The True Meaning of the Bible

[Elixir]

I from what I’ve seen from RIS, getting to the true meaning of the Bible must be a word by word process. So we better get to work.

Starting with “in” as in “in the beginning” we can get there.
So - we know the in in in the beginning doesn’t mean physical containment, as there was nothing to contain. It’s more like when you’re “in” trouble. Add the context provided by the subsequent word, “ the” and the the clarifies that the in was something unique rather than recurrent.
By this method we can corral the author’s intent in using the word “in”, and thereby gain full understanding of this critical part of the Bible - the beginning, but before we go there we need to address the next word;
The.

Unfortunately, the next word, the, is going to be more difficult.
But if you’ve read this far, you know where this is going;
To TRULY understand the Bible it’s going to take an infinite number of chimpanzees with typewriters an infinite amount of time to ‘splain it to you.

 

[Jarhyn]

I from what I’ve seen from RIS, getting to the true meaning of the Bible must be a word by word process. So we better get to work.

Starting with “in” as in “in the beginning” we can get there.
So - we know the in in in the beginning doesn’t mean physical containment, as there was nothing to contain. It’s more like when you’re “in” trouble. Add the context provided by the subsequent word, “ the” and the the clarifies that the in was something unique rather than recurrent.
By this method we can corral the author’s intent in using the word “in”, and thereby gain full understanding of this critical part of the Bible - the beginning, but before we go there we need to address the next word;
The.

Unfortunately, the next word, the, is going to be more difficult.
But if you’ve read this far, you know where this is going;
To TRULY understand the Bible it’s going to take an infinite number of chimpanzees with typewriters an infinite amount of time to ‘splain it to you.

See, this is why I just want to cut straight to the heart of whatever RIS believes. Everyone believes different stuff after all, and having a starting point in the exploration of a specific set of beliefs is often a good idea.

Really though, I just really want to see how "this one" reacts to the foul juxtaposition of my own story, which I would hope you remember the last time I rolled it out? It's the story of my childhood prayer to the universe that, if I had faith in what the Bible said, would have crazy theological implications.

 

[bilby]

The bible has said for eons,

The Bible hasn't existed "for eons".

Paper hasn't existed for eons.

Language hasn't existed for eons.

Humans haven't existed for eons.

Plants and animals haven't even existed for eons.

The current geological eon started with the Cambrian era, 538 million years ago. A chronological eon is a thousand million years; The use of a 'mere' 538,000,000 years for the Phanerozoic eon is a consequence of geologists wanting to divide paleohistory into four parts by reference to clear event markers, rather than by arbitrary counts of round numbers of years.

The current eon starts with the first fossil evidence of life. Which at the time was mostly unicellular. And was definitely not equipped to write any kind of religious text.

Eons, plural, takes us back to the start of the Proterozoic, some 2,500 million years ago. This eon begins with the first presence of free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere, as a consequence of the emergence of photosynthesis in unicellular organisms such as cyanobacteria.

Eons ago, all life on Earth was in the oceans and tidal regions; Nothing lived on land at all, and most of the life in the oceans was just about to be killed off by the oxygen unleashed by those cyanobacteria.

All of this is well evidenced by geology.

But if you prefer to believe your book, rather than observing reality, then the entire universe has only existed for about 0.0006% of an eon. So either way, a claim that the Bible has said anything "for eons" must be wrong.

 

[pood]

Name one contradiction.

I love the “duh” about a book of fairy tales that can and has been interpreted in countless ways, as if your way is a no-brainer.

Yeah, maybe tomorrow we'll work on colors, science boy.

Maybe tomorrow we’ll work on all the ways science has made life better for you, religion boy, including allowing you to peddle your pablum over the internet — you know, the internet created by science.

I’d rather read about disputes over quantum mechanics any time, then read people who squabble over the “meanings” in an ancient book of myths and fables that bears no actual relation to reality.

What's keeping you?

Nothing. I just find you entertaining, especially that chip on your shoulder the size of Montana that gives away your insecurities about your beliefs.

 

[pood]

True meaning of Bible

Be a staunch Christian and if you are not one, become one.
Propaganda material, but not well-written, full of contradictions, necessitating apologetics.

I know you from that other forum. Name one contradiction.

I believe there is a rather long article on this in the Sec web library.

 

[pood]

\

The bible has said for eons, humans have within them the 'conscience'. How one acts or reacts to the wellbeing of others; positively or negatively through the 'conscience' is one of the main things up for judgement. Religious or otherwise.

Conscience is an evolved trait of social animals. Other social animals have it, too. Non-social or eusocial animals don’t. Shrug. Nothing to do with any gods.

By this understanding, animals have emotions, and they like eating as we do too. This indicates the same manufacturer or source. A creator in my view of course.

No, it means a universal common ancestor, plus evolution.