Raf

In Genesis 10, we the the repopulation of earth after the flood that never happened either globally or regionally. We know it wasn't global because there was not enough time for the population to have grown so massive that Nimrod's territory could encompass all it did by verse 12. And we know it wasn't regional because there was no flood in that region that would have been massive enough to carry the ark to "the mountains of Ararat." We've gone over this in previous posts; no need to rehash. Then we get to chapter 11, where we learn that the whole world had one language and a common speech. This is simply not true. It has never been true. I mean, just read the previous chapter. The writer of that chapter didn't think everyone on earth had one language. So these people decide to build a city. As though there weren't already more than a dozen of them as recorded in the previous chapter. With a tower that reaches all the way to heaven. Bearing in mind that heaven just meant "sky," I will refrain from the usual trope that they wanted to reach God's habitat. It's not what the book says. But note their concern: If we don't build this really big building, we may end up scattered all over the earth. This, apparently, would be a bad thing. I could be wrong on this, but I don't think the author of Gen. 11 is the author of Gen. 10. Honestly, the author of Genesis 10 talks about a huge population of over multiple cities and even kingdoms. Gen. 11 has one group of people, all speaking one language, as if these are the only people on earth. I am aware of Bullinger's belief that the tower was not going to be remarkable for its height but for its content: it was supposed to depict the heavens, which would have been ... I don't know. I don't get why that would concern God. But I don't get why God was bothered by this building anyway. Nevertheless, He persisted. “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them," God says, as if this were a bad thing. "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” Would this be an inconvenient time to bring up the verse that says God is not the author of confusion? Because it seems here that he's taking credit for it. Anyway, so God, instead of appearing in some form that says "don't construct this building: it is against my will," instead decides to have everyone speak different languages. Suddenly, no one understands each other. So the people who DO understand each other get together in groups and depart for other lands, where they can be with their own people. And that's how we got the different languages of the world. Of all the cockamamie... Seriously? You know this didn't happen, right? And let's be real clear: similar to the flood, this confusing of languages is not some localized event unnoticed by most of humanity. This IS most of humanity. Note the scripture: "So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel -- because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth." Not a local event. And not a true one. Languages developed independently over a great deal of time. They didn't all suddenly pop up at one location in the middle east and scatter around the world from there. This is a myth, not history. It never happened.

Ok, I made the same mistake WW made, which was to treat this thread the same as TV Mashup. So George, if you don't mind returning us to our regularly scheduled programming: next clue should be quotes from a show.

It is Moonlighting.

That is not credible. I'm sorry, but it's just not. But whatever. Moving on...

not a cop show. close. but not. one of the main stars became MUCH more famous playing a cop in movies.

I tend to ignore silly explanations. God's intervention is minimalistic? Note where we are in the story: God is blabbing away with everyone so far, EXCEPT the one who found favor with him. Your answer is not an explanation; it is an excuse, and a pretty bad one at that. It's the kind of answer you would laugh at and reject if we were discussing the holy book of any other religion. As for an author coming back later to explain something: this did no good for Cain, did it? Again, a ridiculous explanation you would reject if offered to support any other religion.

There's nothing there about blood being required for a sin offering. Not even a hint. In fact, if you were to take it at his word, it's clear that the problem was his attitude, not the absence of blood. Moreover, there's zero clarity about what the problem was with Cain. Much like Passing of a Patriarch, it's a criticism of being sinful with zero articulation about what sinful means. Csin's problem was he did not do well? That's it? Mind you, you're quoting a verse in which God speaks directly to Cain, nullifying your excuses about his unwillingness to speak to Abel, whose life depends on knowing what Cain will do.

"Thinks Raf is a weatherman" is a very old joke. Like, at least 13 years old at this point. Anyway, I'll try to get an answer on the dots.

Everything looks better as far as wind speed is concerned. The storm arrives earlier than originally projected (Friday at 2 p.m.) and it's a tropical storm 12 hours after that. That's the good news. The bad news is, they're getting pelted for a full 24 hours BEFORE the storm makes landfall, and wind is not the big issue with this storm: Water is. Hurricane intensity does not measure water. So even though it's not a "major hurricane" as measure by the category strength, this can still be a monster in terms of how much water we see. By the time of this posting (5 p.m. Thursday), those who haven't evacuated probably can't. Maybe I'm wrong. Check your local authorities. You know your local geography. Do what you can and must. Stay dry.

