Bliss Roots Cbd Gummies™ Exclusive...
Food & Drink9 mins ago
Genesis lies !
47 Answers
.
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 ?
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 ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clanad, //On that basis, naomi, a huge amount of ancient but secular writing must also be dismissed.//
Illogical. The content has most certainly not been dismissed – at least not by me - in fact, since I have a very different view of it all, I find it quite intriguing. However, your attribution of authorship has been questioned. It’s one thing to seriously consider the veracity of the content of any ancient document – which, if we’re to understand our past, I think we must do - but it’s quite another to claim positive identification of authorship where there can be none.
//You fail, I believe, to understand the science of ancient document study.//
From what you say, whether my understanding of ancient Hebrew equals that of your knowledgeable acquaintances is probably doubtful, but nevertheless, insofar as I am very well aware of the nuances of the written language, I fear you may be preaching to the converted. That aside, what you appear to be saying here is that these books were not originally written in the third person and therefore every flavour of the bible in use today is inaccurately translated. If that is indeed correct, I’m surprised nobody, apart from you and your friends, has noticed.
Illogical. The content has most certainly not been dismissed – at least not by me - in fact, since I have a very different view of it all, I find it quite intriguing. However, your attribution of authorship has been questioned. It’s one thing to seriously consider the veracity of the content of any ancient document – which, if we’re to understand our past, I think we must do - but it’s quite another to claim positive identification of authorship where there can be none.
//You fail, I believe, to understand the science of ancient document study.//
From what you say, whether my understanding of ancient Hebrew equals that of your knowledgeable acquaintances is probably doubtful, but nevertheless, insofar as I am very well aware of the nuances of the written language, I fear you may be preaching to the converted. That aside, what you appear to be saying here is that these books were not originally written in the third person and therefore every flavour of the bible in use today is inaccurately translated. If that is indeed correct, I’m surprised nobody, apart from you and your friends, has noticed.
Naomi, I'm trying really hard here to explain that the style of writing in ancient documents is often entirely different than we use today and to judge your "third person" concern isn't valid... In fact, read Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico (containing my reference to Vercingoterix)... all written in the third person narrative...
Clanad, with all due respect that post is rather patronising. Why you think another work written in another language by an author who lived in a very different society in a very different time provides proof that your claim is valid is a mystery. It doesn’t. It’s irrelevant. The fact is nobody knows who wrote these books, there is no evidence whatsoever for Moses’ existence, and yet you insist he is the author. That is irrational. Whatever we WANT to believe – and as Jom said, I too think you WANT to believe it - if we don’t know, in all honesty, we can only say we don’t know – and you don’t.
I imagine we're coming to the end of this dialogue as well... but, at no time did I indicate that I know[i Moses wrote the Books for which he is traditionally credited (besides at least one Psalm). I'm only pointing out that other writings, secular in nature, of about the same age also used this rather common device of writing in the third person, which was your original protest.
This whole discussion originated with you're insisting Moses wrote of his own death [i]post mortem] so to speak and I pointed out that it was common for editorial addendums to be placed in the narrative, with Joshua being the most likely suspect. End of story. You believe one thing and I another, but I do base mine on historical context and not just "wanting to", which statement is not only orthogonal to the original post, but given to casuistry as well...
Nice talking to you, at any rate.
This whole discussion originated with you're insisting Moses wrote of his own death [i]post mortem] so to speak and I pointed out that it was common for editorial addendums to be placed in the narrative, with Joshua being the most likely suspect. End of story. You believe one thing and I another, but I do base mine on historical context and not just "wanting to", which statement is not only orthogonal to the original post, but given to casuistry as well...
Nice talking to you, at any rate.
Clanad, //This whole discussion originated with you're [sic] insisting Moses wrote of his own death [i]post mortem] so to speak//
I beg to differ. This whole discussion originated when you declared that it is accepted by both Jewish and Christian scholars that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. I merely indicated that since the books include a record of Moses’ own death – necessarily written pre-mortem, rather than post mortem – the conclusion reached by those scholars cannot be accurate. Perhaps rather than indulging in convenient spin, I simply read what’s there which is why I see things quite differently to you - and them. Nice talking to you too.
I beg to differ. This whole discussion originated when you declared that it is accepted by both Jewish and Christian scholars that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. I merely indicated that since the books include a record of Moses’ own death – necessarily written pre-mortem, rather than post mortem – the conclusion reached by those scholars cannot be accurate. Perhaps rather than indulging in convenient spin, I simply read what’s there which is why I see things quite differently to you - and them. Nice talking to you too.
