Religion Discussion | Read the OP before posting

[Carolina Red]

1) OT and NT say it what the entire world:

That doesn't tell us how big the "entire world" was to someone in ancient Mesopotamia. How long was it before people in the Eastern Hemisphere learned of the existence of the Western Hemisphere?

2) no because someone who is buried underground for a period more than a few minutes does not come back to life

Lazarus was "buried" in cave, not underground. Also, people did wake up underground, that's why it became such a big thing that people invented the safe coffins. The fear of being buried alive was massive during cholera outbreaks.

 

[JustAFan]

That doesn't tell us how big the "entire world" was to someone in ancient Mesopotamia. How long was it before people in the Eastern Hemisphere learned of the existence of the Western Hemisphere?

Lazarus was "buried" in cave, not underground. Also, people did wake up underground, that's why it became such a big thing that people invented the safe coffins. The fear of being buried alive was massive during cholera outbreaks.

I thought the whole buried alive fear came about because when they did dig up a few coffins they found the persons nails and hair had grown so they assumed the person had been buried alive. Also not understanding the effects on the body of the decaying process.

 

[Carolina Red]

I thought the whole buried alive fear came about because when they did dig up a few coffins they found the persons nails and hair had grown so they assumed the person had been buried alive. Also not understanding the effects on the body of the decaying process.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/buried.asp

 

[EyeInTheSky]

1) That doesn't tell us how big the "entire world" was to someone in ancient Mesopotamia. How long was it before people in the Eastern Hemisphere learned of the existence of the Western Hemisphere?


2) Lazarus was "buried" in cave, not underground. Also, people did wake up underground, that's why it became such a big thing that people invented the safe coffins. The fear of being buried alive was massive during cholera outbreaks.

1) Go back and read what I wrote. Especially the part about how the Waters were so high that they were at least 20 feet above the highest mountain.

According to the bible and Scholars Noah lived in the middle east around the region of Mesopotamia or Turkey (some say possibly in the Mesopotamia region of ancient Egypt).

The highest mountains in the middle east that cover the geolocation of the event are:

• Qurnet Al Sawda, Lebanon :- 3,088 above sea level (>1.9Miles high)
  
• Jabal Sawda, Saudi Arabia:- 3,000 above sea level (>1.9 Miles high)
  
• Mount Catherine, Egypt:- 2,629 meters above sea level (>1.6 Miles high)
  

You can't possibly think that the waters were held up by thin air on all sides that did not have mountains on it. That would be disingenuous at best even if we were to ignore the very fact that it was above all the mountains and therefore could not have been magically held in as if it was contained in a fish tank with mountains for all sides (which again the vast majority was wide open space and where there were mountains the containment could not have happened as the waters were well above them i.e they were completely submerged.

And let's not forget that apparently, God said he would "kill all the living things on the earth". I think in this context that a biblical God would know how big his world/earth is since he supposedly made it...

• Noah was in the ark for more than a year, not just 40 days (Genesis 8:14). 53 weeks to be exact. Why on earth (pun intended) would he/they stay on it for that long if it was a local flood, since dry land would have been just over the horizon. The floods started to subside for 4 months & the dove could still find no suitable ground (Genesis 8:9). This does not seem to fit the local flood explanation in which the dove could fly to dry land.

• All Humans Were Killed according to the Bible as it clearly teaches that all flesh died…every man (Genesis 7:21). Genesis 9:1 confirms that only Noah's family was saved and that every person living today is descended from his family.

2) Jesus said plainly that Lazarus was dead. So Jesus who was supposed to be divine & God on earth did not realise that old Laza was having a kip?

John 11:

11 After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”

12 His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” 13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.

14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, 15 and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”

16 Then Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]) said to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

And this is even if we ignore the fact that you are suggesting that there were a disproportionate amount of mistaken burials during that age (which there would have to be using your logic in order to correlate to the events mentioned in the bible). The odds of that happening specifically to the same people around Jesus are odds that are seriously not worth considering. To my point, there would have to be more "false" burials than justified ones in order for the numbers to work just so to cover the ones in the bible.

I would advise you do some research first as you have come up with some things that can only mean you have not looked into the topic too deeply. I think you are pontificating somewhat.

 

[Carolina Red]

I would advise you do some research first as you have come up with some things that can only mean you have not looked into the topic too deeply. I think you are pontificating somewhat.

