A question of theology.

[collegestudent22]

Also, if we take the literal definition of "bara" in Genesis 1.1 we have - In the beginning God fattened the heavens and the earth. Fatten could be interpreted as exploding as well. (in the sense that ancient Hebrew has no known word for exploding)

Furthermore, ancient Jews, not having a concept of the "universe" would most likely have used "earth" in its place, just as other ancient civilizations considered the earth to be the entire universe.

[Deacon]

Sigh. Yes, Moses would have had absolutely no concept of the stars in the sky or the sun or the moon, and God would find it impossible to relate this little story in such a way as to say what He meant rather than a really-reaching, retroactive, ex post facto attempt to cram millennia-old fire-side stories into something that's anywhere near compatible with science, and there's no way a rapidly-expanding universe could possibly be described in the primitive ooks and grunts of Moses' language.

Fattening indeed.

[collegestudent22]

Moses would have had absolutely no concept of the stars in the sky or the sun or the moon

Aristotle taught that everything revolved around the Earth. And that the Earth was flat. Perhaps the stars in the sky were thought to be angels in heaven or something. It seems you are assuming that the ancient Hebrews had a perfect modern understanding of science, and that therefore the Bible would not need to be written in terms they could understand. Nor do you seem to understand that translation from Hebrew to English changes the meaning even when words are the same. For instance, the word "and" in English indicates a separate point. The Hebrew word that translates to "and" is more of poetic equality. For instance, "Your word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Hebrew is a more poetic language. Translating into English is not going to be exact.

[Deacon]

Perhaps the stars in the sky were thought to be angels in heaven or something.

:facepalm:

It seems you are assuming that the ancient Hebrews had a perfect modern understanding of science, and that therefore the Bible would not need to be written in terms they could understand.

:facepalm:

Nor do you seem to understand that translation from Hebrew to English changes the meaning even when words are the same. For instance, the word "and" in English indicates a separate point. The Hebrew word that translates to "and" is more of poetic equality. For instance, "Your word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Hebrew is a more poetic language. Translating into English is not going to be exact.

:facepalm:

It's as though maybe you think that you're making things better by suggesting that the Bible's poorly translated, that it's a murky thing, that other scriptures regarding God hanging the stars in the sky and such are accidental mistranslations since "ancient Hebrews" couldn't tell a star from an angel, and that it's beyond God's ability to give a basic description of the Big Bang to Moses and the Israelites after they finished building the pyramids and left Egypt because of how terribly limited their vocabulary was. And all this is supposed to convince people that prayer is rational and that the Judeo-Christian God exists and makes sense while no others do the same.

[collegestudent22]

It's as though maybe you think that you're making things better by suggesting that the Bible's poorly translated, that it's a murky thing,

And this is why I would want to learn Hebrew in order to determine exactly what it says. Because there are many different translations, with many different interpretations. That is why there are so many denominations. Anything is open to interpretation if translated.

that other scriptures regarding God hanging the stars in the sky and such are accidental mistranslations since "ancient Hebrews" couldn't tell a star from an angel, and that it's beyond God's ability to give a basic description of the Big Bang to Moses and the Israelites after they finished building the pyramids and left Egypt because of how terribly limited their vocabulary was. And all this is supposed to convince people that prayer is rational and that the Judeo-Christian God exists and makes sense while no others do the same.

It seems you are assuming that the ancient Hebrews had a perfect modern understanding of science, and that therefore the Bible would not need to be written in terms they could understand.

Also, not so much "accidental mistranslations", as "misinterpretations" that could easily be reinterpreted to fit with the knowledge gained over the last 6000+ years.

[Deacon]

Because there are many different translations, with many different interpretations.

Show me which one says something totally different in Genesis 1:2-8, where it describes the sudden expansion of the stars in the sky from a single point of light.

That is why there are so many denominations. Anything is open to interpretation if translated.

No, dude. Many denominations arose from pretty much the same translations. All these various modern translations is a pretty new phenomenon. The difference is in how people chose to interpret the same exact scriptures in different ways to suit their individual tastes and culture. The original Hebrew isn't open to interpretation as relating the story of the Big Bang, regardless.

Also, not so much "accidental mistranslations", as "misinterpretations" that could easily be reinterpreted to fit with the knowledge gained over the last 6000+ years.

Dude. You're really suggesting Moses lived over 6000 years ago? And if something so fundamental as all this was "misinterpreted" by Moses to mangle so thoroughly God's attempt to describe the Big Bang to him, what can we trust? Why would God allow something so basic to be so wildly "misinterpreted" by the man to whom he gave the Stone Tablets, and how in the world did he lack any supernatural ability to explain to a grown man the idea of the Big Bang any better than that? I can explain to a three year old the concept of the Big Bang better than that. Which brings up an interesting point...

Also, if we take the literal definition of "bara" in Genesis 1.1 we have - In the beginning God fattened the heavens and the earth. Fatten could be interpreted as exploding as well. (in the sense that ancient Hebrew has no known word for exploding)

Furthermore, ancient Jews, not having a concept of the "universe" would most likely have used "earth" in its place, just as other ancient civilizations considered the earth to be the entire universe.

Nor do you seem to understand that translation from Hebrew to English changes the meaning even when words are the same. For instance, the word "and" in English indicates a separate point. The Hebrew word that translates to "and" is more of poetic equality. For instance, "Your word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Hebrew is a more poetic language.

So you apparently try to claim both that ancient Hebrew is so advanced and so rich a language compared to modern English that a reasonable translation of meaning cannot be accomplished in from ancient Hebrew to English. Yet at the same time these same ancient Hebrews lacked the ability to communicate an explosion or a bursting or anything even coming close to describing the Big Bang and that because other ancient cultures considered the earth to be the entire universe the ancient Hebrews must have as well despite the lack of any evidence for this and their having the one true omniscient and omnipotent invisible sky-wizard on their side.

[collegestudent22]

Because there are many different translations, with many different interpretations.

Show me which one says something totally different in Genesis 1:2-8, where it describes the sudden expansion of the stars in the sky from a single point of light.

It is a different interpretation, not a different translation. It is an interpretation that depends on the poetic nature of the Hebrew language itself.

No, dude. Many denominations arose from pretty much the same translations.

Yes, but different interpretation.

All these various modern translations is a pretty new phenomenon.

New, like from around 2000 years ago. Translation may be new-ish, but interpretation is most definitely NOT.

Also, not so much "accidental mistranslations", as "misinterpretations" that could easily be reinterpreted to fit with the knowledge gained over the last 6000+ years.

Dude. You're really suggesting Moses lived over 6000 years ago?[/quote]

Well, seeing as how Jesus was 2000 years ago, plus something around 4000 years of "ancient" history sounds about right. Maybe a little less.

[Deacon]

WTF is all this about "interpretations" now? And if you think Moses was around over 6000 years ago, then really that's pretty much the final piece of the puzzle that this is all futile to discuss with you. I even threw in the bit about the pyramids as a not-so-subtle reminder of where in the timeline of history this all fell in.

[collegestudent22]

Whoops. Meant 5000. It was actually 4500 years about. It's late. Deal with it.

[Deacon]

Actually, what's really interesting is that if you go by "ancient Hebrew" rabbinical scholars in the Talmud Bavli, he was born more like 2400 years ago (~1400 BC). Puts him over a thousand years too late to mess with things like the Great Pyramid, but that's neither here nor there. What's a rich, poetic way to say "playing a game of Telephone with ancient tribal folklore for hundreds of generations results in rather unreliable stuff that in no way 'proves' that God exists, much less that He told Moses a story of the Big Bang" exactly?

[Makh]

I can't even think of anything that contradicts the Bible when it actually talks about science. (and technically, you can't determine God's methods of creation from the Bible, so evolution doesn't really contradict it necessarily)

Science has proven countless of time that religion was wrong on many things.

And it is that faith that has literally saved my life and made me who I am.

What you call faith is your own will to survive. Give yourself some credit friend. You are the only responsible of your success. Or failure if it happens. You first believed in yourself. Other events that are out of your control are mix of chance and a succession of coincidences.

I know more you try to convince someone on his beliefs, more you will meet resistance, which is normal reaction. Bolsheviks did not suppress religion in Russia and they burned many churches, imprisonned bishops, forbid most of the orthodox rituals. They were right maybe on one thing about religions, they all divide people, they seclude them. Most religions, including christianism, show great signs of exclusion. You must adhere to principles that are most of the time very doktrinal. How can you be free, spiritually? Dogma are barriers. Show me a religion of inclusion, buddhism maybe? I do not think so. In buddhism, they tend to propose things, and try to not impose them, I agree. They suggest you to learn about yourself first, to make your choice to achieve what you consider to be an ideal condition of happiness in your eyes. It is more a way of life, most people are doing it without being buddhist. But, many of their precepts are not inclusive. Hell, some of them say you can not eat or sleep at the wrong time. They have however, in my opinion, the most accurate definition of faith: self-confidence and self-respect. Hm.. where was I going with this.. I must go. Working in 20 mins.

[collegestudent22]

Science has proven countless of time that religion was wrong on many things.

Name a few. If there are "countless" why have you not already named one? Considering the Bible at least doesn't go into science but a few times, and even then it is vague and sometimes misinterpreted.

[Deacon]

Don't bother, Makh. The Bible is plain and clear and 100% accurate and Truth, but it's murky and vague and sometimes "misinterpreted" due to the primitive vocabulary of the rich and inscrutably poetic language of the ancient Hebrews, what with their "and" and such.

[FireAza]

Science has proven countless of time that religion was wrong on many things.

Name a few. If there are "countless" why have you not already named one? Considering the Bible at least doesn't go into science but a few times, and even then it is vague and sometimes misinterpreted.

Not that I really wish to be enveloped in a science vs religion debate, but here's a example of the Bible "doing it wrong" that rather amused me. So in Genesis 1:11 God creates plants ("And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so God creates") but it's only later in Genesis 1:16 that God finally creates something that plants need to survive: sunlight ("And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"). Actually, creating something with the intent for it to suffer was exactly what I did in Spore, so maybe God really did create plants before the sun and allowed them to die

[PVTHillbilly]

I don't think the bible is murky and vauge at all.

Though I did hear someone at work say something about a different subject that could apply here. "The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence."