Pope: There Is No Hell

[Roustabout]

​

Correct, we can speculate that some neanderhtal wrote the ****ing book on the wall of a cave that has since eroded away.

Or, we can say that the best evidence dates the writing of these books to after the Babylonian captivity.

But, you want to play the speculation game. So, here goes. Some atheistic Egyptian dude built himself a mother ****ing telescope and a rocket ship 20,000 years ago and flew around the ****ing the earth. He then built a computer, wired the ****ing region, and published his findings and his photographs (from the camera he built), throughout the world. It wasn't divine revelation that revealed the earth was round, it was this crazy genius.

Unfortunately, nobody maintained his ****, and eventually all that survived was his story, and eventually, the narrative was lost, but the fact that the world was round, even though it appeared flat to everyone, was so amazing it stuck in everyone's head.

There are no irrefutable clues to refute this happening. So, until you disprove it, it's what I'm going to run with.

Don't you have a church to go cry in, or something??

 

[therealUT]

Don't you have a church to go cry in, or something??

Interesting that a Christian gets their panties in a bunch when someone else comes to believe in a forgiving and merciful God.

Christians like you are probably a huge reason that many unbelievers decide not to even leave themselves in a church.

Christians like the priests and monks I'm friends with are huge reasons why I continued to go to church.

 

[therealUT]

Specifically which phase are you referring to? Created the heavens and the Earth?

And even if you are seeing that heaven and Earth please as introductory to a section, it is beginning a second short section that recaps gods creation of the heavens and Earth. That in no way does damage to the introductory sentence that introduced the creation of man in the last of chapter 2, beginning in verse 7.

And can you offer some commentary or scholarly reference that it must be interpreted as an introductory phrase? I haven't seen that. Ever.

I have seen references to repetition used to begin and end thoughts in Semetic writing--used a LOT in Proverbs, Psalms, Biblical history sections...

The phrase "genealogical annals", or thulduth.

I mispoke earlier, off of memory, and that phrase does not occur in Genesis 1. It occurs throughout the rest of Genesis, and is always forward-looking. That is, of the ten times that 'thulduth' is used in Genesis, the tale follows 'thulduth', and never precedes it.

5:1 This is the record of the descendants...(and, the list of the descendants follows)

6:9 This is the descendants of Noah...(and, the list of descendants follows)

10:1 This is the descendants of Noah's son...(and, the list of descendants follows)

11:10 This is the descendants of Shem...

11:27 This is the descendants of Terah...

25:12 This is the descendants of Abraham's son...

25:19 This is the descendants of Isaac...

36:1 This is the descendants of Esau...

37:2 This is the story of the family of Jacob...(and, the story follows)

It would be odd for Genesis 2:4 to be retroactive, when the other 9 times this is used in Genesis it is forward-looking.

As for sources, pick up any Catholic Bible and look at the footnote for Gen 2:4. Search for a Hebrew interlinear Bible online and you can find all ten instances of "thulduth".

The reason why so many non-Catholics write and publish trying to say that this is retroactive in Genesis is because they are already of the conviction that the Bible is to be taken literally.

The Catholic Church has laughed at such a literal approach for at least 1,500 years. Simply pick up some Augustine and have a good read.

 

[Roustabout]

Interesting that a Christian gets their panties in a bunch when someone else comes to believe in a forgiving and merciful God.

Christians like you are probably a huge reason that many unbelievers decide not to even leave themselves in a church.

Christians like the priests and monks I'm friends with are huge reasons why I continued to go to church.

Well, I haven't attended a congregational Church in 3 years, so big whoop. Sure, while you were receiving pats on the back, you knew good and well those people believed you affirmed Christ. Hell you don't even believe he existed. Jesus mythicism is joke and deserves the same reproach as flat earthers, and that's just what you'll get.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The phrase "genealogical annals", or thulduth.

I mispoke earlier, off of memory, and that phrase does not occur in Genesis 1. It occurs throughout the rest of Genesis, and is always forward-looking. That is, of the ten times that 'thulduth' is used in Genesis, the tale follows 'thulduth', and never precedes it.

