Very well then, be happy and content with your own smartness and smugness, Raf. This will all wash out in the end, when there will be no excuses for what we thought and how we have lived.
you can try to turn your ignorant position to make it look like my character flaw all you want. The truth is you're upset because I'm not falling for your tactic of derailing the conversation with flawed arguments that hinge on equivocation, historical ignorance and outright stupidity.
Your position is an insult to the intelligence of our readers. Just because YOU think they're stupid enough to fall for the bullcrap you're peddling doesn't mean they are.
That doesn't make me smug, and it only makes me smarter than you if you actually believe the stupidity you're peddling.
If you are suggesting the possibility that Adam and Eve actually existed in history because of quantum physics,
I can't even finish that sentence.
Come on.
Quantum physics does not challenge what we know about history. That's not how it works.
I suspect there was an element of comedy in your post, but considering the stupidity that some folks are actually trying to sell, it's hard to let a comment like that go.
you can try to turn your ignorant position to make it look like my character flaw all you want. The truth is you're upset because I'm not falling for your tactic of derailing the conversation with flawed arguments that hinge on equivocation, historical ignorance and outright stupidity.
Your position is an insult to the intelligence of our readers. Just because YOU think they're stupid enough to fall for the bullcrap you're peddling doesn't mean they are.
That doesn't make me smug, and it only makes me smarter than you if you actually believe the stupidity you're peddling.
Yeah, truth is, I wasn't trying to derail the conversation, and have no motive or reason for being upset, as I'm not trying to make you "fall" for anything. So, call my reasoning flawed, or whatever else you care or want to. It comes as no surprise that a two dimensional approach to a three dimensional problem might only see any three dimensional thinking as not only an insult to their way of looking at it, but as "outright stupidity."
A one-dimensional approach (yours) to a multidimensional problem (actual errors in Genesis) does not get to be called complex by virtue of your declaration.
There is nothing "three dimensional" about your approach, nor is there anything "two-dimensional" about the issues being raised here. One needs to look beyond the surface to recognize the inherent flaws in the absurd story told by Genesis. To pretend that your view is the one with depth is an insult to thinking people.
Bolshevik: Sarah would have been in her 60s or 70s at the time of the incidents described. We haven't gotten there yet. But we will, assuming Conductor ThreadDerail doesn't insist on baffline us with more of his bulls hit as we progress down the tracks.
We've already gone over the fact that diversity in human language long preceded the fictional account of the Tower of Babel. I mean, you only need to read the previous chapter to realize that there was already more than one language. Human languages did not originate in one place (Iraq?) at one time. They developed regionally, like their religions.
We go from this fictional story to the progeny of Shem, one of Noah's kids. It should be noted that we're now focusing on a particular line out of Shem, unlike the cursory list in the previous chapter.
Turns out Shem was 98 years old at the time of the flood. That means Noah was about 498 years old when Shem was born. Assuming the flood came 120 years after Noah was first warned about it, it seems rather interesting. It means the ark construction was underway 18 years before Shem was BORN. Add at least, what, 12 years to get him involved in the construction? So Noah is at it by himself for 30 years before Shem can be expected to start helping out.
I don't think we get Ham or Japeth's ages.
I wonder if they had different mothers. Difficult to tell, as the Bible mentions nothing about the women in this story. Almost like they didn't exist matter.
Ok, so Shem lives 500 years after becoming a dad, for a total of 600 years. This is fantasy. This is not a real story being told about people who really lived.
Anyway, fast forward: All these people live ridiculously long lives until finally, Terah, s spring chicken at the age of 70, has a son named Abram. Who is Abram's mother? Who cares?
Abram's brother Haran, Lot's father, dies in the land of his birth, Ur of the Chaldeans.
It's a fascinating reference, because the Chaldeans did not occupy Ur until about 800 B.C.
Which means this story wasn't passed down from generation to generation. And more to the point, this story was not written by Moses. This story was written centuries after Moses, had he existed at all (spoiler alert: he didn't) would have lived and died.
Now, is it possible that Abram was born in the land that many centuries later became known as Ur of the Chaldeans. Sure. To a 70-year-old dad? Sure. [True story: U.S. President John Tyler has two grandsons who are still alive as of this writing. He was very old when he had a child, and that son was very old when he had his children]. And Abram's grandfather lived to the age of 148? Umm.... we're starting to get a little far-fetched here. And Abram's great-grandfather lived to be 230 years old? Aw, come on!
