Is Jesus gonna come back when the poles melt?

[Markarado]

What you may not understand is that it does make sense to many Christians.

[Arlos]

It is actually possible to be a Christian without believing in the literal absolute scientific proof of everything in the Bible. Most of the ones I have known consider the Bible a source of some history, a lot of moral teachings, and consider much of it allegorical.

In this context, researching the scientific basis for some of the bible stories makes significant sense. Just to take one example, the Great Flood. It's patently ridiculous to consider the great flood based on a literal interpretation of the bible in scientific terms. However, the myth of a great flood is unviersal in that region of the world from pre-history. So, the current scholarly opinion is that it's a altered story of when the Mediterranean broke through the Bosporus Straits and created the Black Sea. Scientific studies of the Black Sea have identified an ancient shoreline of what was then a freshwater lake (based on the aquatic animal remains found in the mud strata from the old lake bed, where they found remains of critters that are ONLY found in fresh water). Anyone who lived near that Lake, and it was probably highly populated, would have CERTAINLY considered it a great flood, as the Black Sea is many tiems larger than the lake was, and it would indeed have wiped out all life in that area.

Still not the Great FLood as directly told in the bible (or the Epic of Gilgamesh for that matter), but it IS a piece of history that provides the underlying kernel of truth that the bible story of Noah was built upon. (and the story of Noah not being literally true changes nothing with it's intended moral message, either.)

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

Really there is a flip side that I can see, and one that would be more favorable for those who believe Christianity is debunked at every turn due to scientific discoveries and findings. As something like this could cause those who have trouble buying the Bible due to scientific evidence to the contrary to start to lean the other way, it could have a similar opposite effect on those who have trouble accepting scientific discovery due to it's contradiction with the Bible.

If a "Christian" is that easily swayed by atheistic sensationalism/propaganda, then they weren't really Christians to begin with.

lol WB Mindia. Just like I don't think we are in danger of seeing this influence Mofish's beliefs, I don't believe we will see it influence yours.

Do please note that my thoughts on all of this are contingent around this idea being validated and becoming commonly accepted. And since for the most part it's not going to have support from extremes on either side it's gonna be a tough sell. Of course pure science is supposed to be objective, and not influenced by personal beliefs... so who knows.

[Donnel]

It is actually possible to be a Christian without believing in the literal absolute scientific proof of everything in the Bible. Most of the ones I have known consider the Bible a source of some history, a lot of moral teachings, and consider much of it allegorical.

The entire system of Christianity falters if this is your standpoint.

If one part is allegorical it opens up the entire text to reinterpretation as allegorical. Suddenly Christ didn't die on the cross for the sins of mankind, he saved everyone by winning a pie eating contest.

[Thon]

there's plenty of christians that don't take the bible literally, and plenty who interpret it differently from whatever your flavor of christianity happens to be

i'm sure there are at least some subtle differences between whatever you are, and Mindia's crazy guy christian cult. just as there are differences in belief between you and eastern orthodox christians, catholics, baptists, and every other "ist" out there.

[Reynaldo]

My favorite is bringing up the Revelations story of the multi-headed dragon waiting to eat the baby Mary gave birth to to the fundamentalists / bible is 100% literal crowd and watching them squirm trying to explain it.

Best explaination I got one time was "Its 100% literal except when its OBVIOUSLY NOT being literal"

[Donnel]

there's plenty of christians that don't take the bible literally, and plenty who interpret it differently from whatever your flavor of christianity happens to be

i'm sure there are at least some subtle differences between whatever you are, and Mindia's crazy guy christian cult. just as there are differences in belief between you and eastern orthodox christians, catholics, baptists, and every other "ist" out there.

Differences in interpretation are what causes different sects such as orthodox, baptists and what have you.

If you don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, you open the entire system to discrediting.

I stand by my statement.

[Thon]

What system? "thou shall not kill" doesn't become irrelevent because people don't believe noah built a ship carrying lions and tigers and bears, oh my for 40 days.

[Arlos]

Ahhhh, but is it not possible to believe that the MESSAGE of the bible is inerrant; ie the moral teachings and societal structure it set up for the time, while at the same time accepting that it is not an inerrant book of history, and much of it is in the form of a parable?

For example, when Jesus told the parable of the Prodigal son, do you think he was relating an actual story about a family with a wastrel son who left town, etc, etc? Or was he making up a story in order to deliver a specific moral message? I think most people would agree that he was telling a made-up story to deliver a specific moral message, and not relating actual historical events.

So, if it's OK for Jesus himself to use allegorical explanations in order to get a moral message across, why is it unacceptible for that to take place in the rest of the bible?