5:1 This is the record of the descendants...(and, the list of the descendants follows)

6:9 This is the descendants of Noah...(and, the list of descendants follows)

10:1 This is the descendants of Noah's son...(and, the list of descendants follows)

11:10 This is the descendants of Shem...

11:27 This is the descendants of Terah...

25:12 This is the descendants of Abraham's son...

25:19 This is the descendants of Isaac...

36:1 This is the descendants of Esau...

37:2 This is the story of the family of Jacob...(and, the story follows)

It would be odd for Genesis 2:4 to be retroactive, when the other 9 times this is used in Genesis it is forward-looking.

As for sources, pick up any Catholic Bible and look at the footnote for Gen 2:4. Search for a Hebrew interlinear Bible online and you can find all ten instances of "thulduth".

The reason why so many non-Catholics write and publish trying to say that this is retroactive in Genesis is because they are already of the conviction that the Bible is to be taken literally.

The Catholic Church has laughed at such a literal approach for at least 1,500 years. Simply pick up some Augustine and have a good read.

Ah... I see. You like Catholics. You trust Catholics more. They agree with your ideas.

OK. That's cool. Just don't tell me I'm refusing to take a text literally because I refuse to use the same inferences as you and your sources. That's not what "literal" means, and you know it. I was expecting you to come up with some detailed construct inherent in the clause that I'd never seen.

But nope. Their inferences support you, so it's theirs we should use.

I think you have a long way to go before proving it a contradiction, especially considering that the section in question begins with,

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Life in God’s Garden

8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.

Any reasonable person would consider the distinct possibility that the section is about to tell us about God's creation of man and population of his home garden. As a matter of fact, I think the person reading that honestly, with no preconceptions, would see that the text explicitly says that it is speaking to plants and trees growing up in the garden, and not make the logical jump that it's talking about all plant life within the timeline of Genesis 1.

(Note that that's the common enough interpretation by Hebrew scholars to head the section as such. Otherwise, I don't care who Catholics laugh at, and am not interested in a "my scholar is bigger than yours" game. Take care. :hi

 

[therealUT]

Well, I haven't attended a congregational Church in 3 years, so big whoop. Sure, while you were receiving pats on the back, you knew good and well those people believed you affirmed Christ. Hell you don't even believe he existed. Jesus mythicism is joke and deserves the same reproach as flat earthers, and that's just what you'll get.

Sad face.

 

[therealUT]

Ah... I see. You like Catholics. You trust Catholics more. They agree with your ideas.

OK. That's cool. Just don't tell me I'm refusing to take a text literally because I refuse to use the same inferences as you and your sources. That's not what "literal" means, and you know it. I was expecting you to come up with some detailed construct inherent in the clause that I'd never seen.

I trust the reasons the Catholic Church gives. The reason is simple: "Hey everybody. Look, Genesis uses this phrasing 10 times. 9 times there is no debate that it is forward-looking, as the story clearly follows. The one time there is a debate, hey, guess what, the story still follows."

But nope. Their inferences support you, so it's theirs we should use.

I think you have a long way to go before proving it a contradiction, especially considering that the section in question begins with,

The timelines clearly contradict. Your stance is they are not contradictory because they are no longer timelines of the same thing.

Any reasonable person would consider the distinct possibility that the section is about to tell us about God's creation of man and population of his home garden. As a matter of fact, I think the person reading that honestly, with no preconceptions, would see that the text explicitly says that it is speaking to plants and trees growing up in the garden, and not make the logical jump that it's talking about all plant life within the timeline of Genesis 1.

Sure, someone might infer that from the context. But, it is not what is literally said.

(Note that that's the common enough interpretation by Hebrew scholars to head the section as such. Otherwise, I don't care who Catholics laugh at, and am not interested in a "my scholar is bigger than yours" game. Take care. :hi

 

[therealUT]

Also, "ale thulduth" literally means, "so here is to be the genealogy".

 

[Orange_Crush]

Also, "ale thulduth" literally means, "so here is to be the genealogy".

And that is exactly why so many Hebrew scholars have translated it as such. You're just a master of every discipline, aren't you?

And that's why the Septuagint, as translated by Hebrews who were more intimate with the original text and culture than anyone alive today, translated it as:

This [is] the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth, 5 and every herb of the field before it was on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up, for God had not rained on the earth, and there was not a man to cultivate it. 6 But there rose a fountain out of the earth, and watered the whole face of the earth.

They didn't translate it as "this will be the generations of.", or "I;m about to tell you.,,

Again, I'm not interested in playing a "my scholars are bigger than yours..." game.

Have a nice day, TRUT.

 

[Roustabout]

Sad face.

What, you're sad that I'm not such an example that people would want to worship a 1st century Jew who never existed?

You're ****ing hilarious.

 

[therealUT]

What, you're sad that I'm not such an example that people would want to worship a 1st century Jew who never existed?

You're ****ing hilarious.

No, I'm just sad that you have kids that probably won't have the fortune to just die in a car wreck before you warp their minds.

Is that funny?

 

[Roustabout]

No, I'm just sad that you have kids that probably won't have the fortune to just die in a car wreck before you warp their minds.

Is that funny?

I can't be offended by someone I don't respect.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

And that is exactly why so many Hebrew scholars have translated it as such. You're just a master of every discipline, aren't you?

And that's why the Septuagint, as translated by Hebrews who were more intimate with the original text and culture than anyone alive today, translated it as:



They didn't translate it as "this will be the generations of.", or "I;m about to tell you.,,

Again, I'm not interested in playing a "my scholars are bigger than yours..." game.

Have a nice day, TRUT.

I dont get involved in these debates because I am simply not well enough studied in the scriptures to argue effectively one way or another. Frankly, I don't need to be. I know enough to know that He is God, I am me, and the only good that is ever in me comes from Him. Really all I need to know, faith handles the rest.

I will say, I have never seen anyone definitively prove a real contradiction in the Bible without either stating outright falsehoods, making huge suppositions or inferences, or taking things out of context...which is by far the most common. Context is very important when studying scripture.


Let me say that again,

Context is very important when studying scripture.

When people cherry pick verses, or take them out of context, they end up distorting the message God was trying to give by the text. It really is that simple. Some verses, when taken literally, and without context, may seem absurd...especially to those who do not know Christ. They dont have spiritual discernment...because they haven't asked Him for it. Because you don't ask favors of a stranger, or someone you dont believe exists...


Keep up the good work OC. As always, I am a phone call away. Got a call from Tennessee from a number I dont recognize a couple times in the last few days. Thought it might be you...but I dont answer stray numbers. There is even a telemarketer that has tricked me a couple times because the area code and first 3 numbers are the same as the wife and mine cell numbers...I trust nobody now. If a name from my contacts doesnt pop up when it rings, no estoy aqui.

 

[therealUT]

And that is exactly why so many Hebrew scholars have translated it as such. You're just a master of every discipline, aren't you?

And that's why the Septuagint, as translated by Hebrews who were more intimate with the original text and culture than anyone alive today, translated it as:



They didn't translate it as "this will be the generations of.", or "I;m about to tell you.,,

Again, I'm not interested in playing a "my scholars are bigger than yours..." game.

Have a nice day, TRUT.

I don't speak Hebrew. I learned this a while ago from both Jewish and Catholic friends. This morning I walked across the hallway to my buddy in the Classics Department and asked him what the phrase means. He gave the same answer that the Catholic Church has given for thousands of years.

He's not Catholic. He's Jewish and he teaches Hebrew.

Maybe he's wrong.

 

[therealUT]

I can't be offended by someone I don't respect.

I wasn't trying to offend you. I was letting you know what I'm praying for.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I dont get involved in these debates because I am simply not well enough studied in the scriptures to argue effectively one way or another. Frankly, I don't need to be. I know enough to know that He is God, I am me, and the only good that is ever in me comes from Him. Really all I need to know, faith handles the rest.