Read this carefully. Even if, as I purport ... Never mind what the text actually says and doesn't say. He's going to try to hang this on me. MAYBE there's an alternate translation of Gen. 4:7. Maybe. (Psst: the burden is on you to find it, not to simply declare the possibility that such a text exists and draw conclusions from it). Maybe God reminded him. (He didn't. It's not there). This is the kind of illogic that makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with some believers. The Bible means what it says and it says what it means, until it doesn't say what I wish it said. Then I pull out the wishful thinking card. There might maybe be an alternate translation that says what I want it to say... Meanwhile, your only explanation for why God speaks directly to literally everyone in the Bible except the person who could use a little life-saving advice right about now is basically "whatevs." On this kind of logic you guarandamtee eternal life? Please.

Eternal life is claimed as an answer to my question by another poster. Hence my reference. Thank you for adding your perspective.

Yes, but Abel was the one who had God's favor and whose life was in danger. What good is it to have God's favor? Oh, that's right. Eternal perspective: the magic elixir that answers everything.

No M's in the forecast anymore. That's good as far as wind speed is concerned; meaningless as far as water. Stay safe and dry, everyone.

After the fall, Genesis mentions five characters. Adam. God speaks to him directly. Eve. God speaks to her directly. The serpent. God speaks to him directly. Cain. God speaks to him directly. Abel. F@#! that guy.

Your guarantee of eternal life is as valuable as the Muslim's. As valuable as the Mormon's. As valuable as the Scientologist's belief in clearing the tanks from our minds. Your fervent belief is not a guarantee. Yes, I repeated myself. Because for some reason it didnt sink in. You seem to think this is a matter of perspective. It's not. You seem to think declarations have as much value as evidence. They do not. It is obscene that you misrepresent my position. YOU are the one minimizing atrocities by viewing them through eternal-life glasses, not I. Why think God would be close enough to talk to Abel to talk to him? I can't believe that question is being asked with a straight face. God speaks directly to Cain, whose sacrifice is not accepted. Yet he ignores Abel. And you seriously are asking me why I think God would speak to Abel. Dude, I can't even.

I've heard that. I've also heard that there was a Nazareth that existed before the time of Jesus's birth, and a Nazareth that existed long after Jesus died, but no Nazareth while he was alive. That strikes me as a little too convenient. I would say that while I am not 100% convinced that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus' life, I think it is more likely that it did. But I wouldn't bet more than a few dollars.

Your guarantee of eternal life is as valuable as the Muslim's. As valuable as the Mormon's. As valuable as the Scientologist's belief in clearing the tanks from our minds. Your fervent belief is not a guarantee. And yes, by comparing this life to the next in the precise way that you have to make the precise point you are making does indeed rob this life of value, and it does indeed justify any atrocity in this life as long as the victim has eternal life. This is how YOU are applying it! Why didn't God warn Abel? Eternal life! That's a HORRIBLE answer! But you can't even see that.

If I were in a bad mood, I would say that if there were one preposition out of place, the whole thing would fall to pieces. I do not believe the question of what makes it an error is a sincere question. If I say the check is in the mail, and the check is not in the mail, then I am wrong. I am in error. Am I lying? There's no way to know that for sure. Maybe I think it's in the mail, and it's not. But the statement itself is in error. Whether Genesis is an error or its writer is in error are not mutually exclusive propositions. They could both be in error. Or perhaps only the book is in error. If the reader is in error, then that's not an actual error in Genesis. An assertion of fact that is untrue, or the presentation of two mutually exclusive facts would qualify as actual errors. Matthew says Jesus's family moved to Nazareth when he was several years old. Luke says his family lived in Nazareth when he was born. They cannot both be correct. That is an actual error. But honestly, am I the only one who recognizes the insincerity of the question "what makes that error"? It's an assertion of fact that is untrue. This isn't difficult.

I don't believe I have read the skeptic's annotated Bible. I have heard of it. But I don't recall delving into it deeply because I was not a fan of the style. I am not familiar with the second website at all Third website is difficult to explain. I don't recall ever seeing that website. However, I do recall reading a book with the same title. Whether there's a connection between the book and the website, I do not know. I can't imagine it was a coincidence. Trusting to see whether my explanations or observations are worded similarly or identically to the third site. It would certainly not have been intentional, but it is also certain that two people covering the same topic with the same point of view might word things in similar ways. Especially if one of them read the other first.

