Christianity tells us that God is all-knowing... meaning he possesses all the knowledge that will ever be discovered in the universe, and that he knows the future, as well as the past and present. It also tells us that he inspired the writing of his, God's Word, into an inerrant document, the bible.

In this inerrant document of His Word, he inspired the writing of at least 18 instances stating that the world was supported by "foundations." Something disproved by Sputnik as well as our putting men on the moon and other space missions.

This document also contains (in Gen 30:39) a description of how flocks which conceive before rods "ringstraked, speckled, and spotted" actually turn out looking that way. Something any animal husbandry expert in the last couple of centuries would laugh at.

And lastly, in Leviticus 14:2-52 is described a complicated method of using bird's blood, a dead lamb, oil and another couple of doves, plus wiping the oil on the patient's ear, thumb and big toe.... to cleanse leprosy. Medical science is too polite to laugh at this. They just pick up another book.

The question is, why would a God possessing all the universe's knowledge and able to see into the 20th and 21st century, inspire writing such things which he had to realize would expose him as actually having no more knowledge of the universe than that possessed by bronze-age inhabitants who believed all sorts of superstitions as well as embracing multitudes of mythologies.

Comments?

For someone questioning the bible, you seem to have a very literal mind. When you look at the huge number of competing translations of the bible, you realize that you can't take any of it literally.

Without actual verses to examine, I'd say that gravity could be counted as a "foundation". Not to forget competing theories, so could electricity.

The Genesis account is obviously describing some form of magic. Magic must have been popular back then or else there wouldn't be a prohibition against it later.

The Leviticus passage concerns a CEREMONIAL cleansing of a person that is ALREADY healed of the disease. A ceremony can involve anything; it's all in the mind of the participants anyway. And, BTW, some translations say that beginning at verse 33 the subject is mildew(!).

Thanks, TruthIsScary, for your post. You've piqued my interest on a couple of items. So.... onward.

QUOTE: you can't take any of it literally" Are you telling me that the entire bible, all variations, are merely translations which can not be trusted (alias literally)? To me, that inability to take it literally completely negates any claim that it is inerrant. Christianity, God, Jesus, the whole ball game, rests on the bible being true. True, to me, indicates that one can take what it says literally. Where do you go if it can't be trusted to be true?

Gravity or electricity vs "foundation." The first two are forces, entities that make things move. Foundation, at least in all the definitiions I can find, is something upon which one builds things, or uses as a solid base for holding things. Just the opposite of making something move. Can you enlighten me please?

QUOTE: Magic must have been popular back then" Totally agree. Extremely popular back then. Still popular now depending on where you look... it Africa where witch doctors and shyster politicians toute "cures" to uneducated, superstitious people for things like AIDs. In fact, GEN and EXO have several references to "magicians" performing... but that presents a problem. They were the Pharoah's magicians. They worshipped "false" gods. Where did their magical powers come from if it wasn't the same trickery that modern magicians use?

QUOTE: translations say that beginning at verse 33 the subject is mildew(!). I'd appreciate knowing what translations, so I can refer to them. My reference (KJV) at v-33 and on keeps mentioning "plague" which, at least in my understanding, is a lot worse than some mildew (which I'm quite familiar with from living in the tropics for some years).

QUOTE: it's all in the mind of the participants anyway" AGREE! But that doesn't mean that what's in the mind of the particiipant is true. If you do some research on Hitler, you'll find that he felt he was doing the right thing in killing Jews. Does that justify or make right the Holocaust? The gals who followed Manson thought his ideas were OK. Does that make murder right? So if one "thinks" the priest will cleanse him, does that make it happen? In the case of leprosy I rather doubt it.

QUOTE: CEREMONIAL cleansing of a person that is ALREADY healed " I have to disagree here. From 14:4 thru 14:19 the phrases "to be cleansed" and "to be made clean" are used eight times. "To be" indicates something in the future, not something ALREADY done.

Cheers!

factchecker wrote:

Are you telling me that the entire bible, all variations, are merely translations which can not be trusted (alias literally)? To me, that inability to take it literally completely negates any claim that it is inerrant. Christianity, God, Jesus, the whole ball game, rests on the bible being true. True, to me, indicates that one can take what it says literally. Where do you go if it can't be trusted to be true?

First, let me explain my position. I never could accept the idea that the bible was literally true. There are too many things in it that contradict real life. Too many things that I cannot deny my faith in, like reincarnation. And too many interpretations for any one of them to be considered true. I stopped calling myself "a christian" a few years ago, but I'm still trying to work it all out of my system, which is why I'm looking for some actual discussions on these things.

Where do you go if you can't trust the bible? Well, you can find someone else to tell you what to think, and I guess you know how that goes, or you can start working things out for yourself.

Quote:

Gravity or electricity vs "foundation." The first two are forces, entities that make things move. Foundation, at least in all the definitiions I can find, is something upon which one builds things, or uses as a solid base for holding things. Just the opposite of making something move. Can you enlighten me please?

These forces can also hold things in suspension. Gravity vs. centrifugal force. Electricity and magnetism. A balance of forces.

Quote:

GEN and EXO have several references to "magicians" performing... but that presents a problem. They were the Pharoah's magicians. They worshipped "false" gods. Where did their magical powers come from if it wasn't the same trickery that modern magicians use?

The term "false" gods derives from the insecurity expressed by the god of the old testament, and which resulted in the 1st commandment. I think the Egyptians were on to a lot more than they get credit for. And "magic" is also a catch-all term for the abilities we all possess but that we're blind to.

Quote:

I'd appreciate knowing what translations, so I can refer to them. My reference (KJV) at v-33 and on keeps mentioning "plague" which, at least in my understanding, is a lot worse than some mildew (which I'm quite familiar with from living in the tropics for some years).

My reference source is www.biblegateway.com, where you can look up a passage in dozens of translations. Quite eye-opening.

Quote:

QUOTE: it's all in the mind of the participants anyway" AGREE! But that doesn't mean that what's in the mind of the particiipant is true.

A ceremony often has little meaning other than to alter the perceptions of the participants. The old testament has a lot about what is clean and unclean. Again, the part you quoted deals with someone who has recovered. But he was declared unclean and a ritual must be performed before he can be declared clean. It's just labeling the person.

Quote:

I have to disagree here. From 14:4 thru 14:19 the phrases "to be cleansed" and "to be made clean" are used eight times. "To be" indicates something in the future, not something ALREADY done.

Look at verse 3: 3And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper...(KJV). Even clearer is the NIV: "2These are the regulations for the diseased person at the time of his ceremonial cleansing, when he is brought to the priest: 3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the person has been healed of his infectious skin disease...

What follows is meaningless in any medical sense, but leprosy is such a dread disease that several steps are performed on the recovered person so that others will associate with him again. "Yes, I did have leprosy, but I'm better! Did you see those lambs I offered as a sacrifice! My best ones! And that oil--so expensive! Surely you can't have any doubt about me now!"

TruthIsScary, I have to admit that you've got me scratching my head. Not a Christian. Don't believe bible literally true. Too many interpretations. Yet you take a defensive stand on each of the items I find questionable in my first post... which is OK as we live in a free country that allows us to each have our own opinions. But I'm havng trouble figuring out where you stand.

Anyway, this old agnostic says thanks for the posts, and lets each press on.

I didn't think I was defensive, I thought I was against a literal interpretation of the bible! I basically said the cleansing bit was meaningless. Without a reference to look at, I did decide to defend a "poetic" interpretation of "foundation". As for the "magic" interpretation, well, who knows? Lots of things that seem to be commonplace in the OT are not a part of our lives now. No one has ever offered a reasonable explanation for that.

TruthIsScary.... semantics! Being "defensive" IS being "against" something. And that's not a putdown or insult, simply definition. The following definitions of "against" are from dictionary.com and The American Heritage Dictionary, and I'll admit I cherry-picked from several listings, but what the heck... "in resistance to or defense from" and "As a defense or safeguard from" So.... I agree that you were being "against" a literal interpretation of the bible. I am saying that the Christian religion requires a literal interpretation if it's to be considered inerrant and the proof of God... and there ain't no way it can be taken literally. So in some ways we are coming from different positions but agreeing (????? --
Now, as to "Lots of things that seem to be commonplace in the OT are not a part of our lives now. No one has ever offered a reasonable explanation for that." -- doesn't the fact that superstition and belief in myths was rampant in the bronze age when the OT was written (by men) pretty well explain that?
Cheers.