What happens now that Biblical Literalism has been completely disproven?

Genesis 6:3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people#Oldest_verified_people_ever_.28top_10.29

Lets be clear on this - Biblical literalists beleive that the Bible is the literal word of God and is inerrant - it can never be wrong

but it is as evidenced by the above.

Any biblical literalists care to comment?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If the verse meant "People will only live to 120 years of age" it's unlikely that multiple people lived longer than that in the same book of Genesis. Jacob died at 147, and so did Esau...both of which were descended from Noah.

In Jacobs case, he lived to 147, however he only "lived" for 74 years. Because subtracting the time people were trying to kill him, subtracting the time he was under 13...and you get 74...which is less than 120.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like Mark Twain said, "faith is believing in that which you know ain't so."

Biblical literalism was disproved the minute Newton invented calculus. The story about the Earth coming to a sudden and full stop so a battle could be fought only to suddenly rotate again was tossed out the window. The myth that a man built a boat to house two of every animal on the planet was disproved once Magellan did his thing and the size and scope of the planet was realized to be more than a few countries in the Mediterranean region.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well if you beleive in the inerrancy of the bible then the meaning is crystal clear - no-one will live for more than 120 years as decreed by god - forgetting for the moment that god goes on to contradict itself in Psalm 90: 10 (4 score years and 10)

If of course you belevie the Bible must be interpreted then sure - you can pick and choose - but if that's the case then this discussion isn't one that holds a great deal of relevance for you

 

Is the English translation inerrant? It's quite the opposite.

לֹא-יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם, בְּשַׁגַּם
In Hebrew there's three words for a person...kind of. This one is Rooach, or the middle part. It's saying that a righteous person (who is righteous all his life) won't have to live for longer than 120 years, because it wouldn't be fair to him.

 

Cheski

Yes - beleive it or not - to christians who beleive in biblical inerrancy it is the English translation (the King James Version to be precise) that is inerrant - all other versions including the original Hebrew(?) of the OT are considered suspect.

Here's one of the more way out examples OF how christian fundaligionists view the issue:

(http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1)

By all means comment on the real meaning and understanding of OT verses though - most Jews have a far better insight into the nuance of the language in terms of its real meaning - it should prove interesting and enlightening

 

Genesis 47-9 "And Jacob said unto Pharaoh: 'The days of the years of my sojournings are a hundred and thirty years; few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and they have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their sojournings.' "
So I don't know how they could possibly reconcile these two facts with their translation

There are three words translated as "soul" from Hebrew, Nefesh, Roach, Neshama.
The neshama is always righteous and good.
The Nefesh is always animalistic.
The Rooach is always fighting the battle between the two.

So if someone has "G-d dwell in his rooach" then he is a righteous person. Before the flood people were living far longer, it was unfair for the righteous to life so long with unrighteous people, for they might become unrighteous themselves just for having lived so long with them.
Thus to prevent this, holy people were to be allowed to die younger.

This is also why it says;
It says in Genesis 5-24 "And Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him."
As Enoch was perfect until that point and could have lived forever, he would have potentially died in the "flood", which wasn't fair.

 

Another absurdity is their "original" KJV is NOT THE ORIGINAL KJV.

 

OK, you say the lifespan limits prove it wrong.
I read your posts.

Before the flood the lifespan limit was 1000 years.
After the flood it was slowly lowered, not all at once now.....to 120 years.
Terah, Abraham's father - 205 years, Abraham - 180 years, Isaac - 180 years...
Jacob and Esau both 147 years?

What does that prove? That the Bible is true.
The lifespans were still slowly coming down to 120.

Later it was lowered again to 70 years, or 80 if you be a mighty man.
These are not strict limits like the 1000 year limit was.
These others are just are averages.

You still sure the Bible is wrong?
You're absolutely, positively, unreservedly sure... eh?
Maybe you're just holding it upside down.
People do all sorts of crazy things.

Show me one real "contradiction" in the Bible.
Give it your best shot now, don't hold back.
Not some misconception made to contradict another misconception.
Show me one real contradiction.

Just one.

 

Viz - I'd do a little remedial work on your english comprehension if I were you.

I'm not saying the Bible is wrong - I'm proving that it is not literally true as many beleive it is

 

Oh, sorry about that.

