HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
God loves you, son!!!!!
Loving all your posts, Rosie.
God loves you, son!!!!!
Loving all your posts, Rosie.
Villa_Grizzly
Vital Squad Member
HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
Villa_Grizzly
Vital Squad Member
That depends on the purpose of those 'stories' and how 'truth' is determined.
Your statement, 'no way do I see it as an accurate depiction of history' implies that it can't be because it isn't, which itself highlights how the text is approached. i.e ' factual validity via historical and scientific appraisal.' Theological writers who composed and redacted Genesis over three hundred or so years were not interested in 'facts.' They are interested in theological truth and its establishment. The absence of empirical deductive truth is irrelevant to their theological aim. Neither does the absence of such facts invalidate their 'truths.'
Your statement, 'no way do I see it as an accurate depiction of history' implies that it can't be because it isn't, which itself highlights how the text is approached. i.e ' factual validity via historical and scientific appraisal.' Theological writers who composed and redacted Genesis over three hundred or so years were not interested in 'facts.' They are interested in theological truth and its establishment. The absence of empirical deductive truth is irrelevant to their theological aim. Neither does the absence of such facts invalidate their 'truths.'
HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
That's what is so interesting. Their motives and reasoning behind the collation of all these stories. What they left out and what they included. How they tried to weave it into a cohesive storyline. it's a great insight into the era.
The fact that there have been so many diverse ideologies radiating from this just shows how open it is to interpretation.
The fact that there have been so many diverse ideologies radiating from this just shows how open it is to interpretation.
RosettaStoned
Vital Football Legend
It shows that you have studied theology.
When studying theology though its very easy to get engulfed in dissecting the who's, why's and wherefores of the text - Like when reviewing a stephen king book
What I, and I think heath are concerning ourselves with is the fact that its not reality, and it is being sold to people as reality.
We used to look at the sky and wonder what the glowing ball was, some called it Ra, some called it Sun, some called it Giantglowheatballthing.
The explanation was finally found, through observation, evidence and conclusions; the scientific method.
The mountains, lightning, floods, trees, diseases, gravity etc etc all of these things were previously unexplained, but through specific scientific testing, they were all named, documented and proven to be what they are known as today.
This took time and in some cases were incorrectly described (the heliocentric model of the solarsystem for example, initial observation showed that it was not the case, but later and more detailed testing showed it to be correct) - I make this point because it was once again, the church who persecuted those who attempted to argue this case. (Green Tea, I assume you do believe the earth orbits the sun rather than the other way round? Science that was....
I digress, the bible is not written fact. I get that, many get that. although there are some that believe it to be, those people are normally locked up in padded rooms, but a few slip through by the looks of things.
The biblical text are however sold to the world as being a history of bronze age palestine and the comings and goings of miracles and significant people.
Theres hasnt yet been one SOLID piece of evidence to prove the existence of any of these people, even the historians who were present in the region at the time mention nothing of these people, let alone a human form of the creator of the universe (dont get me started on the Mormons and his silly faked golden tablets)
Men across history have been exploiting the minds of their followers, telling them of horrendous pains they will suffer if they do not follow their words, or as they put it, 'the word of god'
Its fraud.
These so called holy men, have no connection to the universes creator, they are not 'special men' they are liars, nothing more than con men, who are using something that is old, and therefore not easily examined, to create a situation in which they gain both power and money and exploit those who are easily led.
The original texts have been translated, modified, translated again, modified once more, edited, censored and then again translated - the original documents themselves were written in an extinct version of hebrew that is no longer used and where some words have 3 or 4 meanings - impossible to correctly translate.
And in todays world, what makes it so laughable is not only are they doing this, they arent even doing it right.
Hardly any of the rules of the original texts are being enforced today - Such as giving up possessions and living as a poor man, that absolute **** in the vatican is saying this whilst inside an enormous palace, on a golden throne wearing a fucking crown.
Believe what you will about how the universe came into creation, believe all you will about whether evolution is true, believe what you will about which god is the real god - But dont ever bring your discussion to a table where the end point is to find the truth.
Truth is only found by observation, anaysis, independent examination, checked numerous times by numerous scholars, trustworthy scholars and then the evidence presented to the world to be disproved if it can be.
Science has no agenda, it looks for facts from observable incidents and reports the findings.
Science looked at religion and for hundreds of years has proven it to be nothing more than at best an outdated basic social structure from bronze age palestine that included the rape torture and murder of women, to at worst a cult designed to control, oppress and terrorise the masses and to help keep the status quo of power.
FUCK RELIGION.
When studying theology though its very easy to get engulfed in dissecting the who's, why's and wherefores of the text - Like when reviewing a stephen king book
What I, and I think heath are concerning ourselves with is the fact that its not reality, and it is being sold to people as reality.
We used to look at the sky and wonder what the glowing ball was, some called it Ra, some called it Sun, some called it Giantglowheatballthing.
The explanation was finally found, through observation, evidence and conclusions; the scientific method.
The mountains, lightning, floods, trees, diseases, gravity etc etc all of these things were previously unexplained, but through specific scientific testing, they were all named, documented and proven to be what they are known as today.
This took time and in some cases were incorrectly described (the heliocentric model of the solarsystem for example, initial observation showed that it was not the case, but later and more detailed testing showed it to be correct) - I make this point because it was once again, the church who persecuted those who attempted to argue this case. (Green Tea, I assume you do believe the earth orbits the sun rather than the other way round? Science that was....
I digress, the bible is not written fact. I get that, many get that. although there are some that believe it to be, those people are normally locked up in padded rooms, but a few slip through by the looks of things.
The biblical text are however sold to the world as being a history of bronze age palestine and the comings and goings of miracles and significant people.
Theres hasnt yet been one SOLID piece of evidence to prove the existence of any of these people, even the historians who were present in the region at the time mention nothing of these people, let alone a human form of the creator of the universe (dont get me started on the Mormons and his silly faked golden tablets)
Men across history have been exploiting the minds of their followers, telling them of horrendous pains they will suffer if they do not follow their words, or as they put it, 'the word of god'
Its fraud.
These so called holy men, have no connection to the universes creator, they are not 'special men' they are liars, nothing more than con men, who are using something that is old, and therefore not easily examined, to create a situation in which they gain both power and money and exploit those who are easily led.
The original texts have been translated, modified, translated again, modified once more, edited, censored and then again translated - the original documents themselves were written in an extinct version of hebrew that is no longer used and where some words have 3 or 4 meanings - impossible to correctly translate.
And in todays world, what makes it so laughable is not only are they doing this, they arent even doing it right.
Hardly any of the rules of the original texts are being enforced today - Such as giving up possessions and living as a poor man, that absolute **** in the vatican is saying this whilst inside an enormous palace, on a golden throne wearing a fucking crown.
Believe what you will about how the universe came into creation, believe all you will about whether evolution is true, believe what you will about which god is the real god - But dont ever bring your discussion to a table where the end point is to find the truth.
Truth is only found by observation, anaysis, independent examination, checked numerous times by numerous scholars, trustworthy scholars and then the evidence presented to the world to be disproved if it can be.
Science has no agenda, it looks for facts from observable incidents and reports the findings.
Science looked at religion and for hundreds of years has proven it to be nothing more than at best an outdated basic social structure from bronze age palestine that included the rape torture and murder of women, to at worst a cult designed to control, oppress and terrorise the masses and to help keep the status quo of power.
FUCK RELIGION.
Villa_Grizzly
Vital Squad Member
Rosie, I have not mentioned the term 'religion.' I was referencing theology. However, I do not disagree with your position on the bloodshed and murder that has taken place in the name of religion or the sociological problems that have developed as a consequence of a religious dogma, itself a perversion of theological writing. Much can be said of Political ideology.
I would suggest though that this is a different issue and that your strong feelings about the devastation caused by religion may influence how you engage in debates of a theological nature? Does this mean that you approach such topics with your own agenda or in an objective way? I am unsure.
My position remains that debates of this nature are often incorrectly framed owing to ignorance as to what theology is and how it is read. For me, 'the world is 10,000 years old' is a ridiculous position not only scientifically but more so theologically as to shows a lack of understanding as to Genesis' construction and meaning. You could write essays just on the fist verse of Genesis alone, one of the most remarkable and profound books in human theology.
I would suggest though that this is a different issue and that your strong feelings about the devastation caused by religion may influence how you engage in debates of a theological nature? Does this mean that you approach such topics with your own agenda or in an objective way? I am unsure.
