Is abortion always a sin?

[Beancounter]

Furthermore, mankind was closer to perfection then as evidenced by the long life-spans that recorded.

Radrook

I just want to confirm that you actually believe that people lived for 800 or 900 years in those days?

 

[Doctor X]

Tricky:

R:Show me where the Bible advocates murder and incest.

T: And I suggest that if you believe that stoning people to death for trying to talk to spirits can in any way be justified as moral by the Bible, then I stand by my statement that the Bible is not a legitimate source for morality.

Funny he has rather ignored the demand for child sacrifice. Probably the brats deserved it. . . .

. . . rather like those kids who teased Ezra . . . he could not "bear" it.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! . . . HA! . . . HA . . . Ha . . . ha . . . heh?

Storms off decrying the lack of humor in modern times. . . .

--J.D.

 

[Tricky]

Radrook

I just want to confirm that you actually believe that people lived for 800 or 900 years in those days?

I've heard it suggested that in translation, the term for "years" was confused with the word "months". This seems quite logical to me. A 900 month old man would be about 75 years old, which is indeed quite old for the time, but not beyond the boundaries of believability.

 

[Beancounter]

I've heard it suggested that in translation, the term for "years" was confused with the word "months". This seems quite logical to me. A 900 month old man would be about 75 years old, which is indeed quite old for the time, but not beyond the boundaries of believability.

That would make sense but I suspect it is just an attempt to rationalise a myth. Nonetheless, I am sure Radrook does not believe that something got lost in translation!

 

[Tricky]

That would make sense but I suspect it is just an attempt to rationalise a myth.

The point is that even those who made and told those myths never intended to suggest such lengthy life spans. There is nothing anywhere else in the Bible (that I am able to find) that suggests there is anything unusual about those numbers. That suggests to me that the numbers are merely a poor translation.

I am sure Radrook does not believe that something got lost in translation!

I wouldn't be so sure. Radrook is indeed a Biblical scholar, and has commented on another thread how "nepesh" may have been incorrectly translated as "soul". He also doesn't believe in hell. Though I disagree with him on many points, I would never say that Radrook is a mindless bible-thumping drone. He has thought his positions through at great length.

 

[Doctor X]

Save for his apparent unfamiliarity with the literature.

Sorry, but one who claims the texts are "clearly" historical, who ducks comment on multiple authorship of the OT--the Pentateuch in particular--who thinks the texts are thousands of years older than they are, who claims pseudoPauline texts are legitimate--but cannot defend the claim--et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseum--is not a "Bible scholar."

If he is, I play shortstop for the Yankees . . . and Uma Thurmon has lifted that restraining order against me. . . .

--J.D.

 

[Beancounter]

Additionally, the genetic defect stigma which such marriages were to become associated with did not exist because mankind was closer to perfection.

Snip

Furthermore, mankind was closer to perfection then as evidenced by the long life-spans that recorded.

Snip

By the time that the Law was instituted such was not the case.
Mankind had drifted much further from physical perfection .....

I was not intending to be judgemental (I shall leave that to him upstairs) but the above does imply to me that Radrook believes that people lived a lot longer in the OT times due to mankind being closer to "physical perfection".

If someone believes this (as well as Adam and Eve - also implied from Radrook's post) then I do have a slight problem taking their opinions seriously. Maybe that is my problem not his but there you are.

 

[Radrook]

Radrook

I just want to confirm that you actually believe that people lived for 800 or 900 years in those days?

It is generally agreed among qualified Bible scholars that the only difference between our year and the biblical year is that the biblical year is 360 days long while ours is 365.


Perhaps your difficulty in accepting this is that you consider the Genesis account a myth. In that case everything said within Genesis becomes suspect. For those of us who do not consider the Genesis account a myth, the long life spans are just a natural consequence of man's being closer to physical perfection than he is now.

Actually, since man was designed to live forever, such ages which you view as outstanding are pitiful in comparison.

BTW
That residual "vigor"did not last long since by Abraham's time the life span had dropped considerably. So yopu can rest assured.

In fact, by Abraham and Moses time, anyone reaching the age of 85 was considered old. However, according to your reasoning of years meaning months that would would make Moses and Joshua approximately seven years old at the time of their death.

Weird!

 

[Radrook]

I was not intending to be judgemental (I shall leave that to him upstairs) but the above does imply to me that Radrook believes that people lived a lot longer in the OT times due to mankind being closer to "physical perfection".

If someone believes this (as well as Adam and Eve - also implied from Radrook's post) then I do have a slight problem taking their opinions seriously. Maybe that is my problem not his but there you are.

OK!
I see what the situation is.
You believe that the Genesis account is myth.
In short, we lack a common ground for agreement.
That is OK.
You are entitled to your opinion.
God bless.

 

[Radrook]

The point is that even those who made and told those myths never intended to suggest such lengthy life spans. There is nothing anywhere else in the Bible (that I am able to find) that suggests there is anything unusual about those numbers. That suggests to me that the numbers are merely a poor translation.

Funny!
To me the silence concerning these numbers suggests that they were accepted as fact and that there was absolutely no reason to dispute them. Neither is there the slightest indication on the part ofv the writers that such events were myth. If there was, point it out. The very fact that you cannot point it out shows clearly that your accusations are unsubstantiated conjectures.

Furthermore, Jesus the Son of God quoted events from the Genesis account as being fact.


Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,

Matthew 24:38
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;

Matthew 10:15
I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town




So anyone who tags the Genesis account as myth is calling Jesus a liar. That is a very serious accusation to make.

 

[The Cats Venm]

So anyone who tags the Genesis account as myth is calling Jesus a liar. That is a very serious accusation to make.

Jesus is a liar.

There is no god.

Proove me wrong.

 

[Doctor X]

Interesting. . . .

