, Israel
6. inhabitants of land
7. Sheol, land without return, (under) world
8. city (-state)
c. ground, surface of the Earth
ground
soil
d. (in phrases)
people of the land
space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
level or plain country
land of the living
end(s) of the Earth
(almost wholly late in usage)
e. lands, countries 1e
f. often in contrast to Canaan
Now, in Genesis we see
And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
Ge 7:12 And the rain was upon the Earth forty days and forty nights.
Ge 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
Ge 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
Ge 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
Ge 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Ge 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
Using the definitions above, Earth (in every case here can taken from erets) can mean just about anything. From the whol earth, to that which isn;t heaven, to the people inhabiting the earth, to a city, a state, or a piece of ground.
Lets face it: Even translating from the original text doesn't take ambiguity out of it. The best we can do with this, is take it in context. What is the context? Well: "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered"
The WHOLE heaven part makes this appear to be the context of the whole earth. Another way to check this, would be to find out how high the mountains around this part of the Earth is (pretty high I think) and then compare that height to the rest of the world. Now if the water covers these mountains, and stays at that height for 40 days...then it is imposible that the water hadn't reached that general height world wide. Now that is a global flood.
Secondly. In the NIV Bible I have here, it says in GE 7:15 "Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to noah and entered the ark."
It says nothing of them being clean, but it says several times that it is every animal, all types etc.
- #42
radagast
- 483
- 1
DW,
To say you haven't interpreted the bible is absurd - literal, symbolic, or metaphorical, they are all interpretations.
You glossed right past the basic point I made - that thousands of biblical scholars seem to disagree with you.
I have little doubt you can find 'a' meaning in ancient Hebrew, which contradicts the current interpretations of the bible. Not being a biblical scholar, nor a scholar of ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, I cannot address your translations. I have had enough experience with language to know that many, many words have multiple shades of meaning, many with completely different definitions housed in the same word. The interpretation of the word aikido (a compound word) from Japanese could mean the spiritual path of harmony, or doorway to balanced strength. The word hara could mean belly, the seat of the soul, or strength of will. In English, to say a person 'has Heart' isn't trying to convey he has a blood pumping organ. Obviously, the interpretations of these are quite different, with potentially dramatic differences in meaning and intent. That Hell (ancient hebrew) could mean both in the ground or in a really bad place, I would see as not only possble, but likely, given the consistency of biblical translations over the past 700 years. Translations require both an understanding of the meanings of the words and a good understanding of the cultures from which the writings arose.
To say you haven't interpreted the bible is absurd - literal, symbolic, or metaphorical, they are all interpretations.
You glossed right past the basic point I made - that thousands of biblical scholars seem to disagree with you.
I have little doubt you can find 'a' meaning in ancient Hebrew, which contradicts the current interpretations of the bible. Not being a biblical scholar, nor a scholar of ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, I cannot address your translations. I have had enough experience with language to know that many, many words have multiple shades of meaning, many with completely different definitions housed in the same word. The interpretation of the word aikido (a compound word) from Japanese could mean the spiritual path of harmony, or doorway to balanced strength. The word hara could mean belly, the seat of the soul, or strength of will. In English, to say a person 'has Heart' isn't trying to convey he has a blood pumping organ. Obviously, the interpretations of these are quite different, with potentially dramatic differences in meaning and intent. That Hell (ancient hebrew) could mean both in the ground or in a really bad place, I would see as not only possble, but likely, given the consistency of biblical translations over the past 700 years. Translations require both an understanding of the meanings of the words and a good understanding of the cultures from which the writings arose.
- #43
radagast
- 483
- 1
- #44
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 970
- 4
I thought about commenting on this point, but decided not to bother, but since you think its a point which needs to be addressed, I will address it for you.
Argument from Authority is not a good way to convince people of anything.
And that's all I have to say on that topic.
I do agree with all of this completely.
As for the hell thing though, I understand better now what DW means, and so I'll try to explain it, and see if you disagree with this:
Hell, translated by the lexicon means: sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit. So it could be any of those. I point out that it could mean 'The Underworld', but what exactly is that 'Underworld'? Does it have a description of 'The place' Hell anywhere within the Bible? What is 'The place' Hell like?
Darkwings point basically comes down to "Going to Hell" doesn't mean you are going to some place where you will suffer for eternity (since it doesn't say any such thing in the bible), but instead it means that you die, in a very real world deathly sort of way. Hell = the end of your life forever.
If you can find anywhere which describes hell as anything other than this, then I think DW wants to know.
- #45
radagast
- 483
- 1
Originally posted by Another God
I thought about commenting on this point, but decided not to bother, but since you think its a point which needs to be addressed, I will address it for you.
Argument from Authority is not a good way to convince people of anything.
Strange comment.
First, it was DW that was trying to convince 'us' of certain things, that deviated from popularly accepted meaning.
Second, DW is presenting herself as an authority on ancient hebrew and biblical interpretation.
As a result, I bring up that other authorities disagree, and have for over 700 years.
Since I'm not an authority, I cannot rely on my own knowledge. That said, some disembodied web personality is going to hold less sway with me than those I know of as authorities.
Third, the impression I get is that you are equating what I said with the Argument from Authority argument flaw. If so, this is a complete misinterpretation of the flaw. The flaw states you cannot use an authority in one subject as an authority in another (which they are not qualified). In other words, I wouldn't take Newton as an authority on the bible (he may have been, but go with this for the moment) because he was a well respected mathematician and physicist.
It's been 30 years since I've read the bible, but from the times I did, it seemed that many considered the link between the terms 'lake of fire', 'lake of burning brimstone', etc. referred to in Revelations and hell, used elsewhere. While I cannot point to a direct link, both types of phrases refer to the unworthy and the sinful as being sent to either hell or the burning lake of fire (depending on where you reference the phrase). The synonymous use seems to form a basis for considering that they refer to the same place.
Last edited:
- #46
Nade_Fodder
I think you will find that the bible says the world will end when Bush mistakes the little red button for a skittle.
- #47
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 970
- 4
Well, my memory of the Argument from Authority flaw is different to that, But I am not willing to push the point, because I am not certain. But, I am certain of one thing: Telling someone "Such and such says this is true" is not an argument. And that's all that I am trying to say.
DW wasn't using authority in anyway, she was trying to frame an argument against the common belief, by using particular reasoning and particular references. This is normal in an argument. Whether you accept these resons yourself or not, is entirely up to you, but saying that other people, no matter how many million people, disagree with her, will do nothing to convince her that she is wrong, nor is it a good reason for you to disagree. If you truley care, then you would find a real reason to disagree, but let's be honest here, I don't really think you care that much? Which is fine... I normally don't either.
But what i think of as the argument from authroity, any argument which says "This is true because X says so" is not an argument at all, and only shows that the person expressing the view really doesn't want to think about it anymore.
- #48
radagast
- 483
- 1
You are quite correct, just making a statement isn't an argument.
An argument has, explicitly or implicitly, one or more premises, inference(s), and a conclusion. The above "such and such says" would be evidence to support an inference, assuming that "such and such" were an authority in the field covering the subject of said evidence.
DW had stated a premise - that the bible didn't say that hell was a bad place that sinners were sent after death. When presented with evidence to the contrary she states her opinion (as evidence), which we (as non-experts) cannot check directly. By presenting this evidence, we can accept she is an authority in the area then compile contrary expert opinions, or treat her opinion as non-evidence. I chose the former, giving her the benefit of the doubt.
The precise name of the Argument from authority flaw is "Argumentum ad verecundiam", and it is specific to appealing to a popular or authority figure(s), that is/are not authorities in the area of the evidence, therefore not valid sources for expert opinions on the subject.
There is a quite excellent handling of the topic of informal logic and logical arguments, it can be found at:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
For DW to make her argument, then she has to present evidence (premises) that is acceptable, if others are to accept her conclusion, then thru inference proceed to her conclusion. Since my initial evidence was dismissed on grounds that the ancient hebrew was mistranslated and I, and most here, are not subject matter experts on ancient hebrew and the hebrew culture of the time, we have to take her as an expert and compare her expert opinion to expert opinion presented by other experts in the field. To me, this seems fairly straightforward. My motivations for being in this argument are irrelevant to the argument [but if you must know, I have always been one that values accuracy, so when I see something I consider inaccurate, I will often challenge it].
