Sir Anthony Hopkins: I couldn’t be an atheist

[spidergoat]

You are very dogmatic in your belief in the English translation of Genesis, that must take a lot of faith!

LoRaan I believe is referring to the fact that the Hebrew of Genesis uses the words kol erets for the area flooded. This combination of words is largely to refer to local land or local people not "entirety of the world" and the translation of the English Bible seems to imply. Many feel that the flood story in Genesis refers to a local flood.

That's much more reasonable, but then it contradicts the whole idea of God wiping the world clean and Noah saving two of every (land) animal.

 

[Dywyddyr]

My observation was to point out that the Hebrew the passage was written in probably doesn't say "worldwide" and therefore your dismissal was invalid was met with...you showing that you understood what I was saying. Thanks for the clarification.

Oops, another failure.
Have you tried reading LoRaan's comments at all?
I understood what your point was, LoRaan didn't understand my point.

 

[wynn]

LoRaan I believe is referring to the fact that the Hebrew of Genesis uses the words kol erets for the area flooded. This combination of words is largely to refer to local land or local people not "entirety of the world" and the translation of the English Bible seems to imply. Many feel that the flood story in Genesis refers to a local flood.

If we venture into such text-critical issues, then the whole of Christianity can be dismissed as merely a local, only temporarily relevant religious doctrine!

 

[siledre]

some of you are equating faith with religion, religion isn't the creator of faith, faith is the creation of religion. Me personally, I have faith in mankind.

 

[LoRaan]

If we venture into such text-critical issues, then the whole of Christianity can be dismissed as merely a local, only temporarily relevant religious doctrine!

The point is before we get to english the bible was translated through several generations of Aramaic (and if you think a language stays dormant just look at english). Greek, Latin, german, then english. Many of these languages do not have direct translations. Or the trnaslations are spotty. The greeks did not have the specific fruit mention in the bible for the Tree of Knowledge, so it became the Apple. one of their most beloved fruits. Then take inot accountt hat scribes were rare, and not all of them used the same rules of spelling words. It is not like today where we have so much refence material to work with. The first Bible was a collection of men coppying ancient texts, transcribing oral traditons, and wrtint the events of the day. Most of them knew how to write but it was not their profession at all.

 

[LoRaan]

That's much more reasonable, but then it contradicts the whole idea of God wiping the world clean and Noah saving two of every (land) animal.

Well God was only trying to wipe out the chidren of the outsiders and the sinners. Like with Soddom and Gammorrah it might have been a localized thing.

BTW for S&G if you read it God is not so much pissed about the gays as he is the rapes and the murders. The only other place Godf even mentions a problem with gyas is mosiac law and when Christ came he claimed that he was the fulfillment of that law, and even the Sabbath was not absolute anymore.

 

[wynn]

The point is before we get to english the bible was translated through several generations of Aramaic (and if you think a language stays dormant just look at english). Greek, Latin, german, then english. Many of these languages do not have direct translations. Or the trnaslations are spotty. The greeks did not have the specific fruit mention in the bible for the Tree of Knowledge, so it became the Apple. one of their most beloved fruits. Then take inot accountt hat scribes were rare, and not all of them used the same rules of spelling words. It is not like today where we have so much refence material to work with. The first Bible was a collection of men coppying ancient texts, transcribing oral traditons, and wrtint the events of the day. Most of them knew how to write but it was not their profession at all.

How does this address my concern that if we venture into such text-critical issues, then the whole of Christianity can be dismissed as merely a local, only temporarily relevant religious doctrine?