Genesis lies !

[modeller]

.
The Beginning
Genesis 1 . And God said , And God said , And God said, ......................
And God called , And God called , And God called, .................
And God saw that it was good, And God saw that it was good,
And God blessed, And God blessed , And God blessed,.........

Not a word of this can be true because it is reported speech and no one was there. Whether you believe the world is 4 billion or 5 thousand years old it is of no relevance . Whenever it was, there were no witnesses so it was made up and written by man .

So are Judaism, Christianity and Islam all based on lies ?

[Old_Geezer]

?!?!?
I am capable of saying things when no one is there. Aren't you ?
Besides it is a general description not recorded evidence.

[Duncer]

Never????

[modeller]

Old Geezer Yes I do but it is never reported . It can't be no one is there.

#Besides it is a general description not recorded evidence.#

General description by whom ? Man ! Man who didn't arrive until 4 billion years later and then made up a fairy story.

[chakka35]

birdie, there are many more examples of that. Who recorded those (beautiful) words that reportedly passed between Mary and her cousin Elizabeth and those of the angels to the shepherds? Who overheard what the devil said to Jesus in the wilderness or what the angel said to Mary when she found herself pregnant.

Christains don't realise how much they subconsciously read the gospels in the same way as they read fiction, with the author being omniscient about every conversation that took place and even every thought.

The original "Mark" stops at Ch 16 verse 8 with the women finding the tomb empty and running away afraid. " Neither said they any thing to any man." So --- er --- how do we know?

[chakka35]

"Christians", sorry.

[modeller]

#what the angel said to Mary when she found herself pregnant. #

Well that is at least plausible , half the teenage pregnant girls today still say the same thing . " I'm a virgin " . The only difference is today nobody believes them.

[sandyRoe]

Isn't the line now: 'The Devil made me do it'

[jomifl]

After a few thousand years the major flaw in the bible has been spotted by our very own modeller. Does it have any credibility now? (did it ever?)

[Clanad]

To even offer an alternate opinion in this Forum most often invites the casting of aspersions on the offerer's character, intelligence and/or legitimacy of his/her children... but what they hey! It's finally raining, birdie has renewed my faith (no pun intended) in legitimate disagreement (thanks! by the way) and the subject matter is ripe for the exploitation.

Here's the problem: the traditionalist Judaeo/Christian Bible inquirer understands that YHWH's mode of interaction with the Hebrew people in the Old Covenant was in a personal, often face to face mode. This is especially true with
Moshe[i. The skeptic, atheist or agnostic has a difficult time of accepting such interaction with the Creator of the universe from the git-go, of course.

However, the first 5 books (The Penteteuch)of the Old Covenant are accepted by both Jewish and Christian scholars as being written Moshe... probably while the exile in the desert was about half over (20 years). The revelation imparted to him included the creation events, the fall and the Exodus as well as the giving of the Law and Deuteronomy. This is said only to answer modeller's question. If, in fact, he was able to part the Red Sea as well as the other miracles described in the Books, his empowerment to do so was under YHWH's direction.

[i]Chakka's] logomachy re: MK 16: 9-20 is a bit self confidant since nearly 99% of some 6,000 copies dating back to as early as the Third century contain the verses. There are, of course, 2 or 3 schools of thought on the verses since they are annotated as demonstrated by chakka. Nonetheless, an exceptionally strong case is made by Dr. David Miller, Phd., for their inclusion as seen here: http://www.apologetic...tegory=13&article=704 (for those that enjoy scholarly tomes, but well written.)

Of course, our beloved chakka (I sincerely respect his well written views springing from his worldview[i ) will assert, yet again, that the Gospel writers are unknown and unknowable, again, flying in the face of literally eons of scholarship and study. (I ask again, "out of all the thousands of examples of the Synoptics, why are none, nada, zip, zero, attributed to someone else other than the traditionally accepted authors?)

Look, we all tend to seek affirmation of our dearly held belief system (everyone has one) and (myself included) usually only peruse sources favorable to that self affirmation, no? I am perplexed though by the fact that when I first came to this site some 5 or 6 years ago (has it been that long?) there was an exchange between me and a member (long since departed) named [i]Merlin{i] . It went on for nearly 500 posts and included many others. But, throughout that period, not one word of ill-temper or attack was uttered by either side. Some good jousting, of course, and in the end probably noone's beliefs had been changed... but there were one or two, maybe more utterances of "I didn't know that" from both sides.
Sadly, such even temperment seems to have taken flight... ah well... it's still raining and the cows and hay pasture greatly appreciate it... Thanks for indulging this long [i]billet-doux] ...

[naomi24]

//The revelation imparted to him included the creation events, the fall and the Exodus as well as the giving of the Law and Deuteronomy. //

And the details of his own death?

You see, this is the problem, Clanad. Try as you might, there are some things that simply cannot be justified in any rational manner whatsoever. It is impossible for a human being to record his own death - but, if we are to believe what you're saying, apparently Moses did.

As for the nature of R&S changing in recent years, I can only agree with you - but please don't forget it's far from one sided.

[Clanad]

You often pose some solidly based questions, naomi[i and usually takes a lot of study to answer... but this isn't one of those times. [i]Deuteronomy[i] Chapter 34, verses 5 through 12 is so obviously an added obituary, probably written by Joshua (who assumed Moses' mantle) that, if offered as proof of Bible errancy, must be done so without regard for the ratiocinate... there are other, more difficult areas to explore. In fact, [i]Joshua] Ch. 24, vs 29-33 uses exactly the same literary device!

I think you're correct, in at least some cases re: the tenor of the debate being equally shared, naomi ...

[mibn2cweus]

When it comes to the alleged 'divinely inspired word of God' its a shame He was apparently oblivious to the adage, "If you want the job (not Job) done right . . . "

[Mosaic]

Here's one to poner:
http://3.bp.blogspot....anity%2B-%2BImgur.jpg

[jomifl]

Clanad, there is one thing that you are overlooking...and that is that you believe the bible is true because you want it to be true.

[naomi24]

Clanad, I don’t give regard to the ‘ratiocinate’? The very idea! Custard pies at ten paces! :o)

I question the whole, which is why, as spurious as it may appear to you, I must also question the record of Moses’ death. I wonder why an author narrating such extraordinary personal experiences did not record them in the first person – as Ezekiel did (and that has been edited - allegedly). Yes, indeed, precisely the same literary device is used in Joshua Ch. 24, vs 29-33 – along with the rest of Joshua. That too is written in the third person. When the storyline doesn’t fit the agenda you’re seeking It’s very convenient to claim that someone else had a hand in the work, but if you were to give due regard to the ‘ratiocinate’ (good word that!) of that claim, you must know that there is no justification for it. These books cannot possibly be definitively attributed to Moses, for whose existence there is no historical evidence whatsoever. Rationally, we can only conclude they were written by authors unknown. I think that’s solidly based enough.

[Clanad]

On that basis, naomi, a huge amount of ancient but secular writing must also be dismissed. You fail, I believe, to understand the science of ancient document study. Firstly, of course, is the language difference... Hebrew being a much more simple language than our modern English. It only has 22 characters in its alphabet and no vowels, only vowel points and those are a fairly modern invention.
I'm aquainted with men (and 2 women) that have spent their entire adult lives in a university setting studying such ancient languages. It truly can boggle the mind to understand, even a bit, the science of the study... everybit as exacting as the more hard sciences.
To impose your views of what ancient writing should[i or must be is illogical for so logical a pie-thrower!
But to your point... it's not because I [i]want[i] it all to be true (sorry [i]jomfil], but that's really presumptious on your part, since, to my knowledge, we've never met) but because, having been in your position as the resident skeptic, I began being aware of things I hadn't really considered before. Such as; the most common (and grating) accusation one sees on this forum (as well as others) is the ubiquitous statement something along the lines of "... well it's been copied so many times it can't possibly be the same as the originals..." or something equally as banal. Point is as far as ancient documents are concerned, there are far... far more copies of Biblical documents (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls for one) than any other group of documents in the world. The comparison of one group of the Biblical examples against yet a more ancient group reveals the differences to be minimal with none of the differences affecting dogma or other independently corroborated facts of history.
None of this will sway your views... and that's fine, but just don't get me started on Julius Caesar and Vercingoterix! Anyway, have a really good day!