You are correct that appeal to the popular isn't a valid argument, but appeal to an authority (in the field of the evidence) is not only valid, but almost required in any argument where we all are not completely in agreement that the evidence is obvious.
You are confusing evidence presented (expert opinion) with the inference needed to progress to a conclusion. Please visit the site mentioned. Whatever you're opinion of the lack of beliefs of the authors, they have done an excellent job of compiling a cogent description of a logical argument and common argument flaws.
For instance, if I'm making an argument concerning the subjective travel time to Alpha Centari, and state when traveling at 0.9810 c the subjective travel time will be significantly shorter than the simple product of distance and velocity (from an alpha centari frame of reference), then back this up by the expert opinion of Albert Einstein, then this is valid. I don't have to demonstrate the effects of relativity thru the use of tensor mechanics, since Albert's opinion is considered evidence in the field.
Last edited:
- #49
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 1,956
- 7
So which is the best translation?
If this error is so apparent, then why are so many translations so far off? (instead of being corrected)
If this is a translation error (on so important an issue), then how many other errors are there?
What is someone to do if they don't speak the ancient languages and don't have copies of the original manuscripts in hand?
- #50
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 970
- 4
An 'expert opinion' is not evidence at all. Thats my whole point. There is no evidence in the opinion of another, no matter how expert they are. Experts are just as fallible as anyone else, sometimes even moreso: They are stuck in their paradigm. How many experts in astronomy throughout the years have thought the Earth was the center of the universe, how many experts disagree with relativity? How many experts believe evolution is wrong?
How many experts make mistakes? At least 99% of them, because eveeryone only believes what they are told until one lone person says "Hang on...that's not quite right."
And besides, you don't need to kep referring to DW as 'claiming to be an authority' on the topic, because all she does is look up the literal translations in a lexicon. Something anyone can do, and something I did 4 or 5 posts back for a selection of words. Why the need to start claiming correctness or incorrectness based on who has the most support and best names supporting their view?
Argue the discussion on the grounds of solid evidence and reason.
PS: I haven't gone to the site yet, and I may go later if I have more time, but I don't feel any strong desire to. I know arguments, I understand them, I engage in them all the time, and I have read stuff on argument structure before. I'll only go if i have the time and feel inclined to refresh.
- #51
Dark Wing
- 85
- 0
everything we read or see we interprete, we are subjective creatures, it is not somthing you can get away from. but symbolic and meatphysical inturpratations are based on very loosly placed evidence. i propose that a more litral approach will rule out a lot of the mystical nonsence, and get down to some actual events, and evidence you can see, such as words and meanings. they wrote what they meant is the basic assumption of litrality, and for my evidence i use hebrew texts, and see what i can come up with that may match it in english. i know its going to have a lot of translation issues, such as the ones you mentioned, that's why you also study the culture, see where these words are used, and in what context, and see if there are any other meanings for the worlds on a social level that does not appear in the dictionarys. of course translation is going to be dodgy. i am not claiming to have THE TRUTH, just say that a lot of things that the major christian religions attribute to the bible are simply not there, no matter what language you want to translate it into.
democracy is not a concept truth understands. just becuase thousands of people have said it diffrently, does not make me any more right or wrong. infact, if they are wrong, it proberly gives me more of a chance to be right, as i can learn from their mistakes.
i agree. that's why you have to be careful and know what you are doing with translation. no one said it wasent a tricky busness. my claim is that the religious institutions, knowing how tricky a thing it can be, have used it as an excuse to put their own doctrines within the 'translated' books, so people see it in the bible. it is from these interpratations that nearly all the misconceptions that i have raised come from. and the fact that people just take what a priest says as truth without questioning.
i will reply to all your posts as i can. i am sorry my reponse time is so jaggard.
