|
Post by Child of God on May 30, 2014 13:17:11 GMT -5
That was yet another incident of a unjust god who would punish a person who, through no fault of his own, by accident entered his father's tent and found him drunk and naked..
Rates up there with an unjust god who would take the life of the innocent child of David & Bathseheba because of their misconduct .
It is hard to believe that there are still people who worship such a god.
Hmmmm... guess I would look a little further into the reason he was cursed than just that he saw his fathers nakedness... Maybe, just maybe, taking that innocent child's life was an act of mercy for all involved... Strange how we as humans think our thoughts and way of looking at things is superior to the one that created us.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 2, 2014 16:00:40 GMT -5
Strange how we as humans think our thoughts and way of looking at things is superior to the one that created us. It is not strange at all. Killing a child because the child's parents committed adultery is immoral no matter how you wish to spin it. It is not a matter of being superior or not. The truth of the matter is that the child most likely died of natural causes and the spokesperson for the god of the day grasped that event to make the point that s/he works for god and people need to listen or more will die. When you are pedaling the existence of a being that you cannot produce having a child that you can claim was killed by god for the sins of the father gives you leverage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2014 9:03:18 GMT -5
Does the definition of what god considers modest change over time and with geography? reminds me of the opening scene of Hawaii when Reverend Abner Hale arrives and is met by a multitude of near nude women. Probably very different that the harbor he had left!That would go against one of the attributes that most people attach to their god. i think what God considers modest hasn't change one iota, what has changed are peoples idea of modest dress namely in the western world... This is a good point. There is a big difference between seeing a picture of native people in traditional clothing and looking at porn. The same with women breast feeding in public. I see no reason why women should have to hide in cupboards and back rooms to feed babies in this day and age. I don't mean flopping it all out in public but being a bit discreet. The internet and TV doesn't leave anything to the imagination if you are going to be a pervert the problem lies with you. Billions of people on the earth today and you try and pretend we don't have bodies. It's not the clothing it's how people perceive themselves that is offensive or not.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 22, 2014 23:36:29 GMT -5
The same with women breast feeding in public. I see no reason why women should have to hide in cupboards and back rooms to feed babies in this day and age. I don't mean flopping it all out in public but being a bit discreet. If it is normal and natural why discreet?Is it perverted is people look at photos/videos of nude people?I think me in a Speedo would be offensive no matter how I perceive myself. Social norms have become more of an issue as people move more freely from society to society.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 23, 2014 0:27:15 GMT -5
That was yet another incident of a unjust god who would punish a person who, through no fault of his own, by accident entered his father's tent and found him drunk and naked..
Rates up there with an unjust god who would take the life of the innocent child of David & Bathseheba because of their misconduct .
It is hard to believe that there are still people who worship such a god.
I suspect Ham didn't just tell his two brothers.... but told others around.Isn't God simply saying in the OT (and the new) that sin has consequences. If sin didn't have consequences we'd be wondering why God didn't act and blaming Him for that. Seems that God can't win either way Thankfully, He is God and it is he that determines what is right or wrong. If it was left up to us, we'd be a crazy, mixed up bunch. Ah, but what one may "suspect" and what the bible states seem to be two different accounts!
Isn't one suppose to believe the bible as it was written and not "add to" or "take away" something & interpret it on one's own?
Why was it a "sin" for Ham to tell his brothers so they were able to go into the tent & cover their father's nakedness?
What really was Ham's "sin" anyway? Just because he went into his father's tent? Was he supposed to "knock" on the tent door first? Was he suppose to avert his eyes when entering his father's tent?
How could he have prevented encountering what he saw?
Nowhere could I ever find an answer to that.
Who was really the "sinner" in this case?
How much more of a "crazy & mixed up" judgment could we have have possibly made than god did in this instance?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 23, 2014 9:57:24 GMT -5
I suspect Ham didn't just tell his two brothers.... but told others around.Isn't God simply saying in the OT (and the new) that sin has consequences. If sin didn't have consequences we'd be wondering why God didn't act and blaming Him for that. Seems that God can't win either way Thankfully, He is God and it is he that determines what is right or wrong. If it was left up to us, we'd be a crazy, mixed up bunch. Ah, but what one may "suspect" and what the bible states seem to be two different accounts!
Isn't one suppose to believe the bible as it was written and not "add to" or "take away" something & interpret it on one's own?
Why was it a "sin" for Ham to tell his brothers so they were able to go into the tent & cover their father's nakedness?
What really was Ham's "sin" anyway? Just because he went into his father's tent? Was he supposed to "knock" on the tent door first? Was he suppose to avert his eyes when entering his father's tent?
How could he have prevented encountering what he saw?
Nowhere could I ever find an answer to that.
Who was really the "sinner" in this case?
How much more of a "crazy & mixed up" judgment could we have have possibly made than god did in this instance?
That piece of scripture always baffled me. What could he have done different? Was it just a way of making their prejudices known? Who knows. The OT is a baffling array of crazy man made rules and a God that makes no sense as a superior entity.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 23, 2014 12:31:49 GMT -5
Ah, but what one may "suspect" and what the bible states seem to be two different accounts!
Isn't one suppose to believe the bible as it was written and not "add to" or "take away" something & interpret it on one's own?
Why was it a "sin" for Ham to tell his brothers so they were able to go into the tent & cover their father's nakedness?
What really was Ham's "sin" anyway? Just because he went into his father's tent? Was he supposed to "knock" on the tent door first? Was he suppose to avert his eyes when entering his father's tent?
How could he have prevented encountering what he saw?
Nowhere could I ever find an answer to that.
Who was really the "sinner" in this case?
How much more of a "crazy & mixed up" judgment could we have have possibly made than god did in this instance?
That piece of scripture always baffled me. What could he have done different? Was it just a way of making their prejudices known? Who knows. The OT is a baffling array of crazy man made rules and a God that makes no sense as a superior entity. Snow & Dmmichgood ~ Here's one suggestion that makes some sense to me regarding the sin of Ham.
www.massbible.org/noah
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/9.html
|
|
logain
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by logain on Jun 23, 2014 13:53:41 GMT -5
Whatever it was that Ham did......it lead to the "Curse of Ham", that doomed Canaan and all his dark skinned progeny to a life of servitude and slavery.
Or so would be claimed by Christians for the majority of its history. Its only the last 200 years (or less in some cases) that the bible has not been used to justify the enslavement and subjugation of "inferior" peoples.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 23, 2014 14:40:56 GMT -5
yes i believe ham got in trouble for seeing his father drunk and naked... Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. and you don't see how ludicrous that is? Especially since it wasn't his fault it was his father's fault? Just another good example of OT stupidity. Even when I was "professing" & believed everything the bible said I thought that was so unjust to treat Ham that way. I thought that he should have been thanked by his father.
Of course that was before I realized that Noah reacted the way many people react when their mistakes are "exposed."
They turn on the person and blame them instead.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 23, 2014 15:15:41 GMT -5
That piece of scripture always baffled me. What could he have done different? Was it just a way of making their prejudices known? Who knows. The OT is a baffling array of crazy man made rules and a God that makes no sense as a superior entity. Snow & Dmmichgood ~ Here's one suggestion that makes some sense to me regarding the sin of Ham.
www.akjbible.com/Noah's%20Curse%20on%20Ham's%20Seed.html
www.massbible.org/noah
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/9.html
It's interesting how people have interpreted this. I find it interesting that he didn't curse Ham, but Ham's son. No where that I know of does it say that Ham castrated his father, so not sure where that apologist got that from. I also find it interesting that Ham and his descendants were supposed to be black and that verse has been used first to enslave the Cannonites, and then after the Christian slavery of blacks. If Noah and his sons were the only people left on earth, and they were supposedly white, how did his sons and grandsons become black in the first place? Obviously, like the flood, it's not a true story, but symbolic.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 23, 2014 15:58:00 GMT -5
It's interesting how people have interpreted this. I find it interesting that he didn't curse Ham, but Ham's son. No where that I know of does it say that Ham castrated his father, so not sure where that apologist got that from. I also find it interesting that Ham and his descendants were supposed to be black and that verse has been used first to enslave the Cannanites, and then after the Christian slavery of blacks. If Noah and his sons were the only people left on earth, and they were supposedly white, how did his sons and grandsons become black in the first place? Obviously, like the flood, it's not a true story, but symbolic. Snow ~ My guess would be that Ham engaged in some form of incest or rape of his father by the sound of the punishment upon Ham's future generations? How history of the races ever entered into this picture beats me, too. Perhaps that's the result of creationists trying to explain the different races after the supposed worldwide flood that destroyed every living thing? Personally, it does sound like the thing that legends are made of and not connected to reality.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 23, 2014 16:08:00 GMT -5
Strange how we as humans think our thoughts and way of looking at things is superior to the one that created us. It is not strange at all. Killing a child because the child's parents committed adultery is immoral no matter how you wish to spin it. It is not a matter of being superior or not. The truth of the matter is that the child most likely died of natural causes and the spokesperson for the god of the day grasped that event to make the point that s/he works for god and people need to listen or more will die. When you are pedaling the existence of a being that you cannot produce having a child that you can claim was killed by god for the sins of the father gives you leverage. Rational ~ Now that's an interesting spin on the OT account of the sin of David and Bathsheba that makes sense to me. God's spokesperson or prophet on earth obviously felt the couple deserved to be punished. However, raping other men's wives was not such an uncommon practice in Rome or centuries before. It is rumored that Caesar had a reputation as a bisexual and got on with the men and women within his Court regardless of marital status, besides proclaiming himself as a god to be worshipped, too.