I have researched the topic. My university even required us take courses on the Bible. Not pontificating at all, just trying to have a discussion about religious text vs. the historical record.

It gets into the point made previously about believing without taking the book literally.

 

[AXVnee7]

I am wondering what would people accept as a prophecy. It would be good if we can define the terms and come up with a framework of what can reasonably be seen as one. For example I will start off with.

1) Does it claim to be a prophecy?

2) Is it contextualised in the future tense?

3) How accurate is/was it?

4) Was it fulfilled or did it fail?

5) is it yet to happen?

Anybody think of something else?

Hi! From a Sikh perspective we are not fans of prophesies and none of our Gurus ever gave us a prophecy, nor is there any such notion in our holy book

 

[EyeInTheSky]

I have researched the topic. My university even required us take courses on the Bible. Not pontificating at all, just trying to have a discussion about religious text vs. the historical record.

It gets into the point made previously about believing without taking the book literally.

Ok, so respond to my points. I have shown you that your theory of allegory or lack of knowledge from the people of the time around the events are an impossibility. Of all the foreshadowing and allegorical text in the bible you have chosen 2 of the most literal verse an chapter where there is no room for interpretation.

I'm not arguing about the historical record I am talking about what the bible says. The two are not always in agreement and in places are demonstrably in error.

If you think the bible is inaccurate or made up just say so. It helps to be transparent in these matters for a fruitful discourse.

 

[Carolina Red]

I do think "Noah's Flood" happened. I think it draws from the Sumerian flood narrative. I do not think evidence supports it being as big as some people think.
https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

Then again, I also do not believe it is necessary to take many of the OT stories literally and still be a member of the faith.

 

[JustAFan]

I do think "Noah's Flood" happened. I think it draws from the Sumerian flood narrative. I do not think evidence supports it being as big as some people think.
https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

Then again, I also do not believe it is necessary to take many of the OT stories literally.

The Great Flood is found referenced in so many cultures around the world, which makes sense since floods happens all over the world. Saw one special about the Black Sea flood that supposedly took place around 7000 to 8000 years ago when the Mediterranean broke through and raised the levels of the Black Sea.

 

[RedTiger]

I always believed that the city of Noah was located in the black sea basin which flooded after the Mediterranean broke through the Bosporus.

 

[jackofalltrades]

I do think "Noah's Flood" happened. I think it draws from the Sumerian flood narrative. I do not think evidence supports it being as big as some people think.
https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

Then again, I also do not believe it is necessary to take many of the OT stories literally.

I'd say whether it happened or not is one thing, whereas who or what caused it is totally different. You can more or less prove that it happened and put it down to the weather or climate, but no one can show that God caused it.

It's an important point in the sense that proof of everything that goes against the bible's account of things is usually or, in some cases, always demanded by the religious.

 

[Carolina Red]

The Great Flood is found referenced in so many cultures around the world, which makes sense since floods happens all over the world. Saw one special about the Black Sea flood that supposedly took place around 7000 to 8000 years ago when the Mediterranean broke through and raised the levels of the Black Sea.

Yes! I have heard of this event as well. I am a believer in syncretic religion... That cultures blend and religions blend along with them, so you get flood stories either from the same event that gets carried around or from separate events that are combined over time. Either way, the event occurred in some form or fashion, and God can be attributed to it.

I'd say whether it happened or not is one thing, whereas who or what caused it is totally different. You can more or less prove that it happened and put it down to the weather or climate, but no one can show that God caused it.

It's an important point in the sense that proof of everything that goes against the bible's account of things is usually or, in some cases, always demanded by the religious.

Agreed.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

@Carolina Red

Are there any prophecies or predictions that you think have happened or could happen in any of the bibles?

 

[Carolina Red]

@Carolina Red

Are there any prophecies or predictions that you think have happened or could happen in any of the bibles?

It seems that the fall of Jerusalem was foretold several times and each time they got that dead on.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

It seems that the fall of Jerusalem was foretold several times and each time they got that dead on.

Can you point out where those examples are and how we can see it in the historical record without using the bible as proof of itself?

Which of The earliest manuscripts were written after the fall of Jerusalem though? Were they not just reporting what had already happened?

 

[Carolina Red]

Can you point out where those examples are and how we can see it in the historical record without using the bible as proof of itself?

