Catholic Church no longer swears Bible to be all true

[DiscipleDOC]

I guess I stuck my nose where it should have been. Sorry. :)
Gib says that was not your nose he felt last night.

[UDawg]

That's real nice. Way to set a good example to the lost sheep.



:D

[DiscipleDOC]

Lol....I couldn't help myself. You left yourself WIDE open for a kamehameha blast.:D

[UDawg]

Lol....I couldn't help myself. You left yourself WIDE open for a kamehameha blast.:D
LOL I know but you know I can always come back with your witnessing for Christ is not done just by words but by action. :D I know it's a low blow but it is also hypocritical of me to say. LOL

[Ninjaman09]

You guys go nuts every time we Christians talk about creation. You get nasty and start to put us down. I see the same thing happening here.
Nah man, it ain't like that. :D
No problem bro. I shouldn't have said anything anyway. I guess I stuck my nose where it should have been. Sorry. :)
It's OK man I still wub j00. :hug:

[UDawg]

It's OK man I still wub j00. :hug:
Stay away from me, fancy pants.


:afro2:

[netviper13]

Wow, someone should start an Evolution thread! Whether a day is 18 hours or 30 hours its still a day and not an eon of time. The monthly and yearly cycles can all be learned from studying the stars and seasons. But the weekly cycle is unique. God could have created everything in one second, but he chose to do it the way he did to set up the week, which hasen't changed in over 6000 years- notice I did not say 6 billion, because if the world were really that old it would have vaporized long ago!

So many factual errors, so little time. In fact, it is because of nutjob arguments like that, that former Christians like me are no longer so.

Continuing on what DaveW said, the week is a completely artificial creation. Our current calendar was not created until the 1500s, and even its predecessor was developed in around 45 BCE. That is nowhere near 6,000 years.

The Universe would have been vaporized long ago? What exactly are you basing that argument on? Because there is somewhere around zero evidence to support it. Assuming redshift and blueshift to be true, and experimentation has shown them to be, we know there are stars that are far older than 6,000 years. In addition, carbon dating has shown us innumerable examples of Earthly inhabitants far older than 6,000 years - dinosaurs being one of them. And don't give me that lunatic BS about it all being a "test" from God - I've heard that one so many times it's about made me crazy. It also has no scriptural support.

Why is it so unreasonable to see most of the Old Testament as allegory? Jesus was quite fond of using parables to get his points across, I see no reason why God would not do the same. Furthermore, the flood story of the Old Testament existed in the epic of Gilgamesh long before the creation of the OT even began. We also know that Judaism went through several revisions in its attempt to gain increasing membership against the existing polytheistic religions of the time.

A little anthropology goes a long way, folks.

[UDawg]

Jesus used parables as a tool to teach people so they would understand. The old testiment is not a parable or a allegory. Jesus is clear when he was using a parable. He took the law and used the parable but the law he took was not a allegory and the law came from the old testiment. Likewise in the old testiment if they use a story for teaching they say it as such. The problem you guys have is that the old testiment reads as a documentary not a allegorical story. You can chose to believe it or not but you cannot change what it is trying to say.

It is fine to dispute the existance of God and the deity of Jesus. You guys get out of your relm when you start talking about scripture. This is the ONLY area in which I discuss such issue. You keep saying things as fact in which you have no idea of what you are talking about. You get a bit of informatin and run with it. Yet the information you get is wrong.

[netviper13]

How do you reconcile that with the known existence of the flood myth in Gilgamesh long before the OT even existed?

[UDawg]

How do you reconcile that with the known existence of the flood myth in Gilgamesh long before the OT even existed?
I do know about this myth in Iraq. Remember the old testiment is said to be written by Moses as told to him by God. That means that many of the events occured well before Moses was alive and there for before the old testiment was written.

[retsam]

It's OK man I still wub j00.

Gib says that was not your nose he felt last night.
im really starting to worry about you guys....all this gay sex talk and all..

[netviper13]

im really starting to worry about you guys....all this gay sex talk and all..

Well it has been a big week for coming out, so who knows what kind of announcements we may see in the next few days :D

[CybrSage]

I do know about this myth in Iraq. Remember the old testiment is said to be written by Moses as told to him by God. That means that many of the events occured well before Moses was alive and there for before the old testiment was written.


Exactly, I think people are coming to the wrong conclusions. The reason there are so many ancient stories about a great flood is because the children heard the story on their grandpa's knees, who heard the story from his grandpa, who heard the story from his grandpa, who was on the ark.

If we assume the flood happened, it would have been such a memorable event for those alive (ie, those on the ark) they would have made sure to tell their kids and grandkids, who would have told theirs, etc.

I told my daughter the stories about how my grandfather was horribly injured in WW2 while fighting the Germans in Italy...my grandfather told them to me. I will tell them to my grandchildren (when I have some). This story will be known by 5 generations and it is not nearly as impressive as the great flood.

[Sazar]

Gilgamesh != Noah.

Kinda goes hand in hand with, good story and morals, not to be taken literally.

[CybrSage]

Gilgamesh != Noah.

Kinda goes hand in hand with, good story and morals, not to be taken literally.


Which is why one story was slowly altered over time, and the other is part of the foundation of a religion and therefor not slowly altered over time.

[Sazar]

Altered? It has, other than a few prime components, been completed converted to have religious connotations rather than being a factual telling.

Have you watched national geographic and discovery shows about the Gilgamesh flood? There is scientific evidence to support what happened and physical evidence to prove that people did exist at the time of the telling in the location it was supposed to have occured in.

Noah's story on the other hand is a story adapted from other tellings. Not provable.

[CybrSage]

Noah's story on the other hand is a story adapted from other tellings. Not provable.

And also not true.

[UDawg]

Gilgamesh != Noah.

Kinda goes hand in hand with, good story and morals, not to be taken literally.
The story of Noah is not abut morals. It is about God punishing the world for its sins and promising to never flood the world again. It would help if you read the scriptures. Yet most here don't. They just put their finger in the air and comment on something they don't know about. Further more they watch a documentary on the History channel then think they have unique insight to scriptures. Drives me nuts, as if scripture can be summed up in a half hour sitcom.

[netviper13]

Which is why one story was slowly altered over time, and the other is part of the foundation of a religion and therefor not slowly altered over time.

Gilgamesh was re-told in the exact same form as the OT, and in fact pre-dates oral tellings of OT stories by up to 900 years. It is also one of the oldest known written texts, yet again pre-dating any written forms of the OT. That paired with the substantial editing process that went into paring the OT down (hence the current cannon) makes for Gilgamesh being a much more reliable vehicle of anthropological history. In addition, Gilgamesh has not been re-written to suit the needs of ruling monarchy (ala King James edition of the Bible).

[sytaylor]

Indeed, it seems highly likley given what we do know (one of Rummy's known knowns :D)... That the OT story of Noah was actually a recounting of the story from Gilgamesh of a great flood. Attempting to put more detail into what was essentially a story passed from grandfather to grandchild as cybr put it. Although IMO a lot of scripture has suffered from this form of chinese whisper effect, which has an uncanny nack for overblowing highlights and missing out details. Especially when you throw in an agenda for belief.

[Sazar]

And also not true.

I agree, it is not true.

[UDawg]

Indeed, it seems highly likley given what we do know (one of Rummy's known knowns :D)... That the OT story of Noah was actually a recounting of the story from Gilgamesh of a great flood. Attempting to put more detail into what was essentially a story passed from grandfather to grandchild as cybr put it. Although IMO a lot of scripture has suffered from this form of chinese whisper effect, which has an uncanny nack for overblowing highlights and missing out details. Especially when you throw in an agenda for belief.
Yes, a pretty boy in Halifax with more shoes than a "straight" man should have has it all figured out with regards to the old testiment. :D

/gooses sy. :eek:

[Jazzy jeff]

How? The dude's a friggin flamebaiter and nothing more. None of his posts have any substance, he's just trolling for an argument and throwing out inflammatory rantings. So right back at you, Jazzy. :thumbsup:

No different than me going around saying, "Wow let's start a Creationism thread! Only takes a genius to believe that man was created by some imaginary magic man in the sky and that the world is 6 billion years old!", get my point?

Fook you Ninja. You atheistic slug. Seeing how you love lies so much, I hope you mutate into Charles Darwin's left nut.:p

[Jazzy jeff]

I too would love to see evidence of the 6000 years claim here.

The 6000 year figure is an approximation. If you start at creation and go the time of Abraham it was about 2000 years, from Abraham to Jesus Christ was about 2000 years and from Jesus until now was about 2000 years. It's not an exact figure, but it doesn't have to be because there isn't a million or a billion at the end of it.

Which reminds me of a little-known fact. Back in the late 60's when they landed on the moon for the first time, the scientists who studied the moon knew that comsic dust bombards the moon at a constant rate. So they figured that if the moon had been up there for millions of years, there could be upwards of 10 to 50 feet of this stuff on the surface. So when they designed the lunar lander they put big pods on it so it would just rest on the surface and not sink in. Funny thing is that when they got up there, there was only a 1/4 of an inch of dust on the surface. So they took a 1/4 of an inch and plugged it into their formula and they calculated that the moon is only 6000 years old!!!! I wonder why that didn't make it into any scientific journals. Wow, maybe the Bible isn't just a fairy-tale after all!!!!!!!!

[sytaylor]

Yes, a pretty boy in Halifax with more shoes than a "straight" man should have has it all figured out with regards to the old testiment. :D

/gooses sy. :eek:

I stand on the shoulders of Giants, it just so happens I pick great shoes when I do so. As apposed to an ugly boy in nowhere's'vill who needs stilts to see over the crowd and who has to shriek to get Gibby's attention :eek:

I Double goose yee!