Dinosaurs Never Existed! - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-24-2006, 01:02 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Did he ever tell the crowd the prodical son was just a story?
No, but he didn't have to. People know by common sense when you are telling a story (whether fictional or true) and when you are not. Someone who has never even looked at the Bible could look at a passage in the Bible and tell whether Christ is telling a story (whether fictional or true) or whether he is speaking without telling a story. That's because it's not a religious issue: it is a common sense literary issue.

In the passage I posted, is Christ answering the Pharisees' question in a story format or a non story format?
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 01:16 PM   #47
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


No, but he didn't have to. People know by common sense when you are telling a story (whether fictional or true) and when you are not. Someone who has never even looked at the Bible could look at a passage in the Bible and tell whether Christ is telling a story (whether fictional or true) or whether he is speaking without telling a story. That's because it's not a religious issue: it is a common sense literary issue.

Everything you said here I can say about Genesis, or the whole OT for that matter.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-24-2006, 02:32 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Everything you said here I can say about Genesis, or the whole OT for that matter.
You're not understanding my point at all, and I don't know what else I can say that would help you understand.

Actually, I just thought of one and it uses the above quote by you.

Take the Old Testament you referenced. Let's say for example, the story of Esther. From page 1 of the book of Esther to the last page of the book of Esther, it is written in narrative/story form, right? Whether it's true or not, it is in story/narrative form.

Now compare that to the passage I quoted, when Christ is answering the Pharisees' question. Did Christ frame his response in narrative/story format? Was he "telling a story" when he answered them? No, of course not, and anyone who heard him talking that day would know exactly what we know, by common sense: that Christ was not telling a parable when he answered their question in that instance.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 03:49 PM   #49
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


You're not understanding my point at all, and I don't know what else I can say that would help you understand.

Actually you're not understanding my point. Just because Jesus referenced the story of Adam and Eve doesn't mean it can't be analogy or a parable. Jesus had to speak in a language that would be understood by the people of that time. He could have easily told the people of the time the world wasn't flat but they wouldn't have understood, he spoke in stories they would know.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-24-2006, 04:50 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Actually you're not understanding my point. Just because Jesus referenced the story of Adam and Eve doesn't mean it can't be analogy or a parable. Jesus had to speak in a language that would be understood by the people of that time. He could have easily told the people of the time the world wasn't flat but they wouldn't have understood, he spoke in stories they would know.
I understand what you're saying, but the issue I'm getting at is purely an issue of literary device; there are ways in which analogies/parables/stories are framed, and you can tell when someone using one of those literary devices. Christ was not framing his answer in any of those contexts when he answered the Pharisees' questions.

Would he tell people something about the creation of the world that was not true, without letting people know it was just an analogy, either by coming right out and saying "the following is an analogy" or at least by framing it in the format of an analogy/parable/story? If he did, his "parable" would cease to be a parable and would become a lie, because he made no effort to reveal that it was not true. When Christ was talking to the Pharisees, and mentioned the creation of Adam and Eve, he was not framing it in the context of an analogy, story or parable, so the Pharisees of course would assume that the people about whom he was speaking actually existed.

I also don't even buy the premise that Christ would use Adam and Eve as an analogy for evolution simply because the people at the time might not understand evolution. Christ spoke of many things that he knew went right over the people's heads at the time. So, why would we assume that he would use Adam and Eve as an analogy instead of actually telling people about evolution?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 05:03 PM   #51
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I understand what you're saying, but the issue I'm getting at is purely an issue of literary device; there are ways in which analogies/parables/stories are framed, and you can tell when someone using one of those literary devices. Christ was not framing his answer in any of those contexts when he answered the Pharisees' questions.

Would he tell people something about the creation of the world that was not true, without letting people know it was just an analogy, either by coming right out and saying "the following is an analogy" or at least by framing it in the format of an analogy/parable/story? If he did, his "parable" would cease to be a parable and would become a lie, because he made no effort to reveal that it was not true. When Christ was talking to the Pharisees, and mentioned the creation of Adam and Eve, he was not framing it in the context of an analogy, story or parable, so the Pharisees of course would assume that the people about whom he was speaking actually existed.
But he's simply quoting text that they already know, so literary device is moot. I would follow your point if Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve and wasn't directly referencing Genesis.

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

I also don't even buy the premise that Christ would use Adam and Eve as an analogy for evolution simply because the people at the time might not understand evolution. Christ spoke of many things that he knew went right over the people's heads at the time. So, why would we assume that he would use Adam and Eve as an analogy instead of actually telling people about evolution?
He spoke of concepts that went over their head; concepts of love and forgiveness not of science...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-24-2006, 07:07 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
But he's simply quoting text that they already know, so literary device is moot. I would follow your point if Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve and wasn't directly referencing Genesis.
The people of Jesus' time did not understand the creation story to be an analogy. They believed it to be literal. So, would Christ, as a non-liar, even refer to text they believed in, thereby reaffirming their belief in it by quoting it as if it were true, providing not one mention that the story was just an analogy?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 07:43 PM   #53
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


The people of Jesus' time did not understand the creation story to be an analogy. They believed it to be literal. So, would Christ, as a non-liar, even refer to text they believed in, thereby reaffirming their belief in it by quoting it as if it were true, providing not one mention that the story was just an analogy?
We have no idea as to how they percieved the creation story. Analogy or literal, doesn't matter, requoting it does not make a lie. If Christ had been asked about the true beginnings of the universe addressing this issue would have been completely different.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-24-2006, 10:27 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

We have no idea as to how they percieved the creation story.
Yes, we do. They believed it. Remember that Paul, who at one time was a very educated and faithful Pharisee, wrote of Adam on more than one occasion, saying that it was by Adam that sin entered the world.

If Paul, one of the most educated Jews of all believed in Adam and Eve, so did most people. And remember that at that time, the Pharisees basically told the people what to believe. People didn't have the scriptures for themselves.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

We have no idea as to how they percieved the creation story.
Analogy or literal, doesn't matter, requoting it does not make a lie. If Christ had been asked about the true beginnings of the universe addressing this issue would have been completely different. [/B][/QUOTE]

I strongly disagree with you.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 11:42 PM   #55
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

If Paul, one of the most educated Jews of all believed in Adam and Eve, so did most people. And remember that at that time, the Pharisees basically told the people what to believe. People didn't have the scriptures for themselves.

Some of the most educated people today believe in things I don't necessarily believe in...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-24-2006, 11:52 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Some of the most educated people today believe in things I don't necessarily believe in...
You don't live in a society like Israel was at that time, either. Their religion was everything to them. They were a very devout people. The priest and religious leaders were the most respecte dpeople in the society, and were thought of as being God's mouthpiece to teh "common" folk. There is no doubt at all that the people of Israel believed in Adam and Eve.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 12:16 AM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:32 AM
The thing is, every ancient culture had scriptural writings that "educated people" believed to be true. To say the Bible is completely factual, with no hint of embellishment or mythology would be highly unlikely.

I'm sure that people 2,000 years ago believed in Adam and Eve, but now we have science to prove to us otherwise, not to mention a vast study of comparative mythology that shows us very direct evidence of the origin of these myths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_eve

Quote:
In another Sumerian myth the goddess Ninhursag created a beautiful garden full of lush vegetation and fruit trees, called Edinu, in Dilman, the Sumerian earthly Paradise, a place which the Sumerians believed to exist to the east of their own land, beyond the sea. Ninhursag charged Enki, her lover, with controlling the wild animals and tending the garden, but Enki became curious about the garden and his assistant, Adapa, selected seven plants and offered them to Enki, who ate them. (In other versions of the story he seduced in turn seven generations of the offspring of his divine marriage with Ninhursag). This enranged Ninhursag, and she caused Enki to fall ill. Enki felt pain in his rib, which is a pun in Sumerian, as the word "ti" means both "rib" and "life. The other gods persuaded Ninhursag to relent. Ninhursag then created a new goddess named Ninti, (a name made up of "Nin", or "lady", plus "ti", and which can be translated as both Lady of Living and Lady of the Rib), to cure Enki. Ninhursag is known as mother of all living creatures, and thus holds the same position as Eve. The story has a clear parallel with Eve's creation from Adam's rib, but given that the pun with rib is present only in Sumerian, linguistic criticism places the Sumerian account as the more ancient.

By the Babylonian era, Enki's place was taken by Adapa Uan (the Oannes of Berossus), a human created by Enki as advisor to the first king of Enki's city of Eridu. A 14th century BC tablet refers to Adapa as the seed of humankind. One myth recounts that Adapa broke the wings of the wind in anger at being disturbed while fishing, and was called to the heavens to answer for doing so. He was warned by Enki to apologise for his actions, but not to touch the food, in case it had been poisoned in revenge. The gods, impressed by his penitence, set the food and drink of immortality before him, but Adapa heeded Enki's warning and refused the food, thus missing out on immortality. The god who offered the food and drink of immortality was the wily serpent-god Ningishzida. In the Biblical account the serpent offers knowledge, but he also says to Eve that she shall not die.

As the food and drink of the gods originated on earth, somewhere on earth must lie the source of the food and drink of immortality, a Tree of Life. In the biblical account the food is consumed, not rejected, and the couple are punished by being expelled from the garden. Thus any derivation of the biblical account from Sumerian and Babylonian mythology involves the confusion of the tales of Adapa and Enki. Such a conflation may have been influenced by a story preserved in the prologue of Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Underworld. In this tale, the goddess Inanna, who gains knowledge of sex by descending to earth and eating from various plants and fruits, transplants the huluppu tree from the Euphrates to her own garden, but a wicked serpent made its nest amongst the roots of the tree. This tale connects the serpent to the garden, and with the presence of Inanna, the theme of lust. Moving the story of Enki's rib to the start of the Biblical story would allow the failure to gain immortality to be seen as punishment for eating the fruit.

...

The belief that men and women have a differing number of ribs is due to the verse at Genesis 2:20, "[T]he Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and brought her to the man."

One theory of the origin to this story is based on the Sumerian myth of Ninhursag and Enki. Ninhursag was angry with Enki and caused him to fall ill. Enki felt pain in his rib "ti", which in Sumerian means both "rib" and "life", and began to die. Ninhursag relented, and created a new goddess named Ninti, ("Nin", or "lady", plus "ti"), which can be translated as both Lady of Living and Lady of the Rib, to cure Enki. Given that the pun of "life" with "rib" is present only in Sumerian, this hypothesis, based on linguistic criticism, places the Sumerian account as the more ancient.
As an aside, it is very curious how Abraham's traditional birthplace is Ur, a Sumerian city state. It is almost an indirect acknowledgment of the early Old Testament's Sumerian roots.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 12:46 AM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


You don't live in a society like Israel was at that time, either.
This is true for the most of us i guess,....
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 12:48 AM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


You don't live in a society like Israel was at that time, either. Their religion was everything to them. They were a very devout people. The priest and religious leaders were the most respecte dpeople in the society, and were thought of as being God's mouthpiece to teh "common" folk. There is no doubt at all that the people of Israel believed in Adam and Eve.
So we are to take bronze age semitic tribal leaders as authoritative compared to the objective evidence all around us? Genesis is a myth and if you choose to take it literally it is a lie.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 01:09 AM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
The thing is, every ancient culture had scriptural writings that "educated people" believed to be true. To say the Bible is completely factual, with no hint of embellishment or mythology would be highly unlikely.Melon
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
So we are to take bronze age semitic tribal leaders as authoritative compared to the objective evidence all around us? Genesis is a myth and if you choose to take it literally it is a lie.
Guys,
You arrived a little late on the scene. BVS and I were not arguing the merits of creation or evolution, or which is right and which is wrong. I considered asking you to go back a few pages and you would discover what we are discussing, but instead I'll make it easy for you by giving you a recap of all the action.

I stated my agreement with A_Wanderer, that The Gospel doesn't work without Adam and Eve. I stated that one of the reasons this is so is because in my opinion, Jesus spoke about Adam and Eve, as if they had been real living people. BVS is of the opinion that Christ was speaking in parable or as an analogy. This eventually developed into a discussion on what the people in Israel at the time believed.

So you see, those quotes of mine that you refer to really do have nothing to do whatsoever with the issue of whether evolution is true, as I was in fact, not discussing that issue at all.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com