Anyways, here we go:
A woman's name suddenly matters: Abram is married to Sarai. Abram's brother, Nahor, is married to Milkah, whose father was Haran.
Did you follow that? Ok, let me make it blunt: Abram's brother married his own niece.
Ew!
Ok, it was another time. I know objective morality is not dependent on circumstances, but still. Ok, so the guy marries his own niece.
At least Abram didn't do that. That would be sick.
Terah, Abram's father, dies at the age of 205. That's years.
If you were more concerned with finding or learning how it's possible than you've been with finding or learning how it's not possible, perhaps you'd end up with something closer to the truth. But, not only might that conflict with some of your other beliefs, it would undoubtedly take a lot more time and effort, which you evidently don't have nor care for.
And, given your rather obvious disdain for much of anything that I might think or have to say on this thread, neither do I care to butt heads over it.
However, I think there actually are some plausible answers to these issues that can be found on the Internet, IF one is sufficiently motivated and intelligent enough to know how to look for them.
This is the result of a two minute search on google, so it's probably barely scratching the surface of what's out there:
And as for the length of years they lived, evidently you've never looked at or consider the possible (and probable) effect of the hyperbaric condition that likely existed prior to the flood (which, of course, you suppose and say never happened...)
That would make some sense if Genesis were written centuries after it was alleged to have been written. That's a problem for authenticity, though.
The flood never took place. We've been over that ad nauseum, and simply declaring it to be my supposition doesn't make it so. It is a documentable fact that there was never a worldwide flood, and it is a documentable fact that there was never any regional flood of sufficient size and impact to match the description in Genesis. There most certainly were regional floods, but nothing that would have carried the ark to the mountains of Ararat.
If you have evidence of extreme hyperbaric conditions that existed after the flood resulting in 300-year lifespans in that region of the world between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago, please present that evidence. Until then, you are throwing crap at this thread to see what sticks, and it's getting annoying. Evidence, or shut up already.
go ahead and call them fake, it's your choice to think whatever you want to.
I just think it's unfortunate that you think others looking at this from a different perspective than what you're accustomed to is so incredibly "stupid."
(although you seem to define arrogance differently, that appears to me to fit the mold for it quite well.)
anyways, I'm done with this thread. it's obvious that you're not here to honestly discuss, but rather, just to garner more support for and/or promote your own religious (purported to be "more intelligent") beliefs.
Flood stories occur everywhere in the world. You could take that to mean a common event or experience in human history, or a common use of symbolism. Water represents chaos.
Jesus walked on stormy water because he conquered chaos, death and destruction. Just as the Ark saved life in the flood.
No, I am not simply repeating that the flood never happened. Multiple protestations were brought up, examined and discarded as factually without basis. To suggest that the Biblical flood happened because it might be referring to a different flood that is not described in the Bible is your prerogative, but it's kind of like saying Spider-Man really happened because spider bites happen. I do not have the burden of reviewing every spider bite to disprove that it is the origin of the Spider-Man story. You are under the obligation to find the one that resulted in Spider-Man.
More to the point, it's like saying a particular man raped a particular woman because there have been cases of men raping women. Yes, there have been cases. Many cases. But that doesn't make each allegation something that "actually happened" just because other cases did. [Note to other mods: this is not even REMOTELY about politics].
If I concoct a fictional rape for a fictional story, the fact that there were non-fictional rapes in my community, in my state or in my country does not confer a benefit of the doubt on the fictional rape I concocted so that you must assume it really happened unless someone demonstrates otherwise.
Likewise, I am not obliged to examine every regional flood to discover the origin of the Bible's fictional story. You have the burden of finding a flood that matches the description in the Bible. You won't find one. There was a very good attempt, but it fell short on the facts (it did not cover anything that could even remotely be referred to as "the mountains of Ararat").
The fact that other cultures had flood stories centuries before Genesis was written only proves that the author of Genesis borrowed the story -- not that the flood of Genesis actually happened. It actually weighs AGAINST the notion that the Genesis flood actually happened.
So if you don't mind, we're now at Abraham and for some reason you insist on going back to the Flood that never happened, and at this point in the discussion it is derailing.
We are actually given Sarah's age, at least indirectly. She is nine years younger than Abraham (he was 99 years old when Isaac was born, she was 90).
So in Genesis 12, when it says Abraham was 75 years old, we can deduce that Sarah was 66, give or take a year in either direction depending on the time of the year and the months of their births.
So anyway, even today there are women in their 60s who can be quite attractive.
Interestingly, we are not told who the Pharoah is who took Sarah as a concubine. I know, curious, right? Why doesn't the Bible name its Pharoahs? Or Noah's wife?
So Pharoah finds out that Sarah is actually Abraham's wife, and he gives her back to lift the curse God apparently placed on Egypt. See, because Sarah was Abraham's wife, God inflicted Pharoah and his house with serious diseases. The Bible doesn't say how Pharoah discovered this information. When my family gets sick, I assume there's something going around. I don't think, hey, maybe woman number 7 that I'm sleeping with is married to another man and Yahweh, in whom, by the way, I don't believe, is smiting me. I'd better give this guy his property wife back.
In any event, he tells Abraham to scram, and Abraham does.
Actual error? You tell me. Personally, I think authenticity is poorly served by an anonymous Pharoah in this (and every subsequent) Bible story. We're supposed to believe this is not relevant information? Mind you, the names and ages of each person in the family tree from Shem to Abraham is relevant. But he name of the Pharoah who violated Sarah was not?
Interesting that this bit of information would place the described events in history, whereas omitting it... does not.
So I'm not going to say "Actual Error" here, because it's not. It's an unverifiable story that lacks credibility for a few reasons, but is not completely outside the realm of possibility.
A credible story would have given years that could be cross referenced (this happened when Abraham was 75. That's precision. What year of which Pharaoh's reign was it? (And please don't say the author of Genesis would not know this information because the author is God, remember?)
By the way, we learn in Genesis 20 that Abraham and Sarah really ARE brother and sister -- they have the same father, though not the same mother. Sarah's mother was who cares she's just some woman not named.
By the way, specific references to specific world leaders don't automatically make the stories credible. They just help.
Knowing Jesus' crucifixion took place under Pontius Pilate, for example, leads the overwhelming majority of scholars to believe Jesus was a real person who was really executed. But knowing that Forrest Gump met Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, not to mention Elvis Presley, John Lennon and Dick Cavett, does not make Gump any more real.
But maybe Gump did exist, because we all know there was a war in Vietnam and a lot of soldiers fought and survived it. Some of them even earned Purple Hearts.
anyways, I'm done with this thread. it's obvious that you're not here to honestly discuss, but rather, just to garner more support for and/or promote your own religious (purported to be "more intelligent") beliefs.
This is, of course, the pot calling the kettle black.
It's obvious that you've been here to throw sh*t at this discussion to see what sticks, and to promote your own religious beliefs at the expense of an actual analysis of the evidence. You repeatedly come here and declare things to be so despite the evidence weighing against your position (ie, I'm more sure of the existence of Adam and Eve than I am of George Washington: NO ONE who takes these things seriously believes your statement to that effect was correct -- you were either being dishonest or dumb as a brick).
Oh, for those checking: The "hyperbaric conditions" that existed prior to the flood existed hundreds of thousands of years ago. The flood is alleged to have happened roughly 5,000 years ago. You cannot argue with a straight face that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old because of the oxygen content in the atmosphere 190,000 years before he was born.
Hyperbaric conditions do not prolong life by hundreds of years. If you think they do, by all means, show the research and collect your Nobel Prize.
Stop relying on pseudoscientific websites that prop up religion by misrepresenting science to gullible audiences.
I do hope you keep your promise to be done with this thread unless you decide to change your approach and get real about the evidence and what it shows. Equating your wishful thinking with evidence has derailed this thread long enough.
You want undisputable, concrete, verifiable by the senses "proof," Raf, before you can believe it? Ha!
You will never have or get it, until it's too late. Why? Because that methodology or approach just doesn't work. Never has and apparently, it never would. God has already tried it for hundred and hundreds of years with Israel - yet, here you are, thinking you're so much better, smarter, or less stiff necked than they were. Believe it or not, the law was actually given to convict Israel (separated and elevated above all other nations of the world), that they - at best - were still... well, in your words, outright stupid and in need of a diaper change.
Ya, you go, Raf. Have your fun here. You's (and so many others nowadays) are all so much smarter and more intelligent than all them back then were!
Do I want indisputable proof that a hyperbaric atmosphere existed 10,000 years ago, and that such a condition in the atmosphere would account for 900-year lifespans? Yeah. And I don't think that's asking too much.
What I DO think asks too much is when pseudoscientific know-nothings throw words around hoping that their audiences are too stupid to call them on their bulls hit, expecting people to accept the possibility without a SCRAP of supporting evidence, citing articles written by other know-nothings who link to articles that actually disprove their f-ing case.
And yeah, I'm far more educated than iron and bronze age goatherders who thought the sky was a dome holding back a wall of water.
Do I want indisputable proof that a hyperbaric atmosphere existed 10,000 years ago, and that such a condition in the atmosphere would account for 900-year lifespans? Yeah. And I don't think that's asking too much
As it turns out, the mechanics of DNA is the largest single factor determining the maximum amount of time we can live.
Because they are indicators that this story is bull.
People don't live to be 480 years old, start a 120-year construction project, have a kid or three, endure a worldwide (literally or from his perspective) catastrophe, survive it, then live another couple of hundred years.
I think that Rafs 180 degree from solid believer to non- believer is a great example of believing who Jesus Christ was/ is.... or not and....like some have said 'it will all come out in the wash' anyhoo...each to their own. I'd rather 'believe' and possibly be wrong. The whole 'snake' chit chat earlier on is interesting from the point of view that satan is called a REPTILE, not necessarily a snake. I've been reading articles and 'conspiracy theories' about demons actually being reptilian in appearance and nature....thoughts anyone ?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
137
24
35
25
Popular Days
Aug 2
50
Sep 12
15
Oct 4
13
Jul 30
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 137 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 24 posts
Bolshevik 35 posts
TLC 25 posts
Popular Days
Aug 2 2014
50 posts
Sep 12 2018
15 posts
Oct 4 2018
13 posts
Jul 30 2017
11 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
I thought I was quite clear in my post # 81: even your reply in post # 82 gave every indication that you knew I was providing only a list of books And just to verify I was going provide what you
Raf
Actually, you don't just get to say this and have it be true. That's arrogance. "My position is wise even if it makes no sense to you." Honestly, that's the definition of arrogance. Why demo
Grace Valerie Claire
Raf, I beg to differ with you; Demons do exist! I know one lives here in DC!!
TLC
Very well then, be happy and content with your own smartness and smugness, Raf. This will all wash out in the end, when there will be no excuses for what we thought and how we have lived.
https://www.wanttoknow.info/i/what-is-reality
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
you can try to turn your ignorant position to make it look like my character flaw all you want. The truth is you're upset because I'm not falling for your tactic of derailing the conversation with flawed arguments that hinge on equivocation, historical ignorance and outright stupidity.
Your position is an insult to the intelligence of our readers. Just because YOU think they're stupid enough to fall for the bullcrap you're peddling doesn't mean they are.
That doesn't make me smug, and it only makes me smarter than you if you actually believe the stupidity you're peddling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Quantum physics certainly questions the nature of reality.
Not sure it addresses how to interpret the Bible.
The Bible doesn't interpret itself of course. That's a little too VPW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If you are suggesting the possibility that Adam and Eve actually existed in history because of quantum physics,
I can't even finish that sentence.
Come on.
Quantum physics does not challenge what we know about history. That's not how it works.
I suspect there was an element of comedy in your post, but considering the stupidity that some folks are actually trying to sell, it's hard to let a comment like that go.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Yeah, truth is, I wasn't trying to derail the conversation, and have no motive or reason for being upset, as I'm not trying to make you "fall" for anything. So, call my reasoning flawed, or whatever else you care or want to. It comes as no surprise that a two dimensional approach to a three dimensional problem might only see any three dimensional thinking as not only an insult to their way of looking at it, but as "outright stupidity."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So what about the part where during a famine Abram's wife sleeps with Pharaoh so Abram and she can get rich?
Why didn't God just send food?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A one-dimensional approach (yours) to a multidimensional problem (actual errors in Genesis) does not get to be called complex by virtue of your declaration.
There is nothing "three dimensional" about your approach, nor is there anything "two-dimensional" about the issues being raised here. One needs to look beyond the surface to recognize the inherent flaws in the absurd story told by Genesis. To pretend that your view is the one with depth is an insult to thinking people.
Bolshevik: Sarah would have been in her 60s or 70s at the time of the incidents described. We haven't gotten there yet. But we will, assuming Conductor ThreadDerail doesn't insist on baffline us with more of his bulls hit as we progress down the tracks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Genesis 11
We've already gone over the fact that diversity in human language long preceded the fictional account of the Tower of Babel. I mean, you only need to read the previous chapter to realize that there was already more than one language. Human languages did not originate in one place (Iraq?) at one time. They developed regionally, like their religions.
We go from this fictional story to the progeny of Shem, one of Noah's kids. It should be noted that we're now focusing on a particular line out of Shem, unlike the cursory list in the previous chapter.
Turns out Shem was 98 years old at the time of the flood. That means Noah was about 498 years old when Shem was born. Assuming the flood came 120 years after Noah was first warned about it, it seems rather interesting. It means the ark construction was underway 18 years before Shem was BORN. Add at least, what, 12 years to get him involved in the construction? So Noah is at it by himself for 30 years before Shem can be expected to start helping out.
I don't think we get Ham or Japeth's ages.
I wonder if they had different mothers. Difficult to tell, as the Bible mentions nothing about the women in this story. Almost like they didn't
existmatter.Ok, so Shem lives 500 years after becoming a dad, for a total of 600 years. This is fantasy. This is not a real story being told about people who really lived.
Anyway, fast forward: All these people live ridiculously long lives until finally, Terah, s spring chicken at the age of 70, has a son named Abram.
Who is Abram's mother? Who cares?Abram's brother Haran, Lot's father, dies in the land of his birth, Ur of the Chaldeans.
It's a fascinating reference, because the Chaldeans did not occupy Ur until about 800 B.C.
Which means this story wasn't passed down from generation to generation. And more to the point, this story was not written by Moses. This story was written centuries after Moses, had he existed at all (spoiler alert: he didn't) would have lived and died.
Now, is it possible that Abram was born in the land that many centuries later became known as Ur of the Chaldeans. Sure. To a 70-year-old dad? Sure. [True story: U.S. President John Tyler has two grandsons who are still alive as of this writing. He was very old when he had a child, and that son was very old when he had his children]. And Abram's grandfather lived to the age of 148? Umm.... we're starting to get a little far-fetched here. And Abram's great-grandfather lived to be 230 years old? Aw, come on!
Anyways, here we go:
A woman's name suddenly matters: Abram is married to Sarai. Abram's brother, Nahor, is married to Milkah, whose father was Haran.
Did you follow that? Ok, let me make it blunt: Abram's brother married his own niece.
Ew!
Ok, it was another time. I know objective morality is not dependent on circumstances, but still. Ok, so the guy marries his own niece.
At least Abram didn't do that. That would be sick.
Terah, Abram's father, dies at the age of 205. That's years.
Yuhright.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
If you were more concerned with finding or learning how it's possible than you've been with finding or learning how it's not possible, perhaps you'd end up with something closer to the truth. But, not only might that conflict with some of your other beliefs, it would undoubtedly take a lot more time and effort, which you evidently don't have nor care for.
And, given your rather obvious disdain for much of anything that I might think or have to say on this thread, neither do I care to butt heads over it.
However, I think there actually are some plausible answers to these issues that can be found on the Internet, IF one is sufficiently motivated and intelligent enough to know how to look for them.
This is the result of a two minute search on google, so it's probably barely scratching the surface of what's out there:
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Chaldeans.html#.W8UET2nn-Uk
And as for the length of years they lived, evidently you've never looked at or consider the possible (and probable) effect of the hyperbaric condition that likely existed prior to the flood (which, of course, you suppose and say never happened...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That would make some sense if Genesis were written centuries after it was alleged to have been written. That's a problem for authenticity, though.
The flood never took place. We've been over that ad nauseum, and simply declaring it to be my supposition doesn't make it so. It is a documentable fact that there was never a worldwide flood, and it is a documentable fact that there was never any regional flood of sufficient size and impact to match the description in Genesis. There most certainly were regional floods, but nothing that would have carried the ark to the mountains of Ararat.
If you have evidence of extreme hyperbaric conditions that existed after the flood resulting in 300-year lifespans in that region of the world between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago, please present that evidence. Until then, you are throwing crap at this thread to see what sticks, and it's getting annoying. Evidence, or shut up already.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
yeah, so what. lots of repetition and/or being more popular doesn't necessarily make it any more right or more scientific.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47vDpY3eMXg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd5-dHxOQhg
go ahead and call them fake, it's your choice to think whatever you want to.
I just think it's unfortunate that you think others looking at this from a different perspective than what you're accustomed to is so incredibly "stupid."
(although you seem to define arrogance differently, that appears to me to fit the mold for it quite well.)
anyways, I'm done with this thread. it's obvious that you're not here to honestly discuss, but rather, just to garner more support for and/or promote your own religious (purported to be "more intelligent") beliefs.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths#Africa
Flood stories occur everywhere in the world. You could take that to mean a common event or experience in human history, or a common use of symbolism. Water represents chaos.
Jesus walked on stormy water because he conquered chaos, death and destruction. Just as the Ark saved life in the flood.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You guys seriously need a diaper change.
No, I am not simply repeating that the flood never happened. Multiple protestations were brought up, examined and discarded as factually without basis. To suggest that the Biblical flood happened because it might be referring to a different flood that is not described in the Bible is your prerogative, but it's kind of like saying Spider-Man really happened because spider bites happen. I do not have the burden of reviewing every spider bite to disprove that it is the origin of the Spider-Man story. You are under the obligation to find the one that resulted in Spider-Man.
More to the point, it's like saying a particular man raped a particular woman because there have been cases of men raping women. Yes, there have been cases. Many cases. But that doesn't make each allegation something that "actually happened" just because other cases did. [Note to other mods: this is not even REMOTELY about politics].
If I concoct a fictional rape for a fictional story, the fact that there were non-fictional rapes in my community, in my state or in my country does not confer a benefit of the doubt on the fictional rape I concocted so that you must assume it really happened unless someone demonstrates otherwise.
Likewise, I am not obliged to examine every regional flood to discover the origin of the Bible's fictional story. You have the burden of finding a flood that matches the description in the Bible. You won't find one. There was a very good attempt, but it fell short on the facts (it did not cover anything that could even remotely be referred to as "the mountains of Ararat").
The fact that other cultures had flood stories centuries before Genesis was written only proves that the author of Genesis borrowed the story -- not that the flood of Genesis actually happened. It actually weighs AGAINST the notion that the Genesis flood actually happened.
So if you don't mind, we're now at Abraham and for some reason you insist on going back to the Flood that never happened, and at this point in the discussion it is derailing.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If my post was unclear I was NOT arguing that the flood was an actual event.
So, why was Sarah pimping herself out? She couldn't have been old if Pharaoh was hearing all about how hot she was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Sorry Bolshevik.
Bottom line is, moving on from the flood...
We are actually given Sarah's age, at least indirectly. She is nine years younger than Abraham (he was 99 years old when Isaac was born, she was 90).
So in Genesis 12, when it says Abraham was 75 years old, we can deduce that Sarah was 66, give or take a year in either direction depending on the time of the year and the months of their births.
So anyway, even today there are women in their 60s who can be quite attractive.
Interestingly, we are not told who the Pharoah is who took Sarah as a concubine. I know, curious, right? Why doesn't the Bible name its Pharoahs? Or Noah's wife?
So Pharoah finds out that Sarah is actually Abraham's wife, and he gives her back to lift the curse God apparently placed on Egypt. See, because Sarah was Abraham's wife, God inflicted Pharoah and his house with serious diseases. The Bible doesn't say how Pharoah discovered this information. When my family gets sick, I assume there's something going around. I don't think, hey, maybe woman number 7 that I'm sleeping with is married to another man and Yahweh, in whom, by the way, I don't believe, is smiting me. I'd better give this guy his
propertywife back.In any event, he tells Abraham to scram, and Abraham does.
Actual error? You tell me. Personally, I think authenticity is poorly served by an anonymous Pharoah in this (and every subsequent) Bible story. We're supposed to believe this is not relevant information? Mind you, the names and ages of each person in the family tree from Shem to Abraham is relevant. But he name of the Pharoah who violated Sarah was not?
Interesting that this bit of information would place the described events in history, whereas omitting it... does not.
So I'm not going to say "Actual Error" here, because it's not. It's an unverifiable story that lacks credibility for a few reasons, but is not completely outside the realm of possibility.
A credible story would have given years that could be cross referenced (this happened when Abraham was 75. That's precision. What year of which Pharaoh's reign was it? (And please don't say the author of Genesis would not know this information because the author is God, remember?)
By the way, we learn in Genesis 20 that Abraham and Sarah really ARE brother and sister -- they have the same father, though not the same mother. Sarah's mother was
who cares she's just some womannot named.Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
By the way, specific references to specific world leaders don't automatically make the stories credible. They just help.
Knowing Jesus' crucifixion took place under Pontius Pilate, for example, leads the overwhelming majority of scholars to believe Jesus was a real person who was really executed. But knowing that Forrest Gump met Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, not to mention Elvis Presley, John Lennon and Dick Cavett, does not make Gump any more real.
But maybe Gump did exist, because we all know there was a war in Vietnam and a lot of soldiers fought and survived it. Some of them even earned Purple Hearts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This is, of course, the pot calling the kettle black.
It's obvious that you've been here to throw sh*t at this discussion to see what sticks, and to promote your own religious beliefs at the expense of an actual analysis of the evidence. You repeatedly come here and declare things to be so despite the evidence weighing against your position (ie, I'm more sure of the existence of Adam and Eve than I am of George Washington: NO ONE who takes these things seriously believes your statement to that effect was correct -- you were either being dishonest or dumb as a brick).
Oh, for those checking: The "hyperbaric conditions" that existed prior to the flood existed hundreds of thousands of years ago. The flood is alleged to have happened roughly 5,000 years ago. You cannot argue with a straight face that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old because of the oxygen content in the atmosphere 190,000 years before he was born.
Hyperbaric conditions do not prolong life by hundreds of years. If you think they do, by all means, show the research and collect your Nobel Prize.
Stop relying on pseudoscientific websites that prop up religion by misrepresenting science to gullible audiences.
I do hope you keep your promise to be done with this thread unless you decide to change your approach and get real about the evidence and what it shows. Equating your wishful thinking with evidence has derailed this thread long enough.
Change your diaper.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here's what really happened after the rain.
HERE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You want undisputable, concrete, verifiable by the senses "proof," Raf, before you can believe it? Ha!
You will never have or get it, until it's too late. Why? Because that methodology or approach just doesn't work. Never has and apparently, it never would. God has already tried it for hundred and hundreds of years with Israel - yet, here you are, thinking you're so much better, smarter, or less stiff necked than they were. Believe it or not, the law was actually given to convict Israel (separated and elevated above all other nations of the world), that they - at best - were still... well, in your words, outright stupid and in need of a diaper change.
Ya, you go, Raf. Have your fun here. You's (and so many others nowadays) are all so much smarter and more intelligent than all them back then were!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Do I want indisputable proof that a hyperbaric atmosphere existed 10,000 years ago, and that such a condition in the atmosphere would account for 900-year lifespans? Yeah. And I don't think that's asking too much.
What I DO think asks too much is when pseudoscientific know-nothings throw words around hoping that their audiences are too stupid to call them on their bulls hit, expecting people to accept the possibility without a SCRAP of supporting evidence, citing articles written by other know-nothings who link to articles that actually disprove their f-ing case.
And yeah, I'm far more educated than iron and bronze age goatherders who thought the sky was a dome holding back a wall of water.
I thought you were, too, for a minute there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
As it turns out, the mechanics of DNA is the largest single factor determining the maximum amount of time we can live.
HERE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
We could throw time dilation and stuff in.
And giants maybe? I mean it was a different world before the flood.
(the above is sarcasm)
Why are their ages significant to mention anyway?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Because they are indicators that this story is bull.
People don't live to be 480 years old, start a 120-year construction project, have a kid or three, endure a worldwide (literally or from his perspective) catastrophe, survive it, then live another couple of hundred years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I think that Rafs 180 degree from solid believer to non- believer is a great example of believing who Jesus Christ was/ is.... or not and....like some have said 'it will all come out in the wash' anyhoo...each to their own. I'd rather 'believe' and possibly be wrong. The whole 'snake' chit chat earlier on is interesting from the point of view that satan is called a REPTILE, not necessarily a snake. I've been reading articles and 'conspiracy theories' about demons actually being reptilian in appearance and nature....thoughts anyone ?
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.