It is generally agreed among qualified Bible scholars. . . .

Argumentum ad non verus Caledoni with a dash of ipse dixit of course.

Unfortunately, also wrong. For:

Perhaps your difficulty in accepting this is that you consider the Genesis account a myth.

Here are a number of "qualified Bible scholars" who demonstrate Genesis is a myth:

Mark S. Smith
Skirball Professor of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
New York University

Richard Elliott Friedman
Katzin Chair and Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature
University of California, San Diego

Frank Moore Cross
Hancock Professor Emeritus of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages
Harvard University

Claus Westermann
Professor Emeritus
University of Heidelberg

Gerd Lüdemann
Professor and Director of the Institute of Early Christian Studies
University of G öttingen

John C. H. Laughlin
Professor of Religion and Chairman of Department of Religion
Avert College

John Day
Fellow and Tutor of Lady Margaret Hall and Lecturer in Old Testament
Oxford University

Othmar Keel
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis and Religious History of the Biblical World
University of Fribourg

Christoph Uehlinger
Senior Lecturer in Old Testament Exegesis and Religious History of the Biblical World
University of Fibourg

Burton L. Mack
Professor Emeritus of Religion
Claremont Graduate School

Jonathan Z. Smith
Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor of Humanities
University of Chicago

Jon D. Levenson
Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies at the Divinity School and Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
Harvard University

Neil Forsyth
Professor of English
University of Lausanne

John C. Collins
Former President: Society of Biblical Literature
Professor: Divinity School
University of Chicago

Israel Finkelstein
Director: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology
Tel Aviv University

Neil Asher Silberman
Director of Historical Interpretation
Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritiage Presentation, Belgium

Thomas L. Thompson
Professor of Old Testament
Institute of Biblical Exegesis University of Copenhagen

Diana V. Edelman
Professor: Department of Philosophy and Religion
James Madison University

Do I have to continue with this?

--J.D.

 

[Tricky]

Funny!
To me the silence concerning these numbers suggests that they were accepted as fact and that there was absolutely no reason to dispute them. Neither is there the slightest indication on the part ofv the writers that such events were myth. If there was, point it out. The very fact that you cannot point it out shows clearly that your accusations are unsubstantiated conjectures.

Furthermore, Jesus the Son of God quoted events from the Genesis account as being fact.


Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,

Matthew 24:38
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;

Matthew 10:15
I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town
So anyone who tags the Genesis account as myth is calling Jesus a liar. That is a very serious accusation to make.

Not at all. It could simply be that Jesus, like people have done for all time, was using them as parables. If I say, "haven't you read the story of the tortoise and the hare?", does that make me a liar?

Of course, it could be that Jesus was simply mistaken. If he believed old myths because that was what he was taught, then it is understandable that he might view them as truth.

But Jesus was known to contradict himself on occasion. Does that make him a liar? Nope, just moody.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I've heard it suggested that in translation, the term for "years" was confused with the word "months". This seems quite logical to me. A 900 month old man would be about 75 years old, which is indeed quite old for the time, but not beyond the boundaries of believability.

But that would then mean that they begot offspring at the age of about ten years.


Or even yourger.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Radrook
Perhaps your difficulty in accepting this is that you consider the Genesis account a myth. In that case everything said within Genesis becomes suspect.

What about the cosmology? Do you believe in a (solid) firmament? Waters above the heavens, and therefore above the sun, moon, stars???

I bet you have gone into pick and choose mode for these.

 

[Tricky]

But that would then mean that they begot offspring at the age of about ten years.


Or even yourger.

You mean as opposed to 120 years? Which sounds more credible to you?

Oh, and give my deepest regards to the Lady Constance when next you see her.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You mean as opposed to 120 years? Which sounds more credible to you?

Pseudohistory sounds quite credible here.

Oh, and give my deepest regards to the Lady Constance when next you see her.

Must I?

 

[csense]

One claims he will discuss anything, but will not debate his faith. Yet he presents his faith as fact. He cannot have it both ways.


--J.D

Still making false claims I see.

Care to provide evidence of your first assertion above...and while your at it, you might want to provide evidence of your claim that I come to preach.

You're not only a pathetic excuse for a skeptic, but you give this board and all skeptics a bad reputation.

Care to clear up that reputation, or make it worse....it's your call debunker.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

It is generally agreed among qualified Bible scholars that the only difference between our year and the biblical year is that the biblical year is 360 days long while ours is 365.


Perhaps your difficulty in accepting this is that you consider the Genesis account a myth. In that case everything said within Genesis becomes suspect. For those of us who do not consider the Genesis account a myth, the long life spans are just a natural consequence of man's being closer to physical perfection than he is now.

Actually, since man was designed to live forever, such ages which you view as outstanding are pitiful in comparison.

BTW
That residual "vigor"did not last long since by Abraham's time the life span had dropped considerably. So yopu can rest assured.

In fact, by Abraham and Moses time, anyone reaching the age of 85 was considered old. However, according to your reasoning of years meaning months that would would make Moses and Joshua approximately seven years old at the time of their death.

Weird!

Well, unlike the completely fabricated mythology of the Bible, evidence (and general physics) shows that days are actually getting SHORTER as the Earth's rotation gratually slows down. Fossil coral from 370 million years ago shows us that the Earth had a "day" of 22.7 hours.

Although the difference between our times and those of Abraham are negligible... just a few seconds.

 

[Tricky]

Well, unlike the completely fabricated mythology of the Bible, evidence (and general physics) shows that days are actually getting SHORTER as the Earth's rotation gratually slows down. Fossil coral from 370 million years ago shows us that the Earth had a "day" of 22.7 hours.

I believe you mean LONGER. (24 hours is longer than 22.7) Perhaps you meant that years have FEWER days now than in the past.