I would agree that sometimes people take it literal when it should be taken symbolic, and visa - versa.

So...I would have to agree with you there.

My point is when the Bible is taken for what was meant when it was written, literal when it should be literal and symbolic when symbolic....there are no real contradictions.
Considering it is comprised of 66 books, written by 40 different authors over the span of 1800 years...is in itself a vindication of it's supernatural origin.

 

I'll accept your challenge here, I will make you prove your points if you're as religiously educated as you're trying to appear. If you can do so...we'll see.

What source do you have for this? It's said that if Adam had not sinned there would be no world today at all. Meaning it would have been complete, everything would have been fulfilled. Every mistake today comes from his one mistake...meaning that before the flood there was no length in life times. People died as a direct result of their mis-doings.

Where does it say that it will be "Slowly lowered"? Are you just making this up, or did your pastor tell you this? He must have a source for this right? What is it...another pastor or priest? Who was the first Christian who interpreted it to mean that? Why was he correct?

What evidence is there of this? As in...where in the bible does it say that?

Are you sure you're ready for this? I'll challenge you to a formal debate on this if you like.

The debate topic: "The Christian (English) bible has not only Errancy, but self-contradictions."

Do you accept?

 

You put these two scriptures together.

II Peter 3:8
But, ye most dear, this one thing be not hid to you [be not unknown], that one day with God is as a thousand years, and a thousand years be as one day [and a thousand years as one day].


Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

I have to go...
We'll resume tomorrow.

 

Although the Bible is certainly not literally true in many cases, this is a bad case to rest your argument on. I think it means that even if you live a long time, you are still constrained by the fact that you are flesh.

 

So if I get this right...your proof is a guy who said something in a letter to a city more than 3000 years after Adam lived? But even if we use his logic Genesis 2:17 (בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ) which corresponds to "for in the day that you eat" is really translated as "In that day and all of your further days that you eat". Because "אֲכָלְ" is the actual word..and there is just a random "ך" at the end...though "לך" means "travels". So combined it means something other than your translation. So you can't say that this "Day" corresponds to what peter said, because it wasn't a single day...rather many days...all his days.

 

This whole post just proves the point.
It is taken litteraly or symbolic at the whim of the reader to defend their point.
That is why it is impossible to debate it with a religious person they tend to jump back and forth from literal to symbolic to fit their point of view.

 

Amen!

 

That is the question isn't it.

Let me just say one thing.
It looks to me like you're pretty good at Hebrew.
Many educated scholars have studied the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic...etc

But no mater how accurate you get, you are still studying a sealed book.
A book that is supernaturally sealed by God Himself.
The interpretation is only revealed by God Himself to whom He will.
No amount of study will change that.

MATTHEW 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

There are two aspects of the written Word of God.
The Rhema and the Logos.

There is the word that was written, interpreted on the surface. The "Rhema".
For example, the word "Board"
It can mean several different things.
I'm board, The board of directors. A board made of wood. See?
"See" also means to understand.
Only by God's Spirit can you see the kingdom of heaven.

The "Logos" is the actually thoughts of God that were meant when the prophets wrote down the words.
That is why God and His Word are one.
He is that Logos.
That is the part that has been sealed to the human mind.
It takes the Mind of Christ to open that lock.
No amount of study or comparison of different languages will break that encryption.
It is supernatural my friend.

So...no, I won't debate you on the Bible.
What God reveals to me, is not always meant for someone else to know.
I feel to take a stand for the Bible on this board from time to time, when things get one sided against it, but I'm not here to debate it or change any one's mind.
I hope this doesn't sound like I'm being rude.

Jesus talked in riddles to the multitudes intentionally.
I'm beginning to see why.
If you're meant to see, you will.
Nothing can stop that.

 

Let me just say one thing.
It looks to me like you're pretty good at deluding yourself. You're under the influence of the pervasive false spirituality.
Evil fairies make you think & say those things & prevent you from seeing the TRUTH. If only you had the ONE RING, you'd truly understand as do I.

 

Your post dealt with the subtle meaning of words. Might we reasonably have expected in such a post that you would not have made the laughable error of confusing board with bored. I'm still chuckling two minutes later, though I have concluded that, given your poor grasp of language, I can safely ignore any commentary you offer on the interpretation of language.