www.mariamilani.com/ancient_rome/ancient_roman_women.htm
www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/people/couples.htm
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 23, 2014 17:38:34 GMT -5
It's interesting how people have interpreted this. I find it interesting that he didn't curse Ham, but Ham's son. No where that I know of does it say that Ham castrated his father, so not sure where that apologist got that from. I also find it interesting that Ham and his descendants were supposed to be black and that verse has been used first to enslave the Cannanites, and then after the Christian slavery of blacks. If Noah and his sons were the only people left on earth, and they were supposedly white, how did his sons and grandsons become black in the first place? Obviously, like the flood, it's not a true story, but symbolic. Snow ~ My guess would be that Ham engaged in some form of incest or rape of his father by the sound of the punishment upon Ham's future generations? How history of the races ever entered into this picture beats me, too. Perhaps that's the result of creationists trying to explain the different races after the supposed worldwide flood that destroyed every living thing? Personally, it does sound like the thing that legends are made of and not connected to reality.
But again, scripture does not say that Ham did anything to his father other than finding him drunk and naked, laughing about it to his brothers. At that point there would only BE family because supposedly the rest of the world was dead. So what could be so bad about Ham telling the family? They just spent how many months on a boat with a gazillian animals in tight quarters, so I'm sure there was not much left to be seen by the family! So we can hypothesize all we like, but the scripture does not say he did any of those things.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 23, 2014 18:07:30 GMT -5
It's interesting how people have interpreted this. I find it interesting that he didn't curse Ham, but Ham's son. No where that I know of does it say that Ham castrated his father, so not sure where that apologist got that from. I also find it interesting that Ham and his descendants were supposed to be black and that verse has been used first to enslave the Cannanites, and then after the Christian slavery of blacks. If Noah and his sons were the only people left on earth, and they were supposedly white, how did his sons and grandsons become black in the first place? Obviously, like the flood, it's not a true story, but symbolic. Snow ~ My guess would be that Ham engaged in some form of incest or rape of his father by the sound of the punishment upon Ham's future generations? How history of the races ever entered into this picture beats me, too. Perhaps that's the result of creationists trying to explain the different races after the supposed worldwide flood that destroyed every living thing? Personally, it does sound like the thing that legends are made of and not connected to reality.
Actually when viewed as how & why the bible was written, this incident of Ham and his father comes into prospective a bit more.
Someone had to be blamed for something in order to enslave a group of people. They found a rationalization to do just that from this incident. (If indeed it ever really happened.)
Of course, the Christian apologists who never let any opportunity pass, came along & attempted to make into "prefiguring the ridicule Christ would face when dying on a cross!"
Of all the parts of the bible, this absurd incident with Ham and his father clinches the knowledge that the bible is only a history of a small mid-east tribe & their GOD, -nothing more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2014 18:38:09 GMT -5
It's interesting how people have interpreted this. I find it interesting that he didn't curse Ham, but Ham's son. No where that I know of does it say that Ham castrated his father, so not sure where that apologist got that from. I also find it interesting that Ham and his descendants were supposed to be black and that verse has been used first to enslave the Cannanites, and then after the Christian slavery of blacks. If Noah and his sons were the only people left on earth, and they were supposedly white, how did his sons and grandsons become black in the first place? Obviously, like the flood, it's not a true story, but symbolic. Snow ~ My guess would be that Ham engaged in some form of incest or rape of his father by the sound of the punishment upon Ham's future generations? How history of the races ever entered into this picture beats me, too. Perhaps that's the result of creationists trying to explain the different races after the supposed worldwide flood that destroyed every living thing? Personally, it does sound like the thing that legends are made of and not connected to reality.
WOW...never heard that before. as to the different races i have an atlas with a map of where noahs sons children went hams children went south into africa and egypt shems stay near isreal and east of there and japheths went north into turkey and europe...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 23, 2014 18:43:14 GMT -5
Snow shared...Snow ~ You are absolutely right that the only thing that Ham appeared guilty of was seeing his father in a drunken state and naked, which would see ludicrous today. Since Noah and his family, consisting of 8 souls, were the only living survivors at this time in addition to the animals saved on the art, I doubt much was not observed within the ark for about a year while tossed about on the waters in such tight quarters. However, for whatever reason, this event is recorded as some sort of explanation for the fate of the Canaanites in the O.T. books?
For sure, it's not the only thing in the O.T. that defies our imagination, since there are many things recorded in the Bible that do the same, IMO. However, Noah and the flood were mentioned by Jesus in the gospel accounts as related to the end times of civilization as we know it, so perhaps there's some significance attached to this story or legend of ancient times?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 24, 2014 10:29:07 GMT -5
Snow shared...Snow ~ You are absolutely right that the only thing that Ham appeared guilty of was seeing his father in a drunken state and naked, which would see ludicrous today. Since Noah and his family, consisting of 8 souls, were the only living survivors at this time in addition to the animals saved on the art, I doubt much was not observed within the ark for about a year while tossed about on the waters in such tight quarters. However, for whatever reason, this event is recorded as some sort of explanation for the fate of the Canaanites in the O.T. books?
For sure, it's not the only thing in the O.T. that defies our imagination, since there are many things recorded in the Bible that do the same, IMO. However, Noah and the flood were mentioned by Jesus in the gospel accounts as related to the end times of civilization as we know it, so perhaps there's some significance attached to this story or legend of ancient times?
Oh I'm sure there is some significance to the story for the Hebrews likely in the form of symbolism. Whether Jesus ever mentioned the flood is of course anyone's guess knowing how 'doctored' the gospels were with things the writers wanted to link to make things sound more credible. Iow, if Jesus mentioned it, it must be true? Not necessarily of course.
|
|
|
Post by Child of God on Sept 2, 2014 7:41:59 GMT -5
typical human response to a story... add to it and make something out of it that simply isn't there.
to my simple human mind... God is illustrating from an old story... there are consequences for gossiping. We see a fault is someone's life and go spreading it around instead of going to God in prayer seeking to help them. It is pure speculation on my part that part of the problem may have also have been the lack of respect for someone else's home. If he addressed the house, his father, from outside... and his father didn't respond... maybe he shouldn't have entered.
I have never heard the idea that this is where slavery came from. Does anyone know how many black slave OWNERS there were in the south before the civil war? What? You mean there were racist black people? An amazing concept. More racism seen from the blacks today than from all the whites in history combined.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 2, 2014 20:19:02 GMT -5
typical human response to a story... add to it and make something out of it that simply isn't there. to my simple human mind... God is illustrating from an old story... there are consequences for gossiping. We see a fault is someone's life and go spreading it around instead of going to God in prayer seeking to help them. It is pure speculation on my part that part of the problem may have also have been the lack of respect for someone else's home. If he addressed the house, his father, from outside... and his father didn't respond... maybe he shouldn't have entered. I have never heard the idea that this is where slavery came from. Does anyone know how many black slave OWNERS there were in the south before the civil war? What? You mean there were racist black people? An amazing concept. More racism seen from the blacks today than from all the whites in history combined.
Good grief!
That sounds like WHITE SUPREMACIST GROUPS AND SKINHEADS rhetoric!