My position remains that debates of this nature are often incorrectly framed owing to ignorance as to what theology is and how it is read. For me, 'the world is 10,000 years old' is a ridiculous position not only scientifically but more so theologically as to shows a lack of understanding as to Genesis' construction and meaning. You could write essays just on the fist verse of Genesis alone, one of the most remarkable and profound books in human theology.
Villa_Grizzly
Vital Squad Member
As to your point about 'reality'- explaining phenomenon, which science does brilliantly, is not the same thing as explaining reality.
RosettaStoned
Vital Football Legend
You can write essays about the oversized and rather painful poo I took this morning.
Point being, the 'book of genesis' as we know it today, is not only a translation(and almost certainly a mis translation) of documents pieced together from bits and bobs of a far lost language, but also a nothingness, a story, a fable a nice jolly tale about an unknown.
The problem is, we know have observations of the story being told (through the CMB and redshifted supernovae) So it is no longer an unknown.
It like reading a report of a Villa game in 1 paragraph that attempts to descibe the whole game, written by an illiterate foreigner, who has no explanation for what a foot, a ball, or a goal is, and then being given the footage in HD to watch the whole game yourself.
The former being now just an irrelevant story - Which it all is.
As for 'Theology' as a whole, we dont know. Nobody knows. Not one person has ever seen, met or spoken to the creator of the universe, be that an all seeing, all knowing god or a giant turtle.
But anyone that does tell you they have, is a liar and a fraud.
and that is all I can concern myself with, because discussing an unknoen is futile and leads to having to explain primary school biology to creationists on a football forum, which believe me, is more painful than that poo....
Villa_Grizzly
Vital Squad Member
The academic institutions and theological departments around the world along with profound scholars from the eleventh century onwards all ready to hear about your poo, so deep is your understanding of such matters.
I'm quite happy to debate and discuss but for that to happen you have to make supportable and informed statements not sweeping statements that owe more to ignorance and the desire to ridicule than reason. So far all we've established is that you don't believe the world is 10k years old and that you think religion is billions. That is it.
I'm quite happy to debate and discuss but for that to happen you have to make supportable and informed statements not sweeping statements that owe more to ignorance and the desire to ridicule than reason. So far all we've established is that you don't believe the world is 10k years old and that you think religion is billions. That is it.
Villa_Grizzly
Vital Squad Member
The academic institutions and theological departments around the world along with profound scholars from the eleventh century onwards all ready to hear about your poo, so deep is your understanding of theological matters. I have spoken to Yale personally and told them that some angry bird says it's bollocks. Of course, I now realise that all my studies have been in vain.
Seriously,I'm quite happy to debate and discuss but for that to happen you have to make supportable and informed statements not sweeping statements that owe more to ignorance and the desire to ridicule than reason. So far all we've established is that you don't believe the world is 10k years old and that you think religion is bollocks That is it. The former is not a proof of the latter or anything else.
If you can offer me your understanding or position on the book of Genesis other than saying it's billions or some such statement I'm all wars.
Seriously,I'm quite happy to debate and discuss but for that to happen you have to make supportable and informed statements not sweeping statements that owe more to ignorance and the desire to ridicule than reason. So far all we've established is that you don't believe the world is 10k years old and that you think religion is bollocks That is it. The former is not a proof of the latter or anything else.
If you can offer me your understanding or position on the book of Genesis other than saying it's billions or some such statement I'm all wars.
RosettaStoned
Vital Football Legend
Mate I have no need to debate, Im not wanting to debate anything and Im happy to be called any name under that sun, especially arrogant or insulting, I know that cause I am.
This thread was a specific question put to me and ive answered it, anything else is surplus. I did give quite a decent description of what I thought of genesis in a recent post, its a mistranslated fairy tale of how bronze age farm workers thought the world was created, nothing more nothing less.
Religion is an irrelevance, a sillyness and a poison on modern humanity, and that is a sweeping statement but I dont feel the need to go into it any further, its boring, and Id rather spend my day having fun and laughing at people who genuinely believe Joseph Smiths con, is an establishment to base your life and morality on.
This thread was a specific question put to me and ive answered it, anything else is surplus. I did give quite a decent description of what I thought of genesis in a recent post, its a mistranslated fairy tale of how bronze age farm workers thought the world was created, nothing more nothing less.
Religion is an irrelevance, a sillyness and a poison on modern humanity, and that is a sweeping statement but I dont feel the need to go into it any further, its boring, and Id rather spend my day having fun and laughing at people who genuinely believe Joseph Smiths con, is an establishment to base your life and morality on.
Villa_Grizzly
Vital Squad Member
I wouldn't describe as a decent description, only a description. Certainly an uninformed one but of course if your not interested then you will be uninformed and see it as a 'bronze age fairy tale' . It was in fact written between 500- 285BCE and was written in Hebrew around the second temple period by and for an elite scribbal class, not for farmers in a field. Your average Jewish study bible will give detailed current readings and up to date translations.
RosettaStoned
Vital Football Legend
Im sure it does!
and it bears ZERO relevance in todays society and has even less of a likeness to the way the Catholic church are using essentially 'words in an old book' to oppress millions across the world, and terrify children about the boogey man that watches you play with yourself.
and it bears ZERO relevance in todays society and has even less of a likeness to the way the Catholic church are using essentially 'words in an old book' to oppress millions across the world, and terrify children about the boogey man that watches you play with yourself.
RosettaStoned
Vital Football Legend
And a final word from Chris, cause Im off to play golf.
[youtube=DhIKoMu2l8Y]
[youtube=DhIKoMu2l8Y]
Villa_Grizzly
Vital Squad Member
I hear it has no relevance to you and I respect that. Enjoy your round.
G
Guest
Guest
My view is that Genesis 1 is literal days and the chronological order of creation. Whereas Genesis 2 is a recap and arranged topically.
I understand(but disagree) with the scientific method of rebuking the 6 day creation story but how is not supported in "theological terms", could you explain please?
I understand(but disagree) with the scientific method of rebuking the 6 day creation story but how is not supported in "theological terms", could you explain please?
G
Guest
Guest
We have a number of scenarios;
If the Earth is billions of years old, it fits in with the Evolutionary model. As you would need billions of years(and many miracles) to have the complexity of everything alive and dead that is in existence today and ever was in existence.
Another scenario is a young Earth which fits in with the biblical writings. The book of Job is said to be the oldest book in the bible(some say its the best book and was written before the flood). I believe(correct me if im wrong) it is also the only book which also gives reference to dinosaurs living amongst man?
However what I fail to understand, if you believe in God and the bible how can you change text to suit your needs? Or to fit in with what science has told you? Isnt this being a hypocrite?
John 1: - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So can fellow Christians please explain to me how you can change the "word of God" to fit your own model? Not that im knocking any of you, I just fail to understand. As my ethos here would be to not to believe at all. Jesus read the OT and agreed with it, yet some of you are Christian and you dont believe it as you believe in evolution and/or an old Earth?
If the Earth is billions of years old, it fits in with the Evolutionary model. As you would need billions of years(and many miracles) to have the complexity of everything alive and dead that is in existence today and ever was in existence.
Another scenario is a young Earth which fits in with the biblical writings. The book of Job is said to be the oldest book in the bible(some say its the best book and was written before the flood). I believe(correct me if im wrong) it is also the only book which also gives reference to dinosaurs living amongst man?
However what I fail to understand, if you believe in God and the bible how can you change text to suit your needs? Or to fit in with what science has told you? Isnt this being a hypocrite?
John 1: - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So can fellow Christians please explain to me how you can change the "word of God" to fit your own model? Not that im knocking any of you, I just fail to understand. As my ethos here would be to not to believe at all. Jesus read the OT and agreed with it, yet some of you are Christian and you dont believe it as you believe in evolution and/or an old Earth?
HeathfieldRoad1874
Miserable Sod
In the very early days of th Church these texts were read allegorically. In the 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, in the 2nd Century Irenaeus of Lyons, in the 3rd century, Origen and others of the Alexandrian school. These all spoke of the allogorical meaning within the Old testament.
These all pre-date modern Science.
It isn't clear, but it may be Protestantism that led to a more literal interpretation of the Bible.
So in answer to your question - it could be you that is the one changing the Word of God.
These all pre-date modern Science.
It isn't clear, but it may be Protestantism that led to a more literal interpretation of the Bible.
So in answer to your question - it could be you that is the one changing the Word of God.