Which of The earliest manuscripts were written after the fall of Jerusalem though? Were they not just reporting what had already happened?

That accusation could be leveled as a slight against most of the Bible, as it is missing primary source accounts.

The OT source that springs quickest to mind is Micah. He foretold the destruction of the whole country and its eventual re-establishment.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

That accusation could be leveled as a slight against most of the Bible, as it is missing primary source accounts.

The OT source that springs quickest to mind is Micah. He foretold the destruction of the whole country and its eventual re-establishment.

Thanks that's a good one. A cynic may say that conquest and the rise and fall of states happened throughout the ages.

 

[Carolina Red]

Thanks that's a good one. A cynic may say that conquest and the rise and fall of states happened throughout the ages.

One could, but understand that I am not taking a cynical view of the book, but rather a critical one. To me, there is a difference.

I don't look for the real history (imo) behind the Bible to be cynical about it, but rather because I want to try to narrow down the true story of what happened. I think that some things that made it into the book don't make the cut because of human error.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

One could, but understand that I am not taking a cynical view of the book, but rather a critical one. To me, there is a difference.

I don't look for the real history (imo) behind the Bible to be cynical about it, but rather because I want to try to narrow down the true story of what happened. I think that some things that made it into the book don't make the cut because of human error.

Interesting. There are the majority of card-carrying Christians that think if you don't believe what's in the bible then you are not a Christian. There are others who believe that you only need to believe in the crucifixion/death and resurrection of Jesus.

The biggest challenge is that if you believe in the salvation narrative how do you reconcile the fact that there are things in their that are in error etc... Why is it not clear and definitive. You would think that there would be clear guidance considering what's supposed to be at stake.

 

[Carolina Red]

Interesting. There are the majority of card-carrying Christians that think if you don't believe what's in the bible then you are not a Christian. There are others who believe that you only need to believe in the crucifixion/death and resurrection of Jesus.

The biggest challenge is that if you believe in the salvation narrative how do you reconcile the fact that there are things in their that are in error etc... Why is it not clear and definitive. You would think that there would be clear guidance considering what's supposed to be at stake.

To me, looking at it from the perspective of someone who went to uni and grad school to study history, I don't take it as the people in the OT lied... They simply didn't know what else existed. That's not their fault, they were just looking through a different lens than we are.

 

[Im red2]

I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of God that became flesh. Through whom all things were created. I do not think I am any less a sinner than anyone else alive, or dead for that matter. I do not believe in any organised religion. I was brought up as a Catholic but I disagree with many of the teachings of the Catholic Church as they conflict with the teachings of the Bible. I believe that as a human being we are asked to love the Lord our God and also to love our fellow man. And that is not always as easy as it may sound. After having read through this thread, I see that there are people with many different beliefs, and that is always very interesting. I respect the right of every human being to believe in whatever he believes in. After all our aim is as it should be, to find the truth.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

To me, looking at it from the perspective of someone who went to uni and grad school to study history, I don't take it as the people in the OT lied... They simply didn't know what else existed. That's not their fault, they were just looking through a different lens than we are.

There are definite additions and fraudulent entries in the bibles. That can't be seriously discussed. What I am interested in is the other stuff that could have some truth in it. I think ultimately because they were not written by the people themselves or by eye witnesses you can't realistically say that the actual "Prophets" were lying. Man will lie and corrupt and change things to suit their desires. After the "Prophets" have passed on they can't be held responsible for what happens to the narrative after that. I think they even say that people will change the scripture "by their own hand".

 

[EyeInTheSky]

I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of God that became flesh. Through whom all things were created. I do not think I am any less a sinner than anyone else alive, or dead for that matter. I do not believe in any organised religion. I was brought up as a Catholic but I disagree with many of the teachings of the Catholic Church as they conflict with the teachings of the Bible. I believe that as a human being we are asked to love the Lord our God and also to love our fellow man. And that is not always as easy as it may sound. After having read through this thread, I see that there are people with many different beliefs, and that is always very interesting. I respect the right of every human being to believe in whatever he believes in. After all our aim is as it should be, to find the truth.

I admire your pursuit of the truth. I can't imagine not trying to find it.

 

[Carolina Red]

After all our aim is as it should be, to find the truth.

I do not believe in any organised religion

Agree wholeheartedly

 

[RedPed]

I don't know whether anyone saw The Big Questions yesterday morning on BBC1 but they were debating literalism. The actual question was Would today's 'wise men' believe in God? Obviously some questioned whether the wise men actually existed and the whole 'story' about Jesus' birth etc. I was brought up in a religious household and although not a practicer for some time, those beliefs never go away. I have no reason to doubt that the events in the Bible are actually true. They are no more fantastical than some aspects of the evolutionary process/theory which scientists are expounding as fact.

 

[ADJUDICATOR]

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of God that became flesh. Through whom all things were created...

After all our aim is as it should be, to find the truth.

Haven't you already found it?

 

[Carolina Red]

I don't know whether anyone saw The Big Questions yesterday morning on BBC1 but they were debating literalism. The actual question was Would today's 'wise men' believe in God? Obviously some questioned whether the wise men actually existed and the whole 'story' about Jesus' birth etc. I was brought up in a religious household and although not a practicer for some time, those beliefs never go away. I have no reason to doubt that the events in the Bible are actually true. They are no more fantastical than some aspects of the evolutionary process/theory which scientists are expounding as fact.

Interesting that you bring up the "wise men" as it is something I have pointed to as evidence of religious syncreticism before. The "wise men" (Magi) were most likely Zoroastrian priests searching for an answer to a prophesy of their own religion.

 

[Dumbstar]

There are definite additions and fraudulent entries in the bibles. That can't be seriously discussed. What I am interested in is the other stuff that could have some truth in it. I think ultimately because they were not written by the people themselves or by eye witnesses you can't realistically say that the actual "Prophets" were lying. Man will lie and corrupt and change things to suit their desires. After the "Prophets" have passed on they can't be held responsible for what happens to the narrative after that. I think they even say that people will change the scripture "by their own hand".

Is this generally accepted by all Christians of all denominations?

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Is this generally accepted by all Christians of all denominations?

Good question.

It is accepted by major scholars and somewhat tacitly by people in most denominations that I have spoken with or observed however paradoxically you can get people within that same group that disagree. The only groups that insist it's the inerrant word of God are Fundamentalist evangelicals etc...

I don't like to speak about the various denominations and their opinions so much as I like to see what the text itself says. It is actually more black and white than people like to admit. Yeah sure there are interpretations of certain things but when you have whole verses added or taken away from every version then there is no room for debate. Not just talking about scribes making mistakes but a change in narrative and corruption of the text which include verses added way down the line.

It is not surprising that if we are to believe Jesus was an Aramaic speaking Jew that there would be some things lost in the translation over a thousand years later in a Latin/Greek book translated into English. Especially when you consider that Jesus and his disciples did not speak Greek so you then have a translation from people who never met Jesus and spoke a different language.

 

[2cents]

 

[oates]

Is this generally accepted by all Christians of all denominations?

I don't know but it has always seemed a bit obvious to me. Another thing is the accuracy of time periods when 40 days and nights is supposedly an ancient way of saying 'a really long time', that and the ease of of the phrase use in the bible. I'm not someone who believes the bible literally in all cases but then you get hammered by the atheists either way. It would be childish though to believe that there had been no unscrupulous adaptations and unfortunately we've nothing to contradict, no base line.

 

[Dumbstar]

I don't know but it has always seemed a bit obvious to me. Another thing is the accuracy of time periods when 40 days and nights is supposedly an ancient way of saying 'a really long time', that and the ease of of the phrase use in the bible. I'm not someone who believes the bible literally in all cases but then you get hammered by the atheists either way. It would be childish though to believe that there had been no unscrupulous adaptations and unfortunately we've nothing to contradict, no base line.

Thanks Oates and @EyeInTheSky.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Thanks Oates and @EyeInTheSky.

No worries.

What interests you about the topic or what are your observations/feelings on it, if I may ask?

 

[Dumbstar]

No worries.

What interests you about the topic or what are your observations/feelings on it, if I may ask?

Sure, its just that as a Muslim living in a Christian country (well the UK was pretty much Christian in the 80s ) I was obviously taught about the bible but the question that always struck me was around the number of discrepancies, changes and basically mistakes in the most-read holy book of all. I just wasn't sure if Christians accepted this or were offended if brought up, so I never really asked. As you probably know, or not, Muslims have the opposite view i.e. not a single mistake in the holy book, traced back to original scripts via a still used living language, etc. So that's what piqued my curiosity and am relieved no one was offended. No other reason.

Ps. Muslims believe in the Bible too, it forms part of the 7 beliefs Muslims must hold to be a, well, Muslim: 1. One God, 2. All the Prophets (Moses, Jesus, Muhammad pbut), 3. Angels, 4. Holy Books (Torah, Bible, Quran, Book of David), 5. Destiny, 6. Day of Judgement 7. Life After Death (heaven/hell/eternal life/etc).

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Sure, its just that as a Muslim living in a Christian country (well the UK was pretty much Christian in the 80s ) I was obviously taught about the bible but the question that always struck me was around the number of discrepancies, changes and basically mistakes in the most-read holy book of all. I just wasn't sure if Christians accepted this or were offended if brought up, so I never really asked. As you probably know, or not, Muslims have the opposite view i.e. not a single mistake in the holy book, traced back to original scripts via a still used living language, etc. So that's what piqued my curiosity and am relieved no one was offended. No other reason.

Ps. Muslims believe in the Bible too, it forms part of the 7 beliefs Muslims must hold to be a, well, Muslim: 1. One God, 2. All the Prophets (Moses, Jesus, Muhammad pbut), 3. Angels, 4. Holy Books (Torah, Bible, Quran, Book of David), 5. Destiny, 6. Day of Judgement 7. Life After Death (heaven/hell/eternal life/etc).

Muslims believe that the Injeel (which was given to Jesus directly but we don't have that now) was true and also Torah that was given to Moses etc. Because we don't have those now in their original form it can't be said that Muslims believe that they NT or OT are the true words of God. They believe that there are some threads and fragments of truth in it but not as a whole.

I have pondered about stating such and such a country is a "Christian" country or an "insert religion here" country. I think if the Ruling authority in the country is run according to a particular law and the population are practising that religion then it can be argued its a country of that particular religion. For example, The majority don't go to church and don't believe in God per say some identify culturally as such because they have confused secular society with Christianity.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

I don't believe in all that "Muslim country" "Christian country" "Atheist country" shit. There's only morals and philosophy which should be important and ultimately how we should identity each other by. After that, maybe whether someone accepts a higher power can be thought of.

Im a Muslim and the Quran indeed remains unchanged, and itself was the miracle through the proxy that was the final prophet. However if you want to look back in time to understand a little more about humanity (which, imo, is the only way you can gather where humanity is going and/or where it should go), you cannot do it solely looking through an Islamic lense, cos it's not a book of infinite pages therefore the knowledge it provides is finite.

 

[Im red2]

Haven't you already found it?

Yes

 

[Wibble]

I am wondering what would people accept as a prophecy. It would be good if we can define the terms and come up with a framework of what can reasonably be seen as one. For example I will start off with.

1) Does it claim to be a prophecy?

2) Is it contextualised in the future tense?

3) How accurate is/was it?

4) Was it fulfilled or did it fail?

5) is it yet to happen?

Anybody think of something else?

Given that The Simpson's predicted the Trump Presidency I'd demand that any prophecy was able to be replicated. It should also predict things that can't be foreseen or are binary options. The more specific the prediction the better - no Nostradamus type bullshit.

The real test would be to predict something that actually happened and was outside rational explanation.

 

[Wibble]

The flood covered the entire world. After a period of 150 days, the Ark rested on Mt. Ararat (17,000 ft.) 200 miles North of the ancient city of Nineveh.

All the Mountains Were Covered. There are vast open spaces between the mountains in the region. Nowhere on earth is there a set of mountains that create a perfect circle to somehow keep water in like a fish bowl. According to the bible the tops of all the high mountains under the entire heavens were at least 20 feet beneath the water's surface (Genesis 7:19-20). It would be absurd to think that a flood covering the highest mountains of the Middle East would not affect the rest of the world. Also, the waters remained at this gigantic, mountain-covering height for five months! (Genesis 7:18-24, 8:1-5).

We know for a fact that this didn't happen. Even avoiding the issue of the practicalities of the Arc holding 2 of every creature the flood just didn't happen - we have the evidence that proves it.

Of course I think most people don't believe the OT literally anyway.

 

[Wibble]

I'm an atheist so by default I don't believe in a prophecy.

To be a pedant your shouldn't believe in anything under any circumstance