What happens now that Biblical Literalism has been completely disproven?

[CheskiChips]

Much like Joseph was sold into slavery by his brethren, it was God's doing to save all our lives.

This shows a total lack of understanding of what happened in the Genesis passages.

Orthodox Jews have no scripture for Satan?
You have overlooked them.
The scripture above doesn't say "angels that turn themselves into light"
You have mis-quoted the scripture.
The scripture said; "Satan is transformed into an angel of light"
That means he can appear as a messenger of truth. A minister of righteousness.
He doesn't just appear as "the devil" tempting mankind to turn from God.
He appears as a minister of righteousness claiming to speak for God, but adding to or taking away from the Word of God.

You can quote "Satan" to mean anything you want apparently. Unfortunately, I can't. But yes that's right...in the TORAH the 5 books given from G*d, the word "Satan" שטן does not appear even one time.

The word "satan" is similar to another word in Hebrew commonly used "Ploni" which means "so and so" or "any random person". So in Hebrew texts when the word "Satan" is used it means "Any random accuser that you might encounter..." Before you randomly argue some inane point...try re-reading some lines with the words "An accusing person" in place of "Satan" and see if they make sense.

Here's an example:
"9 Then the accuser answered the LORD, and said: 'Doth Job fear God for nought?"
"But put forth Thy hand now, and touch all that he hath, surely he will blaspheme Thee to Thy face.' "

We're talking about an evil saddistic man who wants to take joy from Job by taking from all his HARD WORK. Thus the accusing man is accusing because he says "He fears G*D? Let's make his life miserable."

What's another similar example of this? Haman...from the book of Esther.

 

[TheVisitor]

This shows a total lack of understanding of what happened in the Genesis passages.

This type with Joesph's life is a pattern of the life of the Messiah.
From his being sold into slavery, reported as dead, raised up to set next to Pharaoh, including His taking of a Gentile wife, before he revealed himself to his brethren. That is where Israel stands today.

I'm not going to argue anymore.
You can beleive what they are telling you, or search these things out for yourself.

 

[CheskiChips]

So you're not going address even one of the numerous times I entirely disproved your statements? For example...regarding Satan. My proof regarding Issaiah. You're running away and ironically telling me to search things out...though you can't read the original Torah. Yet you think your opinion would have equal validity...

 

[TheVisitor]

So you're not going address even one of the numerous times I entirely disproved your statements? For example...regarding Satan. My proof regarding Isaiah. You're running away and ironically telling me to search things out...though you can't read the original Torah. Yet you think your opinion would have equal validity...

You haven't disproved a thing.
Anyone can Babel-Fish or Alta-Vista a translation.
The only thing you've managed to show us is an ugly habit for being rude.
No one's runnng away, I'm just not going to argue with you.
It's not always about proving the other person wrong.
People's opinions are valid even if they're wrong.

 

[rjr6]

I'll say it for him. There is a very real possibility that you actually believe Noah built an ark to accomodate two of every kind of animal on the planet. (Clearly he had not heard of the dangers of inbreeding.) It is hugely frightening to many of us that an adult human, with no brain damage arising from genetic defects, or physical trauma, could seriously entertain such a close minded notion, purely on the basis of what it says in a collection of myths from a tribe of nomads.

I value and am in awe of the power of the human mind. I am inspired by what we have learnt about the universe through the dedicated questioning of tens of thousands of committed individuals. I am enthused by the potential for the further extension of this knowledge throught the same rigorous application of scientific methodology.

And I am appalled by the self inflicted, self righteous stupidity of persons such as yourself. You are not in a state of grace, you are in a state of ignorance that you have chosen for yourself. You are using the power of your mind to deceive that same mind, body and spirit. You are rejecting the work of millions simply because it does not fit your prejudices. You are deprived of the opportunity to share in the wonders that science has yet to reveal because you deny truth when it stares you in the face.

It is difficult not to be frightened at the possibility such evil could spread.

Hopefully you are through tearing me down. It is entertaining and complimentary that you did it so eloquently. It is interesting that you used the term 'evil' in your response. What do you think 'evil' is? What is it's scientific basis?

