Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Populist Indeed!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 2678334" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>If the creation account is a literal 24 hour day then your explanation has a valid point. Anything else will need an apologist explanation in order to work.<strong> </strong>The text seems to work best when day is understood in the context of a literal 24 hour day. </p><p></p><p>As for implying a contradiction or incongruity, I implied nothing at all but it doth seem the obvious was observed all on its own.<strong> </strong>When one applies the Documentary Hypothesis (Wellhausen Hypothesis) to these earliest of texts, any conflict or contradiction is understood but the standard answer of Moses authorship (or even single person authorship) becomes impossible among other things.<strong> </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, the round earth understanding was far more understood than what is often portrayed. But the description in the bible which is alleged to be the word of god, either given directly by or in some manner inspired by, does describe an earth that fits the disproved flat earth theory. This begs the question why would the god who created the universe describe the heavens and the earth in such a disprovable manner? </p><p></p><p>As you pointed out with the Hubble pictures, those pictures and others show there is no watery firmament above the sky from which we get our rain and from which god can open gates to invoke a deluge upon the earth should he choose too. We also know from science that rain is a process of the sun and evaporation and not from a watery body above a dome sky.</p><p></p><p>The bible is not without its value, to the contrary, it is very valuable IMO. All religious texts on some level are as they offer a "light" (hint, hint [USER=22662]@bbsam[/USER] ) a knowledge (gnosis), an understanding, an illumination of what past mankind thought and how mankind conducted themselves. I would even assert such texts in fact have a place in the school classroom but instead of physical sciences, I'd place them in the social sciences, in history or even anthropology studies. And I suspect there would be those on both sides of the bible debate who would harshly disagree with me on this. </p><p></p><p>I don't accept the bible's ultimate conclusions myself but I'm a huge advocate of its reading, its study, especially regarding its language and contextual scholarship. There are those who I share some common conclusions with regarding religious claims who believe we should crush and destroy all religion, rub it out of existence but I strongly disagree. Guess its the free thinker in me.</p><p></p><p>Understanding religion and understanding its place is important to understanding ourselves, who we are and even how we got to this point in time and existence. Religion might even be considered an early form of psychology, the common phrase across religions of "know thyself" seems to suggest this to me. The only reason religion seems such a problem is that people on both sides refuse to read the texts from which religion comes which allow charlatans to manipulate people with it. Instead read it ourselves and then to rationally and logically consider what is written along with why and how it came to be written. </p><p></p><p>Some argue it's a pretty psychedelic trip we've been on and at this point I'm more and more inclined to agree!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 2678334, member: 2189"] If the creation account is a literal 24 hour day then your explanation has a valid point. Anything else will need an apologist explanation in order to work.[B] [/B]The text seems to work best when day is understood in the context of a literal 24 hour day. As for implying a contradiction or incongruity, I implied nothing at all but it doth seem the obvious was observed all on its own.[B] [/B]When one applies the Documentary Hypothesis (Wellhausen Hypothesis) to these earliest of texts, any conflict or contradiction is understood but the standard answer of Moses authorship (or even single person authorship) becomes impossible among other things.[B] [/B] Yes, the round earth understanding was far more understood than what is often portrayed. But the description in the bible which is alleged to be the word of god, either given directly by or in some manner inspired by, does describe an earth that fits the disproved flat earth theory. This begs the question why would the god who created the universe describe the heavens and the earth in such a disprovable manner? As you pointed out with the Hubble pictures, those pictures and others show there is no watery firmament above the sky from which we get our rain and from which god can open gates to invoke a deluge upon the earth should he choose too. We also know from science that rain is a process of the sun and evaporation and not from a watery body above a dome sky. The bible is not without its value, to the contrary, it is very valuable IMO. All religious texts on some level are as they offer a "light" (hint, hint [USER=22662]@bbsam[/USER] ) a knowledge (gnosis), an understanding, an illumination of what past mankind thought and how mankind conducted themselves. I would even assert such texts in fact have a place in the school classroom but instead of physical sciences, I'd place them in the social sciences, in history or even anthropology studies. And I suspect there would be those on both sides of the bible debate who would harshly disagree with me on this. I don't accept the bible's ultimate conclusions myself but I'm a huge advocate of its reading, its study, especially regarding its language and contextual scholarship. There are those who I share some common conclusions with regarding religious claims who believe we should crush and destroy all religion, rub it out of existence but I strongly disagree. Guess its the free thinker in me. Understanding religion and understanding its place is important to understanding ourselves, who we are and even how we got to this point in time and existence. Religion might even be considered an early form of psychology, the common phrase across religions of "know thyself" seems to suggest this to me. The only reason religion seems such a problem is that people on both sides refuse to read the texts from which religion comes which allow charlatans to manipulate people with it. Instead read it ourselves and then to rationally and logically consider what is written along with why and how it came to be written. Some argue it's a pretty psychedelic trip we've been on and at this point I'm more and more inclined to agree! ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Populist Indeed!
Top