I will say, I have never seen anyone definitively prove a real contradiction in the Bible without either stating outright falsehoods, making huge suppositions or inferences, or taking things out of context...which is by far the most common. Context is very important when studying scripture.


Let me say that again,

Context is very important when studying scripture.

When people cherry pick verses, or take them out of context, they end up distorting the message God was trying to give by the text. It really is that simple. Some verses, when taken literally, and without context, may seem absurd...especially to those who do not know Christ. They dont have spiritual discernment...because they haven't asked Him for it. Because you don't ask favors of a stranger, or someone you dont believe exists...


Keep up the good work OC. As always, I am a phone call away. Got a call from Tennessee from a number I dont recognize a couple times in the last few days. Thought it might be you...but I dont answer stray numbers. There is even a telemarketer that has tricked me a couple times because the area code and first 3 numbers are the same as the wife and mine cell numbers...I trust nobody now. If a name from my contacts doesnt pop up when it rings, no estoy aqui.

Wasn't, though my thoughts and prayers are with you, and you know I'm a call away. Much love, bro.

 

[Roustabout]

i wasn't trying to offend you. I was letting you know what i'm praying for.

lol.

 

[therealUT]

This is the story: the distinctive Priestly formula introduces older traditions, belonging to the tradition called Yahwist, and gives them a new setting. In the first part of Genesis, the formula “this is the story” (or a similar phrase) occurs five times (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10), which corresponds to the five occurrences of the formula in the second part of the book (11:27; 25:12, 19; 36:1[9]; 37:2). Some interpret the formula here as retrospective (“Such is the story”), referring back to chap. 1, but all its other occurrences introduce rather than summarize. It is introductory here; the Priestly source would hardly use the formula to introduce its own material in chap. 1.

That's from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't speak Hebrew. I learned this a while ago from both Jewish and Catholic friends. This morning I walked across the hallway to my buddy in the Classics Department and asked him what the phrase means. He gave the same answer that the Catholic Church has given for thousands of years.

He's not Catholic. He's Jewish and he teaches Hebrew.

Maybe he's wrong.

That's cool. I haven't studied it enough to definitively correct you, or debate your scholar friend in the classics dept. I'm not calling you dumb, nor him. But on the same point, I have several close friends that are experts in Hebrew and ancient Semetic cultures. Guess what? They disagree with your Catholic sources and your friend across the hall. As a matter of fact, one of my close friends is the main contributer to a commentary on Genesis. He agrees with the language, interpretation and sectional divisions that would make the latter part of Genesis 2 a description of the Garden Narrative, independent of Genesis 1's listing of Heavens/Earth.

Imagine that.

I'm not saying that my translation is better than yours, or my friends' are better than your friend's.

I'm saying that your criticism of contradiction is on MUCH weaker ground than you initially postured, and I think that (beyond the red herring of who Catholics laugh at) once you admit your inferences, assumptions and such, you'd have to agree.

That was my point.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That's from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Cool. We disagree on much more than that. It's still not a firm enough ground for your absolute accusation of contradiction.

 

[therealUT]

Cool. We disagree on much more than that. It's still not a firm enough ground for your absolute accusation of contradiction.

Is it firm enough ground for you if everytime, throughout the Torah (minus Gen 2:4), the phrase precedes the story?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Is it firm enough ground for you if everytime, throughout the Torah (minus Gen 2:4), the phrase precedes the story?

Nope. Now... Go back and read the post I responded to where you unfairly accused Big (or any literalist) of refusing to use rationality or logic, and you gave him ONLY two choices of interpretation.

I merely showed your excluded middle and offered a rational interpretation that alleviated the contradiction. Like I said, I'm perfectly fine with an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1-2, though I haven't been convinced. That doesn't change the fact that you presented an excluded middle and acted like a bully while doing it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Sorry, I don't put much stock in Augustinian theology.

Nor in literal contradictions, obviously.

I would like to think that if you were given an illustrated child's book, in which, on page one it said, "Tommy's favorite food was ice cream", while on page two it said, "Tommy's favorite food was cookies", you would stop and say, "What a God-damned minute!"

Unfortunately, I'm not sold that you would even think twice about such a clear contradiction and dissonance. Further, you definitely don't think twice about it when it is written in the Bible. And, even if you do, it appears your response is simply, "Well, that seems contradictory and dissonant, but, so it goes. It's all true."

I would ask if you recognize the complete imbecility of such behavior, but I am already quite sure that you can't recognize that. If anything, it seems that your refusal to use the greatest capacity that your God bestowed upon any of the creatures, the capacity to actually reason, must strike God as the most severe of insults.

Here's a God that gives you the ability to think abstractly, recognize contradictions, and then question if there is a deeper, richer, allegorical meaning to this. And, you take that gift and **** all over it. And, then, to anyone who believes in God, believes that the Bible is truth, just not always literal truth, but sometimes a deeper, richer, allegorical truth, a truth that strikes to the very heart of human nature, you discard such a person because they, in claiming that it must be allegorical, they point at the following:

Story 1:
- Time 1: x is created
- Time 2: y is created
- Time 3: z is created

Story 2:
- Time 1: z is created
- Time 2: x is created
- Time 3: y is created

Your approach is, literally, the very definition of the ridiculous.

A third option is the possibility that Genesis 2 describes different events than Genesis 1 (and the first section of Genesis 2). I.e. -- to view the first section of Genesis 2 as a closure of the creation story:



And the following section the beginning of a more telescopic narrative--i.e. the Lord's provision of a specific garden for the first human couple to live in, as stated fairly explicitly in...



...as opposed to a description of the creation of the cosmos, earth and all plants/animals on the earth. One could see Genesis 2's main narrative as more detail of what happened on day 6.

I don't get dogmatic one way or the other about how literal one must take the Genesis creation story, but did want to offer the potential change in context that would do away with the contradiction between the two.

:hi:

Is it firm enough ground for you if everytime, throughout the Torah (minus Gen 2:4), the phrase precedes the story?

Like I said... It's not firm enough for the route and tone you took in making the accusation.

You assumed it said, "Tommy's favorite" on page one and two, when it actually said something fairly vague, in a language you don't speak, written to a culture you're decoupled from, and you failed to mention you have to have someone else read the children's book to you.

So... Nope. Not firm enough at all for how you chose to go about the argument.

 

[therealUT]

Nope.

No thanks. That's enough for me.

That is, you stating that if every time, throughout the Torah, the writers of the Torah use this term as introductory, which would be vastly more than 90% of the time the term is used (since, it is already used 10 times in Genesis and you only disagree with it being prefatory once), is enough for me to conclude that you and your friend are wedded not to the meaning of the word, not to the way that the word was used by the authors, but simply to the idea that these two chapters cannot, on a literal level, be contradictory.

That's absurd.

Have a good day.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No thanks. That's enough for me.

That is, you stating that if every time, throughout the Torah, the writers of the Torah use this term as introductory, which would be vastly more than 90% of the time the term is used (since, it is already used 10 times in Genesis and you only disagree with it being prefatory once), is enough for me to conclude that you and your friend are wedded not to the meaning of the word, not to the way that the word was used by the authors, but simply to the idea that these two chapters cannot, on a literal level, be contradictory.

That's absurd.

Have a good day.

[Edit]

There a literally thousands of phrases in the Bible that are used in one way a vast majority of the time, yet one can't use that as the definitive mode of interpretation.

I haven't asked for your assumptions to define my beliefs, so it makes sense that I won't seek your conclusions per my motives as any more meaningful.

But at least we've gone from your bullying tactics to an implicit admission that they were all based on your personal credulity as opposed to an actual, literal contradiction.

Genuinely hope you have a good evening as well, TRUT. :hi: