Jump to content
Science Forums

Simply Logic And Reason The Bible


Aireal

Recommended Posts

 

However I do kind of see it as a "moral guide", but only because of the concept of via negativa; any "act of G-d" in the bible, is not truly an act of G-d, because G-d is immutable and inconceivable. That whole idea (that you can't actually understand what it even is) is one of the foundations of higher theology, it simply isn't taught to those who wouldn't understand it (or at least those who the rabbis and priests do not think would understand it). If all those acts do not take place because of the will of G-d, then we can assume poetic license on the part of the author, and that the author is trying to teach us a lesson.

 

Take for example Sodom and Gomorrah. In these current times it is pretty much a-okay (due to the level of technological development) to be polyamorous. However when the bible was written there was no contraception and no protective devices that could stop you from getting pretty nasty infections if you banged the wrong person. So teaching people not to just have sex with everybody was a really good thing, as it would prevent disease (this kind of adds to the hygiene claim/theory). To add further credibility, G-d smites them, an act he would be "incapable" of if he was beyond conception, since all of his acts would be beyond understanding as well.

 

Also you ignored my point about the whole fictitious/literary bent of this whole bible thang.

 

It's difficult to imagine a worse moral guide than the bible, from genocide, murder, slavery, child rape, human sacrifice, I mean really, a moral guide? As for sex, killing anyone who had sex outside of marriage, killing homosexuals, even killing untruly children, the bible is any thing but a guide to moral behavior. And if you go by the idea of prohibition on sex protecting from VD then why did all the other civilizations do quite well with out killing anyone who had sex out side marriage, the bible fails in every way and has no basis in reality what so ever. All it actually does is give a few people enormous power over others with lies. On yeah, in Sodom and Gomorrah the main character offered his virgin daughter to the crowd and told them to do with them as they liked, yeah moral values for sure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You probably want to know how that story fits with evolution and other things? 1) Gen. 2:7 calls it man, then I discovered this creature wasn't a man (human being) at all, the translation is soul, which means, 'the animal principle only (which had to have been an early monkey). This creature had evolved through natural processes on earth.
OK, let us look at this claim. Your explanation does not match what Gen. 2:7 says, it reaches a false conclusion.

 

Your first error is that Gen. 2:7 uses the word "man" as a prior entity and states that the "man" was formed by God during a design action of the dust of the ground. Then, God took a second design action, God "breathed into his [man] nostrils the breath of life"; AND "man" became a living "soul". So we read that the process of designing the first human (Adam) was a two stage process, so clearly God took his time and did not rush the event trying to do too much at one time, a good design technique.

 

So, we read in Gen. 2:7 that "man" formed by God from earth dust during design stage #1 WAS NOT ALIVE, the life process does not occur until the second design stage, when God breathed life into the "man", and, most importantly to your claim, we read that it is ONLY after design stage #2 that the "man" becomes a living "soul".

 

So you see, it is very much impossible your claim that the Hebrew word "man" as first used in Gen. 2:7 would be translated into the word "soul", for the simple reason that the word "soul" is used in the same sentence as "man" in Gen 2:7 to indicate a completely new human concept, the concept of the "man alive". Thus, it is untrue that "man" = "soul", this is not what God tells us. The two Hebrew words MUST logically be translated into two completely different English words, two completely differ concepts of the human.

 

Finally, it becomes clear how your hypothesis that the "man" formed during the design stage #1 was some sort creature that evolved is logically impossible. It is impossible because God tells us that the "man" from design stage #1 [before it became a soul] was not alive. I am not aware of any version of evolution (and there are many) that allows a non-living form [basically dust of the earth gathered together) to evolve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...