- #52
radagast
- 483
- 1
AG,
Then in terms of debate and argumentation, you are wrong. However, if I couldn't use expert opinion, then I would guess DW's opinion is out the window too. We are left unable to debate the subject at all.
In this case, understanding current language, and most certainly ancient language, requires an understanding of the culture of it's use. Getting a dictionary and going at it is an excellent way to drive yourself down a false path. I've known problems in communications between two english speaking individuals of different cultures. For example, the term 'top-off' refers to filling up the gas tank that last little bit, in american english, the Brits use a term 'top-out' to mean run out of gas. A american flight of F-14's were met with an emergency crew when going into a British airbase to 'top-off' their tanks. A proper British lady friend sat down with some friends and I looking a little haggard one day. On inquiry she mentioned that her reason for being tired was because she had been 'knocked up' the night before. After the snickers died down, she was horrified to find out what that meant to americans - to the Brits that means to be awakened by a knock at the door.
You're views on rational argumentation are flawed. Perhaps a course in informal logic is in order. Certainly direct evidence is better than expert opinion, but it requires, in most cases, that the evidence be common, or the person viewing the evidence is an expert in the field of that evidence (and as such can interpret the evidence correctly). If we were arguing over the causes of the recent space shuttle disaster, I would expect all parties to either be able to discuss the physics of the foam strikes, mechanical stresses of re-entry, and material science OR have expert opinion to form the premises that are presenting.
Just common sense should tell you that anyone with rationally held views base their beliefs on one (or a combination) of three things. Evidence from 'Authority', 'reason', or 'our senses'. Though each is susceptible to error, these do form the basis for rationally held ideas and beliefs. In a complex world, such as today, evidence from an authority cannot be ignored, if you plan to get past the third grade.
- #53
radagast
- 483
- 1
Hi DW,
I understand your position. As one that has little expertise in english and absolutely zero in any other, non-computer, language, I wouldn't be able to judge your translations directly.
While I understand your argument on ulterior motives with regard to control, that the early church(es) had for a specific translation, the fact that no major denomination (that I'm aware of) holds your translation, leads me to doubt you translation. Though the ulterior motive you mention would be strong, the variability in people and the need to be different has lead many groups to sieze miniscule passages and create iron clad rules that separate them from the others. Not meaning to pick on anyone group, but just look at the JW's and their interpretation that 'eating blood' was equivalent to getting a blood transfusion. This desire for difference, combined with the fact that there are many, many folk, thru the years, that do have the education and expertise along with a strong desire to find the truth, who would have brought your views to a commonly heard point, lead me to the view that the interpretations aren't as straighforward as you say it is.
p.s. I've not run up against the word 'Jaggard', assuming it isn't a typo, what does it mean?
Last edited:
- #54
Dark Wing
- 85
- 0
my only suggestion here is that you get a decent bible and read it more carefully and then come to me with your contradictions. there is no point in challanging somthing you know little about, and if you haven't read it in 30 years, then you memory will be hazy on some of the finer connections. if you go back and read the contexts, and see what is actuly being said (ignoring metaphysical and symbolic inturpratations as i suggest you do) then you may get a better understanding on what i am saying and what i am not. then you can argue against me all you want. i am not claiming to be right, only to be shown wrong.
the whole lake of burning fire can be explained as i have previously without refrence to hell. i think you have an understanding of what i see as hell now. i am taking it litraly...
- #55
Dark Wing
- 85
- 0
but again, all of this means nothing my argument. i suggest that you doubt every argument that comes your way, simply to question it, doubt should not (though it seems to) vary depending on how many people hold that view. i know we all feel comfortable in numbers, but still, it does not add or detract to my argument. i think you will find that there are a lot more people out there who subscribe to my view than you know. but unfortunately these people turn to symbolism that is not explained very quickly, and religion is turned into a power based control mechanism, and is not after the truth. if i can, i will find some of these well educated men with desire for truth and show them to you. maybe they can explain my point more thoroughly, and you shall have some real substance to argue against.
yes, i am sorry, my spelling tends to get away from me at times. the word i meant was Jagged, implying that my movements on pf were of a sporadic type. for this i apologise.
- #56
Dark Wing
- 85
- 0
this is why we now have a society that cannot think or argue for themselves, and love to be indoctrinated without thinking or questioning their beliefs. we should be questioning authority at every point, and the simply fact that we can't do so if we plan to get past 3rd grade simply reflects the dire situation we find ourselves in. we do not need this. we simply think we do because we enjoy living in an indoctrinated society.
it is not an arguemnt to say 'this is the way it is, so it must be like this always'. if the system has stopped people questioning authority, then i say change the system! forse those who can think to think, and make the rest learn (if they want to. otherwise they have the option of following the new doctrine set by those who are now thinking, and so the cycle continues...
radagast, i see you have a long post on the contradictions about a page ago. i will cover that next time i am here, so watch out for that post (i have again run out of time, sorry...)
Last edited:
- #57
Dark Wing
- 85
- 0
the 1st king james, or the 1st NIV
becuase very few people in the church are interested in the truth. they are more interested in indoctrination and power. and no one can be bothered actually studying it to find out that their belifs are wrong, people hate being wrong. (especily if their entire lives revolve around such things)
many many many translation errors, the more editions, the more errors. the latest versions are not even readable (especily if they are ones endorsed by a certians church)
then they had better hope they had a good edition, and not take everything litrally. remeber, all this knit picking is only for people who want to know the whole book. you don't need the whole bible to "be saved" as it were. for that you only need to know the gospel and be baptised. (i don't want to get into a baptism debate here, itake this from "believe the gospel, be baptised and you will be saved" quote).
what is the gospel you say? things concering Jesus christ, things concerning the promises made to the isralites, and things concerning the kingdom. that's it.
but we have already covered most of this in previous posts on this thread if you want to read my arguments about all of that...
- #58
radagast
- 483
- 1
Oh, I have no problem questioning authority. The first thing I started questioning had to do with the absurdity (IMO) of accepting something (like the dogma of most religions, or the truth of the bible) where there was no method of determining the truth value, short of dying. This is why I've not read the bible in thirty years - it's short on entertainment value and no value other than that.
If we are to question all authority, then we can accept nothing. We must discover it all ourselves. This is impractical in this day and age, so it's best to pick and chose our battles. To you, this is an important battle, to me it ranks up there with how many buttons Santa Claus has on his suit or the exact wording of a specific Minnie Pearl song. Arranging my sock drawer is more appealing.
Now, in the argument in question, I have multiple authorities on a subject I will not be investigating myself. One is an unknown person from Sydney, of unknown credentials, and a nice writing style, and Two is the agreement of a large number of highly credentialed biblical scholars with virtually no dissent (on this topic).
Which would you choose?
This put's your claims into the light of highly extraordinary.
it is not an argument to say 'this is the way it is, so it must be like this always'. if the system has stopped people questioning authority, then i say change the system! force those who can think to think, and make the rest learn (if they want to. otherwise they have the option of following the new doctrine set by those who are now thinking, and so the cycle continues...
I quite agree, however, there was a wize man named Isaac Asimov who, once upon a time, stated that
If you tell me something mundane is true, then I will likely accept it without checking. If you tell me something extraordinary is true, then I may accept your word, but wish to see evidence. If you tell me something wildly extraordinary, then I want to see a lot of evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Now, given my stated interest levels in my sock drawer vs biblical truth, you may see why I would default to the more accepted versions without the years of study needed on ancient Hebrew culture and ancient Hebrew necessary to investigate this for myself.
Take your time.
A general aside, regarding discovering your own truth and attributes you attribute to others working in the field.
Dark Wing, you seem like a nice person, so please do not take the following as an insult or as anything but a caution to look into your own motivations, as well as those who disagree with your views:
I would like to point out that it is extremely egotistical and somewhat insulting to all those people out there, honestly researching the bible and christianity, to assume they are not thinking for themselves, just because they disagree with you. You are not the only person, at this moment in time, looking into the translations and meaning of the more original texts of the bible. Most of these are highly spiritual and very honest people. The people that just go to church as a function of habit are the ones that aren't thinking for themselves, to assume all the others seeking truth are also not thinking for themselves is highly arrogant, no insult intended.
Last edited:
- #59
Dark Wing
- 85
- 0
no way of questioning it shart of dying? why do you say that? and what makes you think that dying is a way to prove it true or false? again, i do not believe in heaven or hell as a place to go to, so loosing all knowledge that you even exsited and turning to dust is not exacly what i would see as proof of the bible or not. infact there are ways that you can prove the bible. through the method it tells you to test it, prophecy. if it says somthing is going to happen and it dosent, then hey, its wrong, yeah? and i know you can get into a debate about symbology concerning prophecy, but i am sorry, when it says the king of the north is going to be forced to come down, then it tells you that the king of the north is a joint venture of various named countries lead by whoever owns the top of Georgia then i say hey! maybe someone from the north lead by whoever own the top of georgia will come down to war! there is no sybology that's in the bible that is not explined within its self. there is no need for mystical 'meanings'. when it tells a story about a goat and a ram battling it out near a river, then tells you that the ram is persia and the goat is greese, i say the ram is persia and the goat is greese.
proving the bible has nothing to do with death. and that's no way to prove it either. if what it says is going to happen happens, then that's enough for me. if it says somthing will by a certian time, and it dosent, i will give it up. simple.
no, we just must question it logicaly. if we can activly criticaly analize things, then all we have to do is make the authority justify itself in what it is telling us. that's all i am asking. and if this topic has so little appeal to you, why are you choosing to discuss it? (i am not trying to be narky, it is a genuine question. nothing bores me more than participation in a debate i am not interested in, i understand if you never reply to this thread is all i am saying) (but i hope you do, for i at least have been enjoying this)
i do not ask that you believe me, and i do not claim to have the truth. i simply have a cliam that i am asking people to criticaly analize. i could very well be wrong. and i f i am, i will happily concede. it seems to me things are diffrent to the way they have been previously percieved, so i have questioned them, reserched, and discussed this matter with every authority that i have the chance to. this has resulted in many things, including being thrown out of every church i have entered. why? i quetion things that they are teaching, i bring my evidence, they then refuse to even talk to me, or even try to discuss it, and throw me out. those who do try and talk only do so for a little while, then just turn around and ask me if i thought that their little girl would go to heaven if she was hit by a truck that day. and this is my point. a lot of what you will hear is simply a way of using emotional logic for somthing where it shouldent be. it makes it easier for them if they believe that their loved ones go to a better place or are being looked after by god when they die. but its simply a claim that has no basis. people don't like to be questioned. i simply ask that you test my ideas. i do not claim to have all the answers.
this is fair enough. what kind of evidence are you looking for, what can i do to show you what i say may have some basis? what evidence would you accept, and i shall do my best to live up to your standards. it seems this is a waste of time if i cannot gain your confidence at all, so i am asking for your terms of endulgence.
never once did i say that all in the christian church were sheep, nor did i ever say they were not genuine people who are looking for the truth.nor did i ever cliam that they were not thinking for themselves. all i claim is that there is a lot of info out tnere that remins untouched by the churches for the simple reason that it will shake their system if they do. and, unfortunatly, many people get caught up in this and get mislead. i am aware that i am not the only person who does this, and i can tell you that there are a lot more people out there who have come up with the same conclusion as i. i haven't found many with exacly the same, but many people have very very similar. all i ask, and all i will ever ask is that people question. i never presume to have the absolute truth, only propose a possibility and ask to be shown wrong.
- #60
radagast
- 483
- 1
You seem to assume I'm making this as an accusation.
What I was stating, in defense of a position you considered incorrect, was that 1) you make a statement, as an authority (I'm giving you that benefit of the doubt, since I am not about to undertake the education to check it), that 2) your interpretations deviate wildly from many, many whom are bright, honest, researchers in this field.
You say that many have come to the same conclusion, but I've never heard of them - so perhaps it isn't quite as many as you seem to think.