 

[rjr6]

How then did noah get hold of the sophisticated microscopy equipment required to identify both the species and sex of all animals that are a few millimetres or less in size?
Where did he acquire the advanced taxonomical knowledge to identify and sex them correctly?
Where did he acquire electric lighting to provide photosynthetic organisms with sufficient light to survive ?
Where did he acquire all of the aquarium equipment to keep all of the aquatic organisms alive for 12 months?
How did marsupials and monotremes migrate from the middle east to autralasia without leaving any fossil evidence of that journey? - and why did none of them stop to find appropriate habitats on the way?

The record of Noah does not implicitly state photosynthetic organisms, which by and large would be plants. God did ask Noah to bring some food. It also states animals that "are upon the Earth". It makes no mention of aquatic creatures. Another term used frequently in the record of Noah when referring to the animals he is to assemble is "flesh". This would not necessary exclude animals with exoskeletons, but it may be interpreted that way. Maybe a biblical scholar could answer you better.

 

[CheskiChips]

You haven't disproved a thing.
The New Testament calls Satan "the accuser" also, but that's only one of the attributes allotted him.
Anyone can Babel-Fish or Alta-Vista a translation, but that won't show you truth.

You have refused to allow any spiritual or supernatural definitions for most of your translations.
That would point to you're being influenced from something like a modern day split off of the Sadducee's, who don't believe in the supernatural or a resurrection.
That is not part of Orthodox Judaism, or any current mainstream religion that I know of.
What religion did you say you claim to represent?
You never did say did you.

Other than having an ugly habit for being rude, you haven't shown anyone anything, right or wrong.
So stop patting yourself on the back.
You haven't managed to show any of my statements to be false or any of your statements to be true.

Now that is the most amazing part to me....
Even odds with flipping a coin toss would have given someone more of a chance of getting something right than that.

My only conclusion is you're some kind of sock puppet intentionally contradicting every post on this topic of religion for the fun of it, or you're just some kid playing on their parents computer while they're at work.

So...which is it?
I'm all ears. :shrug:

My name is Chezki, (חזקי) short for Ezekiel (יחזקאל)

I'm Jewish, I read Hebrew, my biblical Hebrew is fluent...no translations. Spiritualism is not written of in the Torah, though it can be extracted from it...and is on many Talmudic cases out of Lawful mandate. The majority of said knowledge comes from other sources...even the Catholics know that. You could reread my passages I cite, they ARE the evidence of your mis-interpretation.

Most Christians are willing to admit they don't have an inerrant book, and accept mistranslations. You don't...you're not arrogant...you're insane.

Again you've completely shown lack of understanding...Sadducees rejected the oral Torah, they didn't believe in the (at time equivalent) Talmudic law. I clearly don't believe this. But not even the Pharisees were willing to alter the texts to make it say something...the laws go to great length to extract information without doing this.

 

[TheVisitor]

My name is Chezki, (חזקי) short for Ezekiel (יחזקאל)I'm Jewish, I read Hebrew, my biblical Hebrew is fluent...no translations.

Glad to know that. I may need some help in that area sometime.

Most Christians are willing to admit they don't have an inerrant book, and accept mistranslations. You don't...you're not arrogant...you're insane.

You think I'm insane?
It may be a fine line between insanity and whatever it is I am.
None of that should reflect upon the Bible's accuracy.

Most Christians have accepted man's word for an interpretation.
Trinity three god nonsense, Roman roads, Purgatory, Apostles creed, Tongues for evidence...it goes on and on.
God is turning back to Israel my Jewish friend, when the iniquity of these Christian "Amorites" are full.
He only deals with one group at a time.

But not even the Pharisees were willing to alter the texts to make it say something...the laws go to great length to extract information without doing this.

They may have been the world's greatest experts at knowing the "letter" of the law. No one is denying that.
But the letter killeth.It's the Spirit that giveth life.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

It's not always about proving the other person wrong.

GREAT!

People's opinions are valid even if they're wrong.

Not so great.
No. Wrong opinions are not valid.

 

[TheVisitor]

GREAT!
Not so great.
No. Wrong opinions are not valid.

They are valid to them.
Opinions don't have to be correct, they are just "opinions" after all.

 

[swarm]

It may be a fine line between insanity and whatever it is I am.

Nope.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hopefully you are through tearing me down.

I am incapable of tearing you down. You are already mired in the stygian depths of superstition and blind self delusion.