How does it change the moral message of, say, Noah (ie, God will save the truly righteous, and those that obey his commands and trust in him will be ultimately saved, regardless of how dire the situation) if it is a parable, based on the kernel of truth that was the flooding of the Black Sea, rather than a literal flooding of the entire earth?

Even today we're finding translation errors in the English versions of bibles. For example, the story of Moses and the Exodus: Everyone today hears it as the "Parting of the Red Sea", correct? Well, if you go back to the original works in greek or Hebrew, you'll see that that's actually a mistranslation, or was a "typo" if you will in the translation. What it really says is that he parted the REED Sea, not RED Sea. Modern biblical scholars believe that this was a big area of alluvial swwamps and marshland in that narrow corridor where Egypt turns into the Sinai peninsula.

Since we know for an absolute fact that there's at least that one error in the English translation of the bible, and no idea how many others, or how many errors were made in the original translations from hebrew/aramaic/etc to greek and/or latin, holding the entire document to complete literal inerrancy (when we know that at least on 1 point that the english version is NOT) would seem to be placing serious blinders on yourself.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Jesuit mindset versus Fundamentalist puritanicism.

Round 2. Mortal Kombat.

Begin.

[Donnel]

Even today we're finding translation errors in the English versions of bibles. For example, the story of Moses and the Exodus: Everyone today hears it as the "Parting of the Red Sea", correct? Well, if you go back to the original works in greek or Hebrew, you'll see that that's actually a mistranslation, or was a "typo" if you will in the translation. What it really says is that he parted the REED Sea, not RED Sea. Modern biblical scholars believe that this was a big area of alluvial swwamps and marshland in that narrow corridor where Egypt turns into the Sinai peninsula.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/ ... d_Sea.html

It's okay for Jesus to use parables because he said "Hey this is a parable."

Do you see the difference there? Parables are okay to be interpreted allegorically because they were presented as such. Texts not presented as allegorical should not be taken allegorically, such as Christ's dying atonement.

Therein lies the fundamental difference and why the system of belief collapses without its strong foundation being built on the revelation of God as given in the Bible.

[Arlos]

Heh, Lyion, my dad went to both a Jesuit high school, and his undergrad degree was from Santa Clara University, which was another Jesuit-run institution. My mom had a similar history; indeed they met while they both went to Santa Clara. As a result, pretty much all of my early training in Catholic doctrine comes from Jesuit-based sources. (nbot to mention, it rather influenced my tendency to be interested in logical debate, etc.)

While I may no longer be Catholic, or even Christian, I can still respect their dedication to argument and logic, and their willingness to question assumptions. I definitely have respect for someone who is willing to endure questions to their faith, and can back their belief up with evidence and logic, rather than just going "It's that way because it is!" or the equivalent.

Oh, and Donnel, I don't have it handy (and I'm on campus right now on a laptop, so I'm not going to take time to look it up), but I have seen stuff that disagrees with that link you posted, that is pretty definitive that the original really does say REED sea and not RED sea. Now, where I won't quibble is the Reed sea being part of a saltwater tide-marsh connected to the red sea. Saw something on Discovery last night that provided a plausible scenario, where the tide going out mostly drained the swampy area, and the heavy east wind mentioned in the bible as going on that night dried it out the rest of the way sufficient for foot traffic to cross, and by the time the Egyptians wanted to cross in the morning, the wind was gone and the tide had come back, and it was way too wet, muddy and swampy to allow foot traffic, much less chariot traffic.

I have no issue whatsoever with that scientific explanation of the "crossing of the sea", and it fits in just fine with the story in the bible, just has more details than are contained therein. The "Hand of God" as it were, could easily be seen to one who believes as having set up the tides just right to allow the Israelites to cross, but to be high again when the Egyptians wanted to, and to also have caused the East wind to blow so strongly, which further facilitated the crossing. If you want to say God caused those things to happen, I couldn't argue with you in the least. I may not believe it, but at that point we have reached a statement of faith that is outside the realm of science, and as such it is not something that can be argued.

-Arlos

[Gargamellow]

you should all take anthropology 101

[Narrock]

you should all take anthropology 101

Took Physical Anthropology, Paleo-Anthropology, and Cultural Anthropology. Straight A's. I'm the shiz.

[DangerPaul]

you should all take anthropology 101

just as soon as you can produce more than a GED and a trailer full of inbred babies, you can tell people what they should do with their lives

[Donnel]

The Red Sea or the Reed Sea?

For many years scholars have disagreed over the identity of the sea the Israelites crossed and thus the site of the drowning of Pharaoh's army. Three routes for the Exodus have been proposed and continue to be debated.

Some believe that the Israelites' path took them north to the coast and that the "sea" they crossed was part of Lake Sirbonis, an arm or bay of the Mediterranean, after the crossing of which they turned south into the Sinai Peninsula.

Others have adopted the idea that the Israelites took a central route and crossed a shallow lake north of the Red Sea called the Reed Sea. The term in Hebrew is yam suph. Yam means "sea," and suph is generally thought to mean "reeds," "rushes" or possibly "seaweed." That is why some versions of the Bible call it "the Sea of Reeds" or "Reed Sea" instead of the Red Sea. (See Exodus 15:4 in the Revised Standard Version, New American Bible and Jerusalem Bible.)

Some scholars prefer the translation "Reed Sea," noting that lakes north of the Red Sea are abundant with reeds. They usually designate one of these shallow bodies of water as the site of the Israelite crossing but say that the Egyptians, with their heavy chariots, got bogged down and somehow drowned.

Other scholars prefer a southern route, pointing to evidence that they feel demonstrates that yam suph may mean "sea at the end of the world," as some conceive it to have been. Says theology professor Bernard F. Batto: "What we call the Red Sea . . . was regarded by the ancients as the sea at the end of the world. Interestingly enough, the Greeks applied the name Red Sea not only to our Red Sea but also to the Indian Ocean and, later when they discovered it, even to the Persian Gulf . . . Yam sup came to refer to the Red Sea because like other ancient peoples, the Israelites did not distinguish the Red Sea from oceans further to the south. To their way of thinking, the Red Sea—the yam sup—was the sea at the end of the earth" (Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August 1984, p. 59).

In other biblical references, yam suph means Red Sea or its arms, the Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba. In 1 Kings 9:26 we read: "King Solomon also built a fleet of ships at Ezion Geber, which is near Elath on the shore of the Red Sea [yam suph], in the land of Edom." If this were a marshy lake close to Egypt, this would certainly be a strange place for Solomon to build his great fleet. But geographers know Elath is a port at the northernmost end of the Gulf of Aqaba.

Notice also Numbers 33, which mentions the stops the Israelites made in the wilderness of the Sinai. After crossing "the sea," they camped in Marah, then Elim. And "they moved from Elim and camped by the Red Sea [yam suph]" (verse 10). How could they have crossed a "sea of reeds" and, after many days of travel, still camped by that same "sea of reeds"? No body of water in the region except the Red Sea would have been enough for the Israelites to have traveled so long and still be close to its coast. Other references that support the Red Sea are Numbers 21:4 and Jeremiah 49:21.

Which route did the Israelites take, and at what point did they cross the sea? We cannot know for sure. However, one author of several works on biblical history offers this perspective: "The crossing of Israel . . . cannot be explained as a wading through a swamp. It required a mighty act of God, an act so significant both in scope and meaning that forever after in Israel's history it was the paradigm against which all of his redemptive and saving work was measured" (Eugene Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1987, p. 66).

-- Mario Seiglie

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn10/r ... eology.htm

Same words used to describe where the Israelites crossed were used for where Soloman built his ships. How do you build a fleet in a marsh?

[Guikkoroz]

Same words used to describe where the Israelites crossed were used for where Soloman built his ships. How do you build a fleet in a marsh?

drain it, build a damn fill er' back up when your done and sail them bishes out to sea

did same thing (kinda) with st. petersburg (at least draining)

[Sorina S]

If Sorina is Jesus, we're fucked.

No, if I am Sorina, you're fucked. You can mock faith as the day is long in my face Harrison. But I have two things that you don't have.

Can you figure out what they are?

SS~

[Jay]

you should all take anthropology 101

just as soon as you can produce more than a GED and a trailer full of inbred babies, you can tell people what they should do with their lives

Sidesplitting lol.

[Harrison]

Downs Syndrome and an IQ that rivals my cock?

[Sorina S]

Downs Syndrome and an IQ that rivals my cock?

Exactly, deficient in every way. Who woulda guessed you'd get it on the first try?

[Gargamellow]

hey paul...do u ever get tired of being in love with me?

but seriously.................this is CA

...and really, everyone here knows I am graduating from COLLEGE this semester and I don't live in a trailer....and my kids are from the same father..I am raising those kids, not you..and i don't appreciate you insulting them...I am sure you don't care because the big bad internet is protecting you...

now when you can produce more than an insult, speak to me...otherwise, don't bother....and if you plan to insult me in current affairs again, well that just proves that you are a primitive moron.

I hate people like you. You give NT a bad name.

[Gargamellow]

that being said...I think everyone here should take Anthropology 101.

[DangerPaul]

Being a primitive moron still puts me about 100 steps above a trailer trash whore whose mommy didn't love her, so it's all good.

[Harrison]

Harsh, harsh

I can think of about 10 people more deserving of your focus. Me included