Talk Elections

Certainly the entire book of Genesis is allegorical, although certain parts (Joseph going into Egypt) can be taken as actually happening.  I think there is good evidence for the Exodus, and Leviticus and Numbers are mostly laws, so there's no dispute on that count.  Deuteronomy is mostly Moses's farewell address, so there no reason to dispute that book either.  Most of the Prophets can be taken as true, likewise with Kings and Chronicles.  Outside of the Torah, the only parts that are untrue are contained in sections of books (Samson, various miracles, etc.)  What do you think?

I think that the Torah is a corrupted version of the word of Allah, so the only parts that can be taken as fact are those that are expressly corroborated in the Qur’ān, which is about a quarter based on my completely random guess.

How is the Torah a corrupted version, when it came first, by about 1,000-1,500 years?

It was gradually changed from the word of Allah as revealed to Moses.

Okay, now I get it.

Same goes for the Gospel of Jesus, while the New Testament is not regarded as having any sort of divine basis.

How much of the Koran is original material?  By that, I mean it isn't a retelling of stuff found in the Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible?

So, what is your faith's view on the people of the book?

Do we end up in hell (I can't remember what its called in Islam, something J-- but too close spelling wise to heaven for me to try and spell)? Temporary punishment? Permanent?  You can answer in another thread if you'd like

</hijack>

Bullmoose-are you Jewish?

No, protestant...

Why do you ask?

You said "we" when referring to the People of the Book, who are Jews.

If I recall correctly (and I may not since I am not a Muslim) but islam considers both christians and jews to be the people of the book...ie those using the incomplete revelations of Allah

Perhaps

I guess i'll pose a question for you...and its something I can't get a clear uniform answer from my jewish friends...the answers are so different I wonder if they all share the same faith...

But is there a heaven and a hell in judaism? if so...what exactly are they like?

Judaism belives that everyone's soul will spend eternity with God, so no, there is no Heaven and Hell per se, because everyone spends eternity in a heaven like place.

I've heard this explanation before...i guess I don't understand it...why would He have a chosen people...and why wouldHe allow vile souls (i'm not talking about debatable ones, I'm talking about the most vile people in human history) to have the same outcome?

Here's an answer to all your questions (I hope).


I think I've explained that the Torah and Gospel are the Word of God, but corrupted in places. So, the uncorrupted Word would be similar.


I will, thank you.

All of the Bible, except for some of the Letters of Paul.

You're asking for a detailed religion to make logical sense? I think you're asking a bit too much. ;)

then why does the rest of scripture treat Genesis as the historical record?  The simple fact is that scripture doesn't treat the account Genesis any differently than it does any other historical book of the bible.  In fact, I could easily argue that Genesis is treaty as the blueprint for the rest of the bible.

Can the events in Genesis be taken allegorically?  Absolutely.  For example, a lot of the events of Joseph's life establish a pattern that the Messiah would later follow.  But that doesn't make the events of Joseph's life any less real.

Scripture simply treats the events recorded in prior scripture as BOTH literal and figurative.

---


Well, how could Joseph be real but not his father (Jacob), his grandfather (Issac), or his great-grandfather (Abraham)?

---


In all kindness, I don't think you have thought this through.

Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham are quite real.  They did not live to the age as given in Genesis, but there certainly existed a man who started Judaism, and he did have a son, and a grandson, and so on and so forth.

you were around to witness the length of their lifespans?  wow, you must be really old

Abraham did not live to be 175, Isaac to 137, and Jacob at 147.

Our years? Probably...then again, you're technically speculating (extrapolating backwards from a modern trend)

since you back your statements with nothing but your own opinion, I think I'll stick with the bible's own interpretation

Oh, certainly the latter parts have some historical credibility.  (Though God slaying the Assyrian army in II Kings is a bit of a stretch).  We know that the Assyrians, Babylonians etc. came in waves that match the Biblical chronology pretty well, and we also know that there could have been a pretty good sized Hebrew empire in the 10th century BCE (though not the size Solomon's empire is described as).  But yes, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and respective falls of each, and return to the Land, is pretty credible, and some of the prophets (Nahum, I'm looking at you) are really great views of how the society of the period viewed its neighbors.  Ezekiel's rant about Tyre, Isaiah's statements to make no alliances with the Egyptians, etc.

Daniel and Esther are both historical fiction, and both are totally implausible.  I reread Daniel last night, and really found myself struck.  (Who the hell is this "Darius the Mede?")  On the other hand, I don't have any trouble believing Ezra and Nehemiah.

can we have a "delete account" button please?

Why are you disbelieving your own text? Why are you not factoring miracles into your beliefs?

Depends.  Is there anything in it that we have evidence of outside of the religious texts themselves? 

Yes.  The earliest is the Deir 'Alla inscription which indicates that Balaam, son of Beor, was indeed revered as a prophet among the Moabites as described in the book Numbers.  Altho the inscription has him being a prophet of the gods, not just of YHWH.  Numbers 22 to 24 makes more story sense if in the original tale, Balaam consulted with three gods instead of just one, but it was later revised since there could be no gods except YHWH.

Fair enough.  Bible, this bone has been thrown.  We will meet again. 

All of it.  And how is Genesis allegorical?  As an Adventist, most of my denomination teaches a literal six-day creation (creation is the subject of our current Sabbath school lesson.)  I don't necessarily agree with that, but I do believe in creation in general.

The parts that are contrary to the scientific and historical method. Do you think the experts have got that wrong?

If evolution is real, then how was The Flintstones made?

All of it.

Certainly noahs ark and appocholypse and 80 year old woman having kids can be theory and resurrection. Only historical facts are literal.

Pangea can explain Noah's Ark.

What? No it can't.

First of all Pangaea began to separate about 200 million years ago, so you're some 199.9 million years out. The fact there was a supercontinent didn't mean there was more water in the form of oceans than there is today and there is not enough water or elements that can be fused to form water to adequately cover the planet in the stuff. In short it didn't happen. And of course the planet has 8.7million species; there wasn't the room for 17.4 million animals and all their food to float about on a big boat.

I ment Pangea (or the Supercontinint idea in general) explains how all the animals managed to get there. Before the flood, rain had never happened, and that's part of why so few people believed him.

As for long lives, sin causes death, and the people that lived so long were servants of God who protected them from sin.

No it doesn't, because as has already been pointed out to you you're off by some 199.9 million years. Humans didn't even exist at the time of Pangea to build an ark in the first place.

Which are you going to trust, some rocks or the word of Jehovah 1?