Thanks.

The circles along the path tell you only where the storm's eye is going to be and when it's going to be there. It is of little importance to anyone deciding whether or not to be prepared. Hurricane force winds are extending 70 miles out from the center, and tropical storm force winds are out nearly 200 miles. So that's about 350-400 miles of really nasty weather taking aim for the Carolinas. From that perspective, the circles along the path aren't telling you anything of practical value. A circle with an M means it's a major hurricane (category 3 or higher). A circle with an H means it's category 1 or 2. A circle with a T means tropical storm, and a circle with a D means tropical depression. By the time you see a T or D, there's no longer an "eye."

This is looking ugly. Please be advised that I am writing this at 5 p.m. eastern on Sept. 12. The map attached will change over time, so what I write now may not be reflected in what you see depending on when you read this. I've lived through a few of these storms, including Irma last year, but here in South Florida we're a bit better prepared for this. We expect these storms now and then. We have very few hills, which means very few valleys, which means flooding is not the monster issue here that it can be in places like the Carolinas. I wouldn't trade places with the Carolinas right now for anything. This forecast has a major hurricane parked just offshore starting Thursday, weakening to "just" a hurricane as it makes landfall 8 a.m. Saturday. It appears from the forecast that those north of the storm will be harder hit than those south, but the coast of both Carolinas are about to take a beating the likes of which they have not seen in quite some time. By contrast, every storm I've lived and worked through has come and gone in a matter of hours (as few as five, as many as 18). I'm not going to repeat all the advice you've probably been hearing for days already. When this is over, we'll be posting the best places to send aid for those who need it most. Stay safe.

Surely you knew that I was aware you were citing scripture when you spoke of the foolishness of God being wiser than men. Nonetheless, you don't get to leap from that assertion to the "claim" that my accusation of arrogance is unfounded. My accusation of arrogance is WELL-founded, and I outlined exactly why. Declaring your own position to be wise and alternative positions to be foolish is arrogant. It is arrogant whether you are doing it of your own spontaneous thought or if you are citing the scribblings of a 2,000-year-old itinerant preacher. The source of your claim is not what made it arrogant. The substance is. I am not going to sit here and wait for you do spell out exactly why you came to the conclusion that it makes sense there would be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. It's YOUR claim. When you can articulate it, I'll be here. Simply stating that I will not be satisfied with your answer is a dodge. Articulate your answer. Then you can fault me for rejecting it. I am going to refer back to our earlier discussion on this, however, because I think it is significant: You just wrote: "it is not so difficult to think of eternal life's quality being far more significant and important than the trials and tribulations in the proving time of the temporal life currently bestowed upon us." In doing so, you are presuming eternal life, which is your prerogative, but there is no evidence that there is any such thing for any species. So to draw conclusions from it is wonderful as a matter of faith, but it does little or nothing to contribute to a discussion with someone who is not convinced there is any such thing. Further, and I've said this before, looking at this temporal life from an eternal perspective opens the door to defending all manner of atrocity, as this temporal life of necessity becomes of no value compared to eternity. So Abel gets murdered. So what? He has eternal life now. Job's kids? Eternal life! That dude who got killed for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week? Don't worry, buddy. I know those great big rocks hurt, but look on the bright side: you're going to paradise! Ananias and Sapphira get insta-death penalty for holding back money from the church, but they're born again! So, bygones! Any atrocity can be dismissed in significance if you look at things from an eternal perspective. That's not really an answer to the questions we've been raising here. It's a dismissal of them. Why didn't God warn Abel? Because it makes no difference from the eternal perspective. WOW! If that's going to be the answer to everything, then this "eternal life" thing had better be rock-solid guarandamteed. It's not. It's a wishful-thinking claim made by people who struggled to come to terms with the finality of death. Every culture struggles with the question. Every culture concocts a different answer. All claim evidence to support their mutually exclusive answers.

I am, once again, declining to answer questions that have already been answered. You are truly making the case for me that you're position of posing question after question after question is insincere. You are not seeking answers. You are seeking an argument. I will not entertain you any further.

I am not going to play the same "sealion" game you constantly play on these threads. Thank you for participating in the conversation. Good day.