>start reading the Bible
>only on the second page and plants created before the sun
>start reading the Bible. >only on the second page and plants created before the sun
Talk religion
Talk religion
>start reading the Bible
>only on the second page and plants created before the sun
Skip the first 1000 pages and start by reading Matthew
Filtered
Your homosexual book was made and censored by humans, the apocrypha, dead sea scrolls, enuma elish and obviously Tolstoy are closer to God's word then your stupid slave morality bullshit, the bible calls for barbarism is that really gods teachings or stupid barbarians vying for control, fricking dumb frogposters holy SHIT
The Bible isn't a self-help book. It's not just a book of advice. It tells a poetic story about the creation of the universe and the fall of the state
>dead sea scrolls
They aren’t some sort of different book, mate. They’re just an older version—in which it is explicitly said that God has sons in the old testament.
>how could there be days without the sun?
you aren't supposed to read this as literal but as parallelism or poetry. the entire point i think was to model a 7 day week for mankind as we are modeled after god. but
this anon is right. the bible has a lot of good reads in it but quite a bit of slog and genealogy.
no moron, how could there be PLANTS before the sun. It obviously means the author didn't know about photosynthesis.
yes moron, how could there be MAN before womb. It obviously means the author didn't know about pregnancy.
>It obviously means the author didn't know about photosynthesis.
You sound like an autistic dork missing the point.
The point is that it‘s incoherent with a natural understanding possessed even by children and so any claim to divine inspiration (or even higher authorship) is transparently bogus.
>heh, you dorks are talking about nerd things such as science and stuff, but cool people (such as myself) discuss the bible
the biblical author doesn't care about being scientifically accurate. he cares about delivering a touching, meaningful religious story. some details like that are trivial and don't take anything away from what the biblical author intended to say.
So you admit that its a story, a fiction, a made up bullshit meant for israeli neurotic mind that somehow spread in the West
>you admit
I don't have to admit anything because it's a fact, you haven't discovered anything here bud. And israelites know it too, it's no secret. It still doesn't make it invalid. It's a beautiful tradition with many wisdoms and universal truths despite of a few inaccuracies. No wonder it spread in the West
So bible is incorrect then? Is god real? Was man created before god maybe?
How does making plants come before the sun make the story more touching?
why do semites say removing the foreskin of their sons is a touching moment?
They put their lips (and tongue) on boys penis? That qualifies as touching, no?
then what separates the bible from the lion king?
The Lion King didn‘t destroy Rome and send its descendants into a thousand years of neurotic servitude to israeli usurers.
>start by reading Matthew
Terrible advice. People interested in reading the Bible for some reason, who are new to it, should start with John. Matthew is tedious and dull and boring.
Avishai was the father of Benaya, Benaya the father of Caleb, Caleb the father of Danor, Danor the father of Elishua and his brothers, Elishua the father of Faran and Gilead, whose mother was Hadas, Faran the father of Ira, Ira the father of Jorim, Jorim the father of Kish, Kish the father of Laban, Laban the father of Mattan, Mattan the father of Nadav, Nadav the father of Obed, Obed the father of Paltiel, whose mother was Qeturah, Paltiel the father of Raamiah, Raamiah the father of Shaul, and Shaul the father of Tobiah. Tobiah was the father of Uriel, whose mother had been Vaniah’s wife, Uriel the father of Workan, Workan the father of Xerxes, Xerxes the father of Yachin, Yachin the father of Zattu, Zattu the father of Akbor, Akbor the father of Berekiah, Berekiah the father of Cushi, Cushi the father of Darda, Darda the father of Eleasah, Eleasah the father of Falti, Falti the father of Gedaliah, Gedaliah the father of Hoshea, and Hoshea the father of Iddo and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. After the exile to Babylon: Iddo was the father of Jehozadak, Jehozadak the father of Kolaiah, Kolaiah the father of Lemuel, Lemuel the father of Mibsam, Mibsam the father of Nethanel, Nethanel the father of Othni, Othni the father of Pedaiah, Pedaiah the father of Qedoshim, Qedoshim the father of Reuel, Reuel the father of Shecaniah, Shecaniah the father of Tekoa, Tekoa the father of Uthai, Uthai the father of Vophsi, Vophsi the father of Wesir, Wesir the father of Xanto, Xanto the father of Yigal, Yigal the father of Zanoah, Zanoah the father of Abdon, Abdon the father of Bukki, Bukki the father of Coniah, Coniah the father of Delaiah, Delaiah the father of Ezer, Ezer the father of Festus, Festus the father of Gomer, Gomer the father of Hilkiah, Hilkiah the father of Ije, Ije the father of Jakim, and Jakim the father of Kenaz.
Is it really *that* funny OP?
It's hilarious that people have to cope with a bunch of schizophrenic grugian ramblings, yes.
Not OP here. Yes, it really is *that* funny.
you are fricking homosexual
>[1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
>[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
>day / night cycle without the sun
This didn't trip you up?
The bible was clearly composed by iron age goatfrickers who didn't have even a middle school understanding of how the world works, and it shows. That's the point. The inherent limitations of logic make atheism nonsensical but believing any man-made religion is equally so.
>The bible was clearly composed by iron age goatfrickers who didn't have even a middle school understanding of how the world works, and it shows
I mean, it goes on to say he made the sun, so I don't think they were unaware of the causality between sun and light, nor were the unaware that the sequence has the creator as sort of beyond causality, creating light before a source of light. i think they got that gist upon conception, dude.
every moron on earth knows that when the sun goes down, it becomes dark
>atheism nonsensical
>man-made religion is equally so
Where to begin with rational theism then? Can you just start with the Greeks like everything else?
>noooo the earth simply can't rotate around its own axis without the SUN, because it JUST CAN't OKAY!?!?!?!
>Also all light is from the SUN!
You're reading the wrong Bible, son. That one was corrupted by church officials.
I’m curious as to why Tolstoy’s Christianity never really took off, at least his interpretation of the Gospel. The biggest problem people have with Christianity is the supernatural stuff and he gets rid of all that
Lol, what an illogical thing to say. Christianity without the supernatural is 100% pointless. If you don't actually believe in God then there's no point in being religious at all, and if you believe in God, then of course the miraculous is a given.
Atheists believe in God they just call it Nature. It's the same thing.
You're not supposed to take the bible literally. Except for the parts that I like those are 100% serious and not up for interpretation.
Don't worry, creation is getting a retcon in the next chapter.
Did you read the first page?
>At the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth 2 the earth was a blank chaos, and there was darkness over the surface of the deep; and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 And God said “Let there be light,” and there was light.
what version?
Byington
Okay, that just begs the question of why God fricked off.
He didn't.
I don't see this glowBlack person anywhere now tho
Would you have been able to see him then?
If he was emitting all the light keeping the plants alive for a day because he just was okay, then I imagine so.
Why would he have to emit them? Why couldn't they just be emitting?
It actually doesn’t beg any question, moron.
Light is separate from the sun:
> Gen 1:3-4: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good
>Gen 1:14: And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,
please, please stop laughing at woman's search for meaning
Imagine treating any other mythological story this way.
>how can Zeus shoot lightning bolts? Lightning is caused by electrons but Hesiod didn't mention electrons.
Autism
What a terrible argument. Christians lie to stay believers, sinning in the process. Some things cannot be reconciled in the Faith.
It's wasn't an argument and I'm not a believer.
Just pointing out that you shouldn't take mythology seriously or literally. It's mythology
OP it's 2024 you have better things to do than reading the bible, these days it isn't really a useful book anymore, because a million better volumes have been written where you can find everything good that christians claim you are supposed to find in the bible - morals, poetry, genealogy etc
Give us a few.
Light was created before plants, op. You should work on your reading skills.
Did the Sun really exist without organisms that could perceive its light, such as plants?
Yeah, otherwise how would the elements be there.
Nice try Berkeley, but god was there to perceive his own creation
did you really make a duplicate thread here after getting btfo on /his?
you people must must be sadomasochistic
No I made it after nobody replied. The incident of me getting BTFO was real in your mind.
>Le God was like a giant glowbug before the sun
Absolutely delusional lmao.
damn your position is so strong you had to lie and make up a strawman
you must have gotten btfo badly to justify this kind of damage control
The sun isn't required for plants to grow, only light. Which was made on the first day.
t. I grow "tomato's" in a room with no windows.
>It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
>Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis
This is around the year 400, even back then it was known to not take Genesis literally. You can see others saying similar things here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
>For Augustine understands by the word "day," the knowledge in the mind of the angels, and hence, according to him, the first day denotes their knowledge of the first of the Divine works, the second day their knowledge of the second work, and similarly with the rest. Thus, then, each work is said to have been wrought in some one of these days, inasmuch as God wrought in some one of these days, inasmuch as God wrought nothing in the universe without impressing the knowledge thereof on the angelic mind; which can know many things at the same time, especially in the Word, in Whom all angelic knowledge is perfected and terminated. So the distinction of days denotes the natural order of the things known, and not a succession in the knowledge acquired, or in the things produced. Moreover, angelic knowledge is appropriately called "day," since light, the cause of day, is to be found in spiritual things, as Augustine observes (Gen. ad lit. iv, 28). In the opinion of the others, however, the days signify a succession both in time, and in the things produced.
>Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae
From the same section in the Summa, Aquinas answers your question about the plants:
>On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but "before it sprung up in the earth," that is, potentially. And this work Augustine ascribes to the third day, but other writers to the first instituting of the world.
Isn't the bible the word of god? How can I take his words allegorically?
By understanding that god speaks in allegory, both in written language attributed to him and in every day occurrence. Just because you don't understand the language doesn't mean it isn't a language anon.
How do you do know all that? Does it say in the bible that the bible should be allegorically?
High School-tier numale atheist questioning.
>High School-tier numale atheist questioning
Yet still remains unanswered
>Source
How do you "know" its meant to be literal? Certainly not by how consistently it all makes so much sense. The allegorical nature of reality is irrefutable and, as reality is the macrocosmic word of god, I infer that the microcosmic word of god would be equally allegorical.
>as reality is the macrocosmic word of god
Source?
>tradition of interpretation
So if bible did not exist there still would be christians? Because they read this other book called "Tradition of Interpretation". Btw where can I get this other text of christian knowledge? Can you drop a link?
>So if bible did not exist there still would be christians?
You do realize that after Christ died there were already Christians, but no bible yet? That which books composed the bible was an open question for a long time until each branch of Christianity settled on their canon, yet they were already Christians?
I see, which christians should I follow? Which ones are correct about teachings of christ and which ones are not?
Now here is the funny thing: none. I'm not Christian either. I just know that if I'm gonna dismiss their religion, I must at least give it a chance by hearing what they have to say. None of it was convincing to me, but at least I didn't dismiss it because genesis wasn't literal. Wait for actual Christians to come here to recommend stuff, because my path was erratic by reading and watching a lot of different stuff, on top of talking with Catholics and evangelicals IRL.
> if I'm gonna dismiss their religion, I must at least give it a chance by hearing what they have to say.
Why? Are you open to possibility of there being a god? Are you a gnostic of some kind?
>Are you open to possibility of there being a god?
Yes. I don't think atheism should be the default, and I don't think any specific religion should be the default either. Since either position requires evidence or at least arguments. For now I'm agnostic.
Who doesn't reject the idea that Yahweh is up there? that would be nuts.
>as reality is the macrocosmic word of god
>Source?
In so far as any creation is an expression of the creator. I am using word enigmatically for expression in this case. But if we are going to keep playing this game of higher and higher points of authority as a justification of information I might as well say that god told me so in that I learned it from his word by experiencing the world.
How often do you speak to god?
There you go. Being literal again.
So you don't speak to god?
I already explained what I meant by speak do god my man. I don't know what to tell you.
A lot when I already explained that the way in which I was using certain terms was enigmatically.
you say you speak to god then you say you don't speak to god, so which one is it?
>In so far as any creation is an expression of the creator. I am using word enigmatically for expression in this case.
>god told me so in that I learned it from his word by experiencing the world.
You are willfully ignoring half of what I said and taking literally what I said outright was meant enigmatically with an explanation. Its no wonder you are so bad at telling when texts are allegorical when you can't even tell when someone practically shoves your face in it. I have nothing more to say to you.
What's wrong with being literal?
I saw that meme and thought it was meant to be ironic
Im sure it was. Im coopting it as a kind of joke about naturally occurring allegory.
Nta but You are a moron
Mythology is meant to be taken 100% literally. You are basically preaching it to a bunch of illiterate farmers. They'll literally believe that thunderstorms are Zeus throwing lightening. Allegorical bs is cope damage control
>Allegorical bs is cope damage control
I think the truth is myths were for many meant to explain natural phenomenon, but they also had a symbolic meaning as well.
Avicenna the Islamic philosopher discusses this, that the symbolic content of religion is not meant for the masses, as they will no matter what not understand the more esoteric, symbolic, or metaphysical meaning but will tend to only understand religious symbols as actual physical manifestations
The symbolic interpretations can be moronic in their own way, but are still more like a narrative than a simple causal explanation for physical phenomenon
Why do you think every Christian knowledge comes from the bible? Both the church and the israelites before it have a long tradition of interpretation. That tradition is itself important. Unless you're only interacting with American evangelicals who believe the world is 6000 years old and things like that.
>Unless you're only interacting with American evangelicals who believe the world is 6000 years old and things like that
Evangelicals really are the cancer, half of nu-atheism springs from their moronation
At least they fully commit to their moronation. Nu-christianity is a pretentious form of damage control.
what's nu-christianity? Is Aquinas nu-christianity?
>Nu-christianity
he thinks the church fathers are nu Christianity
only thing thing that is nu is whatever american protestants are doing
So god didn't tell you it's allegorical right? why do you defy god? why do you speak in his name?
>Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
>For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
>But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
>Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
This is from Galatians 4:21. Even in the bible, Paul was already interpreting scripture as allegory.
Underage
Yeah. Jesus interprets Scripture allegorically and uses it too. E.g., he says "destroy this temple and I shall raise it up in three days," but really he is referring to his own body.
Jesus talks mostly in parables. Are we supposed to think that God actually came to tell stories just about seeds falling on the ground, etc.?
i dont understand the conflict you see between divine inspiration and allegory
>The most popular book in the world
>Reading a translation
Yeah, you fricked up bro.
why doesn't god translate it properly for us then
Curious how Jesus didn't write a single book of the Bible. A true Christian would reject this nonsensical book.
Solus Christus
>start reading the Bible
Which?
It's a metaphor for your insatiable hunger for God's light existing in you since your birth but you only finding that light later on in life.
Pretty basic shit.
The "good book" is neither good nor a book
>OP didn't notice light already existed
>God speaks universe into existence
>OP gets tripped up that he hasn't condensed light into sphere's yet
OP...try thinking a bit more.
>it was le allegorical!
I find this even more cringe than atheism in some ways to be honest. The church fathers interpreted these scriptures as literal.
>nooo but there is allegory in the Bible and in Genesis?!?!?!?!?!
Yes, there are multiple layers of meaning.