Which one of these do you belong, I wonder. Aryan Nations
Creativity Movement/World Church of the Creator Klan groups
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 2, 2014 20:32:55 GMT -5
It's interesting how people have interpreted this. I find it interesting that he didn't curse Ham, but Ham's son. No where that I know of does it say that Ham castrated his father, so not sure where that apologist got that from. I also find it interesting that Ham and his descendants were supposed to be black and that verse has been used first to enslave the Cannanites, and then after the Christian slavery of blacks. If Noah and his sons were the only people left on earth, and they were supposedly white, how did his sons and grandsons become black in the first place? Obviously, like the flood, it's not a true story, but symbolic. Snow ~ My guess would be that Ham engaged in some form of incest or rape of his father by the sound of the punishment upon Ham's future generations? How history of the races ever entered into this picture beats me, too. Perhaps that's the result of creationists trying to explain the different races after the supposed worldwide flood that destroyed every living thing? Personally, it does sound like the thing that legends are made of and not connected to reality.
Guesses don't work! The bible doesn't say anything about "incest or rape"
It doesn't say that Ham even went out & "laughed" about his father's condition.
For those that consider the bible as the sacred Word Of God isn't it strange how some people keep adding to or taking away from?
Why do they do that?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 2, 2014 20:44:38 GMT -5
Snow ~ My guess would be that Ham engaged in some form of incest or rape of his father by the sound of the punishment upon Ham's future generations? How history of the races ever entered into this picture beats me, too. Perhaps that's the result of creationists trying to explain the different races after the supposed worldwide flood that destroyed every living thing? Personally, it does sound like the thing that legends are made of and not connected to reality.
Guesses don't work! The bible doesn't say anything about "incest or rape"
It doesn't say that Ham even went out & "laughed" about his father's condition.
For those that consider the bible as the sacred Word Of God isn't it strange how some people keep adding to or taking away from?
Why do they do that?
DMG ~ There's a number of stories in the OT that I don't take literally or regard as historical evidence or explanation for what transpired down through the centuries. Also, I don't feel I'm the only Christian with that point of view. How some apologists make sense of these things is a puzzle to me, too?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 2, 2014 22:34:10 GMT -5
Guesses don't work! The bible doesn't say anything about "incest or rape"
It doesn't say that Ham even went out & "laughed" about his father's condition.
For those that consider the bible as the sacred Word Of God isn't it strange how some people keep adding to or taking away from?
Why do they do that?
DMG ~ There's a number of stories in the OT that I don't take literally or regard as historical evidence or explanation for what transpired down through the centuries. Also, I don't feel I'm the only Christian with that point of view. How some apologists make sense of these things is a puzzle to me, too? However, if every Tom, Dick and Harry or Sally, Jane and Sue, comes along & guesses in very definitive words what they think happened, how can the bible continue to be sacred ?
BTW, has any biblical apologists come up with idea that Ham's "sin" as possible "incest or rape" or that he "laughed' at his father, Noah?
Or are these ideas just another attempt to justify what the GOD of the Bible did to Ham?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2014 10:55:26 GMT -5
Guesses don't work! The bible doesn't say anything about "incest or rape"
It doesn't say that Ham even went out & "laughed" about his father's condition.
For those that consider the bible as the sacred Word Of God isn't it strange how some people keep adding to or taking away from?
Why do they do that?
DMG ~ There's a number of stories in the OT that I don't take literally or regard as historical evidence or explanation for what transpired down through the centuries. Also, I don't feel I'm the only Christian with that point of view. How some apologists make sense of these things is a puzzle to me, too? Faune How do you determine which biblical stories to take literally and which not to? For example, which of the following biblical stories do you take literally and which do you not? Matt10 1 the story of the 6 day creation 2 the story of Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt 3 the story of Jonah and the whale 4 the story of the dumb ass speaking 5 the story of the resurrection of Jesus 6 the story of the ascension of Jesus 7 the story of the rich man and Lazerus 8 the story of the flood 9 the story of the five loaves and two fishes 10 the story of the virgin birth
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 9, 2014 13:37:33 GMT -5
DMG ~ There's a number of stories in the OT that I don't take literally or regard as historical evidence or explanation for what transpired down through the centuries. Also, I don't feel I'm the only Christian with that point of view. How some apologists make sense of these things is a puzzle to me, too? Faune How do you determine which biblical stories to take literally and which not to? For example, which of the following biblical stories do you take literally and which do you not? Matt10 1 the story of the 6 day creation 2 the story of Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt 3 the story of Jonah and the whale 4 the story of the dumb ass speaking 5 the story of the resurrection of Jesus 6 the story of the ascension of Jesus 7 the story of the rich man and Lazerus 8 the story of the flood 9 the story of the five loaves and two fishes 10 the story of the virgin birth Matt10 ~ Point taken! There's a lot of stories found within the Bible in both the O.T. and N.T. that would cause us to ponder their authenticity. Perhaps that's where faith comes in, when we cannot imagine otherwise?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2014 13:48:55 GMT -5
DMG ~ There's a number of stories in the OT that I don't take literally or regard as historical evidence or explanation for what transpired down through the centuries. Also, I don't feel I'm the only Christian with that point of view. How some apologists make sense of these things is a puzzle to me, too? Faune How do you determine which biblical stories to take literally and which not to? For example, which of the following biblical stories do you take literally and which do you not? Matt10 1 the story of the 6 day creation 2 the story of Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt 3 the story of Jonah and the whale 4 the story of the dumb ass speaking 5 the story of the resurrection of Jesus 6 the story of the ascension of Jesus 7 the story of the rich man and Lazerus 8 the story of the flood 9 the story of the five loaves and two fishes 10 the story of the virgin birth it will come to you through devout prayer, reading and contemplation and that doesn't come over night, BTW all those stories are literal...
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 9, 2014 14:39:29 GMT -5
Faune How do you determine which biblical stories to take literally and which not to? For example, which of the following biblical stories do you take literally and which do you not? Matt10 1 the story of the 6 day creation 2 the story of Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt 3 the story of Jonah and the whale 4 the story of the dumb ass speaking 5 the story of the resurrection of Jesus 6 the story of the ascension of Jesus 7 the story of the rich man and Lazerus 8 the story of the flood 9 the story of the five loaves and two fishes 10 the story of the virgin birth it will come to you through devout prayer, reading and contemplation and that doesn't come over night, BTW all those stories are literal... Wally, Do you believe all bible verses should be understood as literal?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2014 17:15:07 GMT -5
Faune How do you determine which biblical stories to take literally and which not to? For example, which of the following biblical stories do you take literally and which do you not? Matt10 1 the story of the 6 day creation 2 the story of Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt 3 the story of Jonah and the whale 4 the story of the dumb ass speaking 5 the story of the resurrection of Jesus 6 the story of the ascension of Jesus 7 the story of the rich man and Lazerus 8 the story of the flood 9 the story of the five loaves and two fishes 10 the story of the virgin birth it will come to you through devout prayer, reading and contemplation and that doesn't come over night, BTW all those stories are literal... Wally, I have no doubt whatsoever that you BELIEVE these stories to be true however just because you believe them to be true doesn't make them so. I believed in the tooth fairy for many years. However taking what you say at face value, perhaps you would outline the process (including your thought process, any dialog with God and the nature of your contemplation) that led you to the conclusion that No. 4, the story of the dumb ass speaking, is literally true. For example, what were the factors you weighed up? How was your conclusion reached? Did you merely guess? Is there anything you can provide which proves that it isn't merely wishful thinking on your part? What did God reveal to you above and beyond what is contained in the story in the Bible that persuaded you it is true? What language did the dumb ass speak? Did it have an accent or speak in a particular dialect? Did it speak with a lisp or demonstrate any other speech impediments? Was there anything about the story that indicated to you that it might be merely metaphorical rather than literal? What additional information do you have that convinces you that the story is true which if I had access to would convince me? Is it just a case that you WANT it to be true? Come on, convince me that you do not merely believe this story to be literally true but KNOW it to be so. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 9, 2014 19:22:43 GMT -5
Guesses don't work! The bible doesn't say anything about "incest or rape"
It doesn't say that Ham even went out & "laughed" about his father's condition.
For those that consider the bible as the sacred Word Of God isn't it strange how some people keep adding to or taking away from?
Why do they do that?
DMG ~ There's a number of stories in the OT that I don't take literally or regard as historical evidence or explanation for what transpired down through the centuries. Also, I don't feel I'm the only Christian with that point of view. How some apologists make sense of these things is a puzzle to me, too? Then my question is which stories in the OT do you decide to take literally and those that you do not take literally?
What are the rules that you use to determine which to take "literally" and which not?
How do you decide the reliability of each?
|
|