It is interesting that you used the term 'evil' in your response. What do you think 'evil' is? What is it's scientific basis?

Evil is an emotive, subjective term used by humans to describe attitudes or persons whom they believe constitute a serious and cosncious threat to their survival, or the survival and prosperity of the species, or of sub-sets of the species, or to elements of the life as a whole.

 

[rjr6]

I am incapable of tearing you down. You are already mired in the stygian depths of superstition and blind self delusion.
Evil is an emotive, subjective term used by humans to describe attitudes or persons whom they believe constitute a serious and cosncious threat to their survival, or the survival and prosperity of the species, or of sub-sets of the species, or to elements of the life as a whole.

Your festoon your argument with literary and mythological references yet you find the record of Noah malicious and even a threat to your survival. This seems to be an apparent contradiction. Care to explain?

 

[SkinWalker]

Your festoon your argument

Care to explain?

 

[pjdude1219]

Therefore since Isaiah was well BEFORE Christianity...it's impossible for him to have said 'Lucifer'

could be an accepted translation but not be used in the context he thinks it is being used. Lucifer mean light-bringer in latin. and is roughly translated as day-star or morning-star

 

[Ophiolite]

Your festoon your argument with literary and mythological references yet you find the record of Noah malicious and even a threat to your survival. This seems to be an apparent contradiction. Care to explain?

1. Literary and mythological references are clearly that. They are not factual. They may have a bearing, through example, analogy and the like, on how we conduct our lives, but they remain fictional.
Use of metaphor, literary devices, poetry is often a positive thing. Employing the rich web of story, myth and legend to understand or explain human desires and goals is a good thing.

I in no way find the record of Noah malicious and even a threat to (my)survival. That is is because I treat it as an interesting and informative myth. What I find dangerous is the posturing of individuals who fail to recognise the mythical character of the tale and believe it to factual.

The contradiction you have perceived is thus wholly non-existent. (Just as the holy, in this case is non-existent.)

 

[rjr6]

1. Literary and mythological references are clearly that. They are not factual. They may have a bearing, through example, analogy and the like, on how we conduct our lives, but they remain fictional.
Use of metaphor, literary devices, poetry is often a positive thing. Employing the rich web of story, myth and legend to understand or explain human desires and goals is a good thing.

I in no way find the record of Noah malicious and even a threat to (my)survival. That is is because I treat it as an interesting and informative myth. What I find dangerous is the posturing of individuals who fail to recognise the mythical character of the tale and believe it to factual.

The contradiction you have perceived is thus wholly non-existent. (Just as the holy, in this case is non-existent.)

Legend and myth often employs the Holy, along with The Record of Noah. Would you have these references removed for future generations?

 

[Ophiolite]

Legend and myth often employs the Holy, along with The Record of Noah. Would you have these references removed for future generations?

Which references? The references to the Holy? Let them remain, but let us educate ourselves and our children to understand the source and the nature of these 'Holy' things. They are not 'Holy'. They are concepts arising out of the human desire to explain and understand and be cooperative and organised.

You seem to be having trouble understanding me. I am a great fan of the Old Testament. It has a long and distinguished history. It sheds light on the evolution of human thought. It contains - in the KJV - some beautiful poetry. It has some great stories and some of these contain morals that are applicable even to 21st century living.

It is not, however, a literal description of the past, nor is it the Word of God. Attempting to claim it is so is an offense against sanity, reason and religion.

 

[Cellar_Door]

What about the Talmud or the Koran? Are they literally correct too? The Vedas? The Guru Granth Sahib? The Tipitaka?

What's your particular hang up with the Bible?

 

[rjr6]

Which references? The references to the Holy? Let them remain, but let us educate ourselves and our children to understand the source and the nature of these 'Holy' things. They are not 'Holy'. They are concepts arising out of the human desire to explain and understand and be cooperative and organised.

You seem to be having trouble understanding me. I am a great fan of the Old Testament. It has a long and distinguished history. It sheds light on the evolution of human thought. It contains - in the KJV - some beautiful poetry. It has some great stories and some of these contain morals that are applicable even to 21st century living.

It is not, however, a literal description of the past, nor is it the Word of God. Attempting to claim it is so is an offense against sanity, reason and religion.

In what religion do you find the Word of God that is not offensive?