And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

I assume so also. As I understand it, the Bible is primarily a record of God's interaction with man. That's why there's no discussion of aliens (alien to humanity, that is), whether dinosaurs roamed the Earth before mankind, why dogs don't get along with cats, and the like.

Prepare for teh cuteness!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_zM-4k8Lv0&feature=related

You left out

Yeah.... Right... I was brought to Christianity because someone said God "spoke" the universe into existence rather than just "thinking" it so.

There are a lot better ways to troll my belief than that.

Then your earlier comment about metaphor and "truth" is just more trolling because my comment applies equally well to anyone who's a Christian, IMO. The distinction in mechanism, while important, is certainly not one of those gee-whiz things that would first attract anyone to the religion or even keep them there once they'd made their commitment.

because the original audience was a bunch of primitive nomads? The same reason why, when a toddler ask you what a light switch is you do not explain the entire concept of electricity to them - you say "I flip this switch and the light comes on"

A. Howzat?

B. A metaphor IS a type of rhetorical device.

What is truly amazing is that you know nothing about anything, yet think you know much about everything.

You are the classic example of whom this saying refers to "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

If so it's a damned poor attempt.

The belief system could be admittedly false, and/or the account unanimously considered fiction and the question would still be valid because your question is a literary question, not a faith question.

I know it's everyone's pastime to take a swipe at RickDeckard here in the Red Room, but you're going to have to back your claim up here, Captain.

In fairness, a much more satisfying pastime is swiping at the pussfied Dan than the commie Henry, since the latter infirmity could at least be overcome with some education.

What do you want? Rick, an avowed athiest with a long record of posting asinine stupidity make a wild and ridiculous claim about the bible with no link or anything beyond his puny thoughts. His statement is baseless and he doesn't even attempt to provide one.

So, there you go, the Bible is no longer relevant.

It has nothing to tell us about science, it's science claims (flat earth, 6,000 year old universe, zombies, global flood, spontaneous creation of life) are ridiculous and disproven.

It has nothing to say to modern people on moral philosophy, it's moral claims (stone adulterers, stone disobedient children, women must marry their rapists) are disgusting to modern people.

It ain't a history book, its history is disproven bunk.

It ain't a political text, it advocates totalitarian dictatorship.
Pretty damned un-American.

And then there's the shit with no lesson, like Sampson...what are we supposed to learn from Sampson?
It's just an ancient comic book.
Superman's better.

Fuck, if it had brownie recipes in the back, I wouldn't trust 'em.

It's an obsolete book of fairy tales.

All it can really tell us, is the campfire stories the ancient Jews were telling, and as it progresses, give us a spooky outline of the evolution of a cult.

You're the one that said you were "trolling belief". I happen to believe. You know it. Therefore, you're trolling me. If you're backing away from that statement now, you're free to say so.

Since you yourself also said you knew you were speaking to a Christian audience (and that's why you chose to use Biblical references) then you're also trolling a good portion of the people here.

Finally, I'm not sure what you're asking in your last paragraph. Could you restate?

I know it's a troll, but I'm seriously surprised at all the answers people have been giving.

The power of God to create is in God's word; if God did not say the word, it would not have happened. There is nobody he was speaking "to," the act of speaking was the creation event.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Even if that were true - it doesn't follow from my point.

it doesn't propose to BE about science.

It's a false dilemma to assert for the whole what is true for the Torah

It's not designed to be a history book (I choose not to go into how much of it's history is proven or disproven)

It does? where?
In any case - no one ever professed it to be a political tretise.

You are entitled to that view - but even you have argued it better.

You seem to be, in this post, arguing against something I've made no claim to.

Dan ask (unwittingly?) a literary question and i answered in that context. I have no interest in sparring with you over your opinion on the subjects you raise.

Aren't you an atheist?

Right, so what's left?
Not much, if anything.

Well, there is that pesky bit about Jesus coming to confirm, not abolish the law.
Theologians have tapdanced their way out of that, but not without some severe bullshit.

King David's an utter bastard, the very model of a treacherous tyrant, and the Bible thinks he's so wonderful, he has to be Jesus's ancestor for him to be authentically the messiah.

Not at all, you admit the proper audience for the bible is desert nomads.
I'm just taking it to its full conclusion, and showing you what it means to sign on to that view.

You can't half-ass it.
You can't wriggle out of it.
The bible is relevant, or it ain't.
It ain't.

not to turn a blind eye to the arranged killing but on the whole, there's no evidence that he was a tyrant. Any more than any king is by definition a benevolent dictator at best.

Dinkynoo never worries much about evidence.

No, never.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? (No one is without sin)
The Be-Attitudes from the Sermon on the Mount?
Love thy enemy?
Turn the other cheek?

Sounds like good morals to follow for us modern folk.

Here's the problem: I've heard the claims that the Judeo-Christian Creation Myth is a combination and juxtiposition of earlier religions as well. Off the top of my head, because I don't have links to give you, the History Channel (and fully admitting that the History Channel is an odd source, but at least they make it sound and look well researched) and the Civlopedia from Civilization 4.

Whether the myth as presented in the Bible is accurate and original or not (and I happen to think it IS from religions older than the Abrahamic religions), don't pull a quick and easy flame on Rick without asking him to back it up; you didn't and just whipped out the flame thrower.

Rick never backs up his WF is full of examples of this. Why should I expect anything better this time? Whenever he gets backed into a corner he slinks away or ignores it. He's full of . If he wants to show otherwise he'll have to prove it. He never does.

Yeah, it's kind of his thing, taking photos and trolling Christians. To be fair, some of his photos are worthwhile.

It's very relevant in untangling the history of, and development of religion for the past three millenia.

As for my claim about multiple sources, which was denounced by Captain J, see here.