Reply: An atheist's critique of the Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-06-2011, 01:05 PM
RE: Reply: An atheist's critique of the Bible
This is a difficult topic, because you can never say for sure what whoever wrote it meant. Especially when posts are written by multiple people, who may not have the same description style. The use of it's, can be very ambiguous. Not easily placed. it's could be referring to the suns light or the moons. I for one think it was meant as the moons own light, because I don't think they had a great understanding of how the light that seems to come from the moon, is actually reflected light from the great sun. And since I don't think the bible is actually true, I would have to presume that the people who wrote it weren't in on any big secret and were only functioning with the basic knowledge shared by everyone of the times. While I agree it could be taken either way, as most things in the bible, I think it's a safe bet as to what they meant.
If it were fueled by the knowledge of god, wouldn't it be a good idea for him to just say outright that the sun reflects the light of the moon. Maybe even say, and some day you will find dinosaur bones, and have porn easily accessible on a thing called the internets. I mean why would he be so ambiguous with his words? It's more convincing to just be as upfront and fully descriptive as possible. If we are supposed to be following his every word than why not be specific?
Hell why invent free will at all?

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lucradis's post
14-07-2011, 07:52 AM
RE: Reply: An atheist's critique of the Bible
HBAF, will you continue with this or let this thread die?

By the time you stop ready this, you'll realze what a waste of time it has been Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2011, 11:16 PM
RE: Reply: An atheist's critique of the Bible
The entire scripture(s) are the mythological stories of bronze age goat herders.

My favorite, The earth is flat and only 6,000 years old. The modern interpretation of this scripture is that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and round. You see clearly that the bible is not wrong.

Also, god created the entire world in 6 days. Modern interpretation, the universe is 13.4 billion years old and was created by a quantum singularity event.
Again, bronze age goat herders had it right. You have to just divide 13.4 billion by 6 to see what god meant by a day.

It all makes sense when you through out common sense and reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thomas's post
21-08-2011, 05:00 PM
RE: Reply: An atheist's critique of the Bible
Yah the bits about the moon and sun both going dark would make perfect sense either way. Since it can be read "Both will go dark" or "The sun will go dark, and thus the moon will go dark," there's really no way to tell, and you have to look elsewhere. And elsewhere, it starts to look more and more like the moon was thought to be it's own light. At best, you can argue that the verses might be poetically interpretted, but even then, there's nothing about those verses that says they weren't meant literally either. You can't get further than 'who knows?'

Besides, it's hardly the only problem with the Bibles cosmology. My personal favorite is the poor order of Genesis. No matter how much you interpret Genesis, the order of creation is all wrong. You can argue that a day is "some unknown amount of time, use as a demarcation", but you cannot argue that something on day one (Creation of the Earth) happened after something on day three (Creation of the Sun). There's absolutely no way to square that with modern science. Not to mention there are two separate Genesis accounts, which contradict each other in order. Was man the first life god created, or the last?

Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2, and both contradict science. Even ignoring all of science, biblical literalism fails after only two chapters in. Interpretation fails too, because you can't interpret out of order. The most that can be said about the bible is that it is the writings of man about god as they understood him, and that it contains all the failings of man that others books do as well. But then, when you acknowledge that the bible is an imperfect history of man's interaction with God, you realize you need secondary sources to weed the true from the false. And those are few and far between, and basically non-existent when it comes to the actual miracles and magic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: