Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 2, 2014, 12:06 PM   #126
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
I grew up thinking that Christianity was monotheistic. And my [obviously wrong] interpretation of monotheism was that there was not only one God, but that all gods of all cultures past, present and future were essentially different interpretations of that one God. It was always just the one God, but it took time for people to recognize that.
Not quite. Often times throughout the bible people and beings are referred to as "god", because they are imparted with some level of authority that makes them appear as god, but they are mortal and die (can't be god if you can die), and the limitation of their abilities is made apparent throughout scripture. Even Men and kings have been called "god" in scripture because they acted as agents of God's authority on earth.

2nd Commandment
"You shall have no other gods before me."


Psalm 82 (KJV)
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Exodus 7:1
See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh


Psalm 45:6-7
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;"

Deuteronomy 4:35, 39
"To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him .. know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God IN HEAVEN above and ON THE EARTH beneath; THERE IS NO OTHER."

There are many instances where the term god is used, but it's typically followed by the clarification that there is only one true God.
__________________
Steve Jobs, January 9th 2007, 10:44am: "We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them."
Technarchy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 12:23 PM   #127
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by localoid View Post
What? No one's going to mention Lilith, Adam's first wife, and her affair with Samael, the bipolar good/evil archangel?
Lilith is kind of out-of-canon. She is never named in Genesis, but some say she is the woman who was created in the first chapter, alongside Adam. Then, in the second chapter, Eve had to surgically created, because Lilith was just too much trouble.

One could infer that the first humans were not Adam and Eve, but some unnamed couple whose children provided the mates for the children of the latter two. Note that in chapter one, they are created out of nothing, in god's likeness, whereas in chapter two, they are created out of the dust of the earth.

Foursomes may have been older than we thought.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 12:27 PM   #128
Irishman
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by tshrimp View Post
I found this very interesting. I know the Bible is considered one of the most (if not the most) accurate historical document. But the link below looked like a good explanation why for those who have not looked at this before.

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/other...the-bible.html

Thought this was a good read considering most of us just celebrated the birth of Christ. I hope everyone had a great Christmas this year.

Edit: It can be a long read. Some of the more interesting stuff begins where you see the bold "All Those Errors..." just an fyi in case you don't have time, or do not wish to read the entire thing.
To break it down a a little more, there is the New Testament and the Old Testament. The Old Testament has a very well-made argument for its reliability made by Professor K. Kitchen of Liverpool called "On the Reliability of the Old Testament" (gotta love those Brits and their dry titles). It's quite good, and I recommend it as a good starting point.
Irishman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 12:30 PM   #129
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by satcomer View Post
Growing up Presbyterian (for those people that say all churches take aways
Homosexual rights are WRONG! It all has to do with the Baptists). IMHO Just look it up all the "New Born" zealots are almost always Baptists!

Plus I was always taught the Bible was a series of morality stories.

<satcomer ducks>
See I'm not a religious guy at all, but I LOVE the Presbyterian church. Most progressive religious folk I've ever met. I've been on 3 trips with the church to rebuild homes throughout the country (flooding, hurricanes, etc.) and I don't think I've found a more accepting group. They truly don't give a damn about your views, they just work to help communities and others at every turn.

Hell, I was expecting to have to hide the fact I'm not a believer but once they heard they never gave it another mention, even let me do my own thing while they were attending services. I've always been invited back every year to help, looking forward to building an orphanage this summer in Kenya.

I truly haven't found another religious group in this country that practices the "love thy neighbor" doctrine regardLess of the circumstances. Good guys this Presbyterians
NT1440 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 02:42 PM   #130
localoid
macrumors 68020
 
localoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: America's Third World
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
Lilith is kind of out-of-canon. She is never named in Genesis, but some say she is the woman who was created in the first chapter, alongside Adam. Then, in the second chapter, Eve had to surgically created, because Lilith was just too much trouble.
Some versions of the Lilith saga claim she was history's first oppressed housewife, who was dumped by a domineering Adam, because she too independent minded and preferred sexual positions other than the missionary. (Why the Lifetime channel hasn't made a movie about Lilith, is a mystery.)

The earliest written accounts of Lilith seem to be in Hebrew sources dating from the Middle Age, although oral accounts were said to be much earlier.

Some say it's Lilith that's portrayed in Michelangelo's Temptation and Fall (of Sistine Chapel fame) who is coiled around the Tree of Knowledge. But then, people claim a lot of things...

Quote:
One could infer that the first humans were not Adam and Eve, but some unnamed couple whose children provided the mates for the children of the latter two. Note that in chapter one, they are created out of nothing, in god's likeness, whereas in chapter two, they are created out of the dust of the earth.

Foursomes may have been older than we thought.
The actual line from the KJV, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (emphasis added), is an interesting use of nosism. (Or is it? )

Quote:
Originally Posted by NT1440 View Post
See I'm not a religious guy at all, but I LOVE the Presbyterian church. ...
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is indeed very progressive, but there are some Presbyterian denominations in the U.S. that are far more conservative.
__________________
My remake of the definitive Populuxe film on 1950s automotive, industrial/interior/architectural design: American Look (1958), Reimagined
localoid is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 02:52 PM   #131
Don't panic
macrumors 68040
 
Don't panic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: having a drink at Milliways
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
To break it down a a little more, there is the New Testament and the Old Testament. The Old Testament has a very well-made argument for its reliability made by Professor K. Kitchen of Liverpool called "On the Reliability of the Old Testament" (gotta love those Brits and their dry titles). It's quite good, and I recommend it as a good starting point.
if you were arguing the opposite you might have some more credibility, but the Old testament is quite obviously a mostly fictional story, infused with some historical tidbits.
it would be like arguing that harry potter's stories are good historical documents because they contain somme accurate description of places and customs of contemporary england, and everything else, well, you can't prove it's wrong. Except the HP sagais better written, much more fun to read, more internally consistent and with a far superior moral message.
__________________
I do not believe in lot of things, but I do believe in duct tape.
Miles Straume
linky to stonyc's ww table
Don't panic is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 04:26 PM   #132
localoid
macrumors 68020
 
localoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: America's Third World
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don't panic View Post
if you were arguing the opposite you might have some more credibility, but the Old testament is quite obviously a mostly fictional story, infused with some historical tidbits. ...
I think referring to it as "cognitive estrangement" is appropriate. That term, coined by Darko Suvin, simply means "the factual reporting of fictions". Such stories "seem real" because they're written as "realistic fiction", e.g., based on actual historical events and/or people, with a fictionalized story line.
__________________
My remake of the definitive Populuxe film on 1950s automotive, industrial/interior/architectural design: American Look (1958), Reimagined
localoid is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 04:33 PM   #133
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by localoid View Post
I think referring to it as "cognitive estrangement" is appropriate. That term, coined by Darko Suvin, simply means "the factual reporting of fictions". Such stories "seem real" because they're written as "realistic fiction", e.g., based on actual historical events and/or people, with a fictionalized story line.
Josiah Bartlett was a truly great President. No, really, man, and that C.J. was shamefully hot.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 04:34 PM   #134
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
Josiah Bartlett was a great President. No, really, man, and that C.J. was shamefully hot.
Best damn President this nation has ever seen
NT1440 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 04:42 PM   #135
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by localoid View Post
I think referring to it as "cognitive estrangement" is appropriate. That term, coined by Darko Suvin, simply means "the factual reporting of fictions". Such stories "seem real" because they're written as "realistic fiction", e.g., based on actual historical events and/or people, with a fictionalized story line.
Certainly, imagine future historians arguing about the real life of Abel Magwitch or Jean Valjean because London and Paris were real places.

The Bible is a work of fiction.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 07:19 PM   #136
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
Josiah Bartlett was a truly great President. No, really, man, and that C.J. was shamefully hot.
And a war hero.
chown33 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 07:53 PM   #137
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post
Psalm 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. [...]
I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
—Psalm 82:1, 6-7

I don't think there has ever been an issue with the notion of there being many supernatural beings, but there is only one God, the almighty, the one who is above all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by localoid View Post
See also: Elohim
I looked both up on line and it makes little sense to me. Bible Gateway, of course I did not spend much time researching it.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 10:06 PM   #138
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by chown33 View Post
And a war hero.
But what will they say about him, man? That he was a good man? That he was a wise man? That he had a plan, man?

oh, wait, that was the other guy
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 10:11 PM   #139
Renzatic
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
[I]But what will they say about him, man? That he was a good man? That he was a wise man? That he had a plan, man?
Hey, I'd vote for him. He's a poet-warrior in the classic sense.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 11:11 PM   #140
sviato
macrumors 68000
 
sviato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: HR 9038 A
No one has addressed the obvious yet: if God didn't want Adam and Eve to sin, why did it give them access to the tree of knowledge?
sviato is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 11:25 PM   #141
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by sviato View Post
No one has addressed the obvious yet: if God didn't want Adam and Eve to sin, why did it give them access to the tree of knowledge?
It was a test? But it does not come across as such. In the text I've read,the Lord God seems genuinely puzzled that he was disobeyed. That's along the same lines as how could he hold them accountable- they did not have knowledge of good and evil before hand if we want to equate evil with disobeying your deity's commands.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2014, 11:46 PM   #142
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by sviato View Post
No one has addressed the obvious yet: if God didn't want Adam and Eve to sin, why did it give them access to the tree of knowledge?
The world's first game show?

Humans were voted off the island out of the garden.
chown33 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2014, 12:19 AM   #143
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by sviato View Post
No one has addressed the obvious yet: if God didn't want Adam and Eve to sin, why did it give them access to the tree of knowledge?
It works in mysterious ways, its motivations we kenneth not.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2014, 09:05 AM   #144
Irishman
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by localoid View Post
Actually, it hasn't been left untouched. For example, due to the Reformation (16th-century), the contents of the Protestant and Catholic Bibles came to differ.

If you look at the chart under the Canons of various Christian traditions on Wikipedia's page on Biblical Canon, you can see the differences that have evolved between various Christian traditions. See the Christian biblical canons section on the same page for details and dates.

Another Wikipedia page, Christian biblical canons, notes that the New Testament "did not reach its final term" until 1563 (the Tridentine Council.)
One thing we've found that speaks to how averse to change the Judaic keepers of the biblical texts were is the Isaiah Scroll at Qumran. Dating from ca 1st century -BCE or CE, it was found largely intact, and largely in the form we know it today.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don't panic View Post
if you were arguing the opposite you might have some more credibility, but the Old testament is quite obviously a mostly fictional story, infused with some historical tidbits.
it would be like arguing that harry potter's stories are good historical documents because they contain somme accurate description of places and customs of contemporary england, and everything else, well, you can't prove it's wrong. Except the HP sagais better written, much more fun to read, more internally consistent and with a far superior moral message.
You clearly haven't read Kitchen's book.

Come back when you have and then we'll discuss it with that shared knowledge.
Irishman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2014, 11:13 AM   #145
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
One thing we've found that speaks to how averse to change the Judaic keepers of the biblical texts were is the Isaiah Scroll at Qumran. Dating from ca 1st century -BCE or CE, it was found largely intact, and largely in the form we know it today.
Does that authenticate them as "the truth"?

Quote:
You clearly haven't read Kitchen's book.
Come back when you have and then we'll discuss it with that shared knowledge.
I did not realize the having read Kitchen's book was a prerequisite. Maybe you could just summarize his important points?
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2014, 12:26 PM   #146
Irishman
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
Does that authenticate them as "the truth"?



I did not realize the having read Kitchen's book was a prerequisite. Maybe you could just summarize his important points?
I was specifically addressing the claim that the biblical texts were unreliable because they'd been redacted. Whether or not it contains "the Truth" for a given reader is ultimately up to the reader.

Kitchen's book is too long to really summarize here while still doing it justice, although, Spoiler Alert! he concludes that the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible is more reliable than most documents from the times they speak to.

Last edited by Irishman; Jan 3, 2014 at 12:33 PM.
Irishman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2014, 03:01 PM   #147
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
I was specifically addressing the claim that the biblical texts were unreliable because they'd been redacted. Whether or not it contains "the Truth" for a given reader is ultimately up to the reader.

Kitchen's book is too long to really summarize here while still doing it justice, although, Spoiler Alert! he concludes that the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible is more reliable than most documents from the times they speak to.
"More reliable than most" implies there are other documents that are even more reliable. So why isn't the Old Testament revised to be in accord with those documents?

Or perhaps you're just using a common phrase rather than a making specific logical assertion.


Here's an Amazon link for the book:
http://www.amazon.com/On-Reliability.../dp/0802803962

There's a "Look Inside" that presents most of Chapter 1, and all or most of the end-notes.

Having browsed most of the "Look Inside" rendition of Chapter 1, I think it's safe to conclude that Kitchen is using archaeology and its various finds (sites and writings) to confirm or refute the accuracy of the Old Testament.

While I don't dispute the approach, it does raise some questions for me:
  1. How would one verify the accuracy of things that don't have archaeological evidence?
  2. What if there are disagreements about the interpretation of some pivotal evidentiary find? How would one resolve those?
  3. What, if anything, would one conclude about the accuracy of unverifiable parts of the Bible, based on the accuracy of the verifiable parts?
Or in general, how does one actually determine the accuracy of anything in the Bible?

Lacking a clear and rational set of rules for what constitutes valid evidence and what doesn't, I don't see any way to conduct a systematic search for "accuracy". Lacking an agreed-upon set of rules for deciding accuracy any results will be more travesty than inquiry. To me, this seems fundamental to the question itself, and to any possible research anyone might undertake to answer it.

If accuracy amounts to "in concordance with scientific archaeology", then that's basically doing a textual analysis of the Bible as another document that needs to be verified by scientific scrutiny. In other words, one's initial premise is that Science, or the specific science of Archaeology, is the most reliable source of facts with which to interpret or assess the accuracy of Biblical writings, and that Biblical writings which conflict with the scientifically discovered facts are to be considered wrong (inaccurate), in whole or in part. There is some room for alternate interpretations, but only for as long as there is credible scientific disagreement, or a scarcity of credible archaeological evidence. In other words, if a better theory (in the scientific sense) or better evidence appears in the future, then that discovery represents a more accurate picture of the Bible itself. In short, Biblical accuracy is subject to scientific verification. This seems to me to be antithetical for anyone who believes in Biblical inerrancy.


The simplest example I can think of the second question is Flood Geology. Some Young Earth Creationists assert, for example, that the entire fossil record (the part of the geologic column containing fossils) was deposited in about one year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Fossils
Young Earth Creationists such as Morris and Whitcomb in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, say that the age of the fossils depends on the amount of time credited to the geologic column, which they ascribe to be about one year.
If one accepts YECs position as representing a genuinely disputable interpretation, then all of geology and archaeology is called into question, and probably sciences like physics and chemistry as well, since much dating of ancient objects relies on those sciences. Of course, there's always "And then a miracle happened", but that's well outside of what science can address.


The third question raises some implications, partly because it's based on implication. As an example, if 75% of Exodus can be verified by archaeology, does this imply that 75% of Genesis is accurate? (Note: 75% is a made-up number). Is the accuracy of any part an implication of the accuracy of another part (omitting obvious cases, such as two parts that refer to the same thing)? Or does every part need to be independently and meticulously verified?
chown33 is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
General: The DisplayOut Bible Menneisyys2 Jailbreaks and iOS Hacks 15 Apr 6, 2014 08:12 AM
The Keynote Projector Bible Menneisyys2 iPhone Accessories 6 Nov 10, 2013 04:37 PM
Bible Box - Bible Reading Plan Scheduler kimshako iPhone and iPod touch Apps 1 Apr 14, 2013 09:25 PM
The Closed Captioning bible Menneisyys2 iPad Apps 2 Nov 25, 2012 08:36 AM
Need some help with the bible! Orange Furball Politics, Religion, Social Issues 33 Oct 26, 2012 07:51 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:44 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC