Yes, there are duality in many things, male and female, night and day, smooth and extra chunky. However, it is the way of the child to only see black and white, as one gets older, they start noticing more and more areas of grey.
Some people are not exactly male or female. There are times that exist like twilight which isn't necessarily just night or day.
Yeah, I agree about the grey zones. But my point was that the mind naturally polarizes and divides the infinity of reality to simplify it, to understand it, and to be able to talk about it and so on.
It doesn't seem to disappear more when people become get older, because even in politics for example, there is a polarity of conservatism and liberalism, and religious people also seem to think pretty black and white.
Even here you can see the polarity of people who think black and white and people who think in a spectrum.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
nfq wrote:
Yeah, I agree about the grey zones. But my point was that the mind naturally polarizes and divides the infinity of reality to simplify it, to understand it, and to be able to talk about it and so on.
Yes, but as people get older, in many things, they start to see more of a spectrum.
nfq wrote:
It doesn't seem to disappear more when people become get older, because even in politics for example, there is a polarity of conservatism and liberalism, and religious people also think pretty black and white.
Again you are correct, many people are polarized on various topics, yet are able to see the spectrum elsewhere.
nfq wrote:
Even here you can see the polarity of people who think black and white and people who think in a spectrum.
Again correct, and it's what I'm trying to argue against doing. The Bible should not be looked at in a polarized fashion. The Bible being the only series of books to survive mostly intact and with wide dispersal with material over 3000 years old is due to its ability to express things persuasively in a way which speaks truths to people and doesn't require polarization across the board.
Reading these books solely in a polarizing fashion is failing to notice what millions (billions?) prior to us have.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
You are also equivocating two completely different meanings of the word "religion" (probably on purpose): The literal meaning and the figurative meaning.
Let's look at the the definition of religion and an atheist.
Atheist -
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Religion -
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Given the two definitions, I don't see how I could be accused of making a false equivalency.
Nach, I, uh, didn't mention Babel/the division of languages/the Jaredites. Just the flood and the upheaval of the whole face of the land (Babel happens a generation or two after Peleg if I'm reading Genesis correctly). Though I'm interested in seeing how the measurements of the ark spell out the word Tongue.
Also, to prove this part of what Nach said:
You're looking at things on a superficial expressed belief system or conformance with rituals. The Bible won the battle of minds in its pervasive ideas that people don't even realize they were ever consciously conforming with.
1) Leprosy. From what I've seen biblical leprosy wasn't contagious and people knew this - evidenced in Captain Nathan seeking a cure for his leprosy from Elisha; if I'm remembering this story correctly he was still leading his army so the culture he came from didn't consider leprosy to be ritually unclean.
2) Don't eat blood. From what I can tell, this was one of the wholly new things that Mosaic Jehovanism did in the middle east after the Exodus from Egypt. And yet I can guarantee that the very idea of digesting blood will put some of us off our lunches. It's implied that the eating of blood was a common ritualistic thing in that era/region given it had to be spelled out to the Hebrews.
It was actually a tactic of Christianity in general (and especially proto-catholicism) to subvert local faiths by saying "We have a feast day during Saturnalia/The Day of the Dead/The First Full Moon of Spring, and we honor so-and-so during that feast. We're not so different!." That was the one of the big reasons the romans didn't particularly like Christians (other one being that early Christianity was about inward, private worship and basically all other local faiths of the region/era were about outward ritualistic worship, and the Roman Empire in particular used the rituals to keep the public in check).
Atheists don't exist, because the Bible defines God as "I am", and everyone has that sensation of existence within them, so everybody not only believes, but knows that God ("I am") exists.
Atheists don't believe in the Bible. So uh, why are you using the Bible as proof?
effort on the first draft means less effort on any draft thereafter
- some loser
Yes and no. Using some basic principles of reasoning (Occam's razor, etc), and the fact that scientists have been able to produce a mathematical model for how things work, that can be taken as evidence for "there's no reason requiring a god's existence", but that's still a far cry from "no god exists".
NxCy wrote:
What is atheism? Do you believe that no gods exist or do you just reject the claim that god exists?
Atheism, to my mind, is the opposite of theism; that is, the belief that no gods exist. You don't have to be certain; you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist: even Richard Dawkins has said that he's an agnostic atheist despite being 99% certain as he accepts it's possible (albeit unlikely) for evidence to change his mind to arise.
It's definitely not just rejecting the claim that the Abrahamic God exists, though.
Mitijitsu wrote:
While atheists claim to be atheists. Don't many of them still treat other aspects of life as if it were religion? Whether it be money, the state or celebrities.
Many of them do; many of them don't. Atheists in my European experience are very secular on the whole, not involved in this sort of structure, though from what I've read it can be quite different in e.g. the USA. However, this point is orthogonal to the issue at hand; atheism is purely about belief that deities don't exist, rather than the other trappings of religion.
nfq wrote:
Someone who believes that spiritual beings created us, is he an atheist?
My favourite question so far, but I feel you've answered it while asking: 'To define atheism I think you also have to explain what you mean by "god"'.
nfq wrote:
Atheists don't exist, because the Bible defines God as "I am", and everyone has that sensation of existence within them, so everybody not only believes, but knows that God ("I am") exists.
Which passage is that definition in? Also, what the Bible says (to a secular/atheistic/non-Christian point of view) isn't sufficient evidence for anything on its own, as it requires pre-existing beliefs to validate it. Other, separate, sources or some separate evidence that the Bible is a primary source rather than written later would be required.
scrimpeh wrote:
How snugly does the fedora fit on your head?
It doesn't; my sister wears it instead.
Warp wrote:
Technically speaking a Buddhist is an atheist, because Buddhists do not believe in a god.
Yes, and no. Buddhism has devas, or higher beings similar to the Shintou concept of gods (kami), which are debatably gods by the Western definition. In particular, in East Asian variants of Buddhism, there is a death god called (Yama/Shinje/Enma) who judges the dead, similar to Ma'at in ancient Egyptian mythology.
People sometimes remember the christian God when they proclaim atheistic views. While I'm pretty convinced that Bible's God doesn't exist, this doesn't exclude all sorts of possible Gods.
Specially a God that isn't benevolent (the problem of evil) or isn't omnipotent/omniscient (to avoid possible ontological problems). For this kinds of God, I think atheist can't provide arguments against.
Specially a God that isn't benevolent (the problem of evil) or isn't omnipotent/omniscient (to avoid possible ontological problems). For this kinds of God, I think atheist can't provide arguments against.
Here let me argue against that.
God doesn't exist, so him being nice or not doesn't matter.
There, done.
effort on the first draft means less effort on any draft thereafter
- some loser
Atheists don't believe in the Bible. So uh, why are you using the Bible as proof?
I'm not using it as proof, I'm using it as a definition. It doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, the definition is still true, and by that definition, you know that God exists.
AdituV wrote:
Which passage is that definition in?
Exodus 3:14.
Also, what the Bible says (to a secular/atheistic/non-Christian point of view) isn't sufficient evidence for anything on its own, as it requires pre-existing beliefs to validate it. Other, separate, sources or some separate evidence that the Bible is a primary source rather than written later would be required.
A definition doesn't require evidence or beliefs. See also my answer to arandomgameTASer above.
In more wider sense atheism also the rejection of belief in existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts.
You are confusing atheism with skepticism. Not the same thing. (Sure, someone who is one tends to be the other as well, but that's not always so, nor are they in any way synonyms.)
That question is rather nonsensical. It's no different from "is there any evidence for not collecting stamps?" There's a category error here, making the sentence nonsensical.
That question is rather nonsensical. It's no different from "is there any evidence for not collecting stamps?" There's a category error here, making the sentence nonsensical.
Yes, there is evidence for not collecting stamps. For example, the lack of stamp collections in people's homes who don't collect stamps.
As for atheism, some argue that the existence of evil for example is evidence that god doesn't exist... some also say that the lack of evidence for god is evidence of his non-existence.
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Thank you for your explanations, ars.
ars4326 wrote:
The Midianite women, along with Balaam, caused the children of Israel to trespass against God; which in turn, brought about a plague.
What was the plague like? What caused it exactly?
ars4326 wrote:
To allow those Midianite women into the Israelite camp (which they, as Numbers 31 revealed, had already caused the Israelites to trespass against God) would be, essentially, permitting sin.
Sorry, if I misunderstand something, but isn't killing also sin? Doesn't God and The Moses Raiders already permit sin by killing children among other people? How does it make sense to sinfully kill the women in order to avoid sinfully loving them? Also, why didn't God just destroy the women? Was God not able to kill them himself? Makes so much sense that I am starting to believe in an omnipotent God. Oh, but maybe somebody can point out a useful mistranslation there somewhere? Or maybe somebody will invoke the ultimately incomprehensible nature of God as usual?
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Aqfaq wrote:
Thank you for your explanations, ars.
ars4326 wrote:
The Midianite women, along with Balaam, caused the children of Israel to trespass against God; which in turn, brought about a plague.
What was the plague like? What caused it exactly?
ars4326 wrote:
To allow those Midianite women into the Israelite camp (which they, as Numbers 31 revealed, had already caused the Israelites to trespass against God) would be, essentially, permitting sin.
Sorry, if I misunderstand something, but isn't killing also sin? Doesn't God and The Moses Raiders already permit sin by killing children among other people? How does it make sense to sinfully kill the women in order to avoid sinfully loving them? Also, why didn't God just destroy the women? Was God not able to kill them himself? Makes so much sense that I am starting to believe in an omnipotent God. Oh, but maybe somebody can point out a useful mistranslation there somewhere? Or maybe somebody will invoke the ultimately incomprehensible nature of God as usual?
No problem, Aqfaq :)
Just wanted to give a quick reply and state that I've seen your response, and that I will take the time to address your questions to the best of my ability (I think you had 7 there, total).
I'll strive to get a comprehensive response posted here within the week.
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Pokota wrote:
Nach, I, uh, didn't mention Babel/the division of languages/the Jaredites.
The name Peleg means division. By mentioning Peleg, you mention the division. The Bible even points out the pun in his name here. Nearly every name in Genesis is some kind of pun (and the ones we think aren't probably are, but in Phoenician or Akkadian so we no longer recognize them).
The Bible sometimes mentions the puns, for example, Reuben because the Lord saw, Simeon because the Lord heard. These are the actual meaning of the words that make up their name, and all this is completely lost in translation. Often, the Bible does not mention the play on words explicitly (and the translations will rarely point them out). Adam's second son - Able - literally means nothing/worthless. The Bible doesn't even mention that was his name, or anyone named him that, or the reason for it. But in Hebrew, it's quite obvious what it means, and quite apparent that is what his life amounted to, the second son was nothing.
Pokota wrote:
Just the flood and the upheaval of the whole face of the land (Babel happens a generation or two after Peleg if I'm reading Genesis correctly).
Shoot whoever wrote your translation.
10:25 - And unto Eber (literally - other side / across) were born two sons; the name of the one was Peleg (literally - split/division); for in his days the land was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan (literally - he was little/younger).
26-29 mentions the sons of Joktan.
30 - And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest toward Sephar, unto the mountain of Kedem (literally - east).
31 - 32 - These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations. These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations; and of these were the nations divided in the land (meaning: spread out through the lands) after the flood.
1 - 2 - And the whole land was of one language and of agreeable ideas. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from Kedem, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 onwards - Story of the dispersal and confusion of languages.
Note a couple of key points: In Peleg's lifetime some kind of division went on. It's not explicitly written here in Genesis what that division was. His family lived on Kedem mountain. His family later left Kedem mountain which is when the division of languages/nations occurs. The closing in 31-32 of the genealogy mentions that these people were the divided nations and languages, meaning 1-2's discussion of a united language is prior to the closing of the genealogy just mentioned.
Now let's see the second genealogy regarding Peleg:
18-19 - And Peleg lived thirty years, and begot Reu. And Peleg lived after he begot Reu two hundred and nine years (209), and begot sons and daughters.
20 - And Reu lived two and thirty years (32), and begot Serug.
22 - And Serug lived thirty years (30), and begot Nahor.
24 - And Nahor lived nine and twenty years (29), and begot Terah.
26 - And Terah lived seventy years (70), and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
209 - (32 + 30 + 29 + 70 = 161) = 48.
This means Peleg was alive until Abram was ~48 and which was 5 generations later.
Now it doesn't explicitly say what division occurred during Peleg's lifetime exactly, but it probably means the division it mentions immediately after. Based on the timeline Genesis provides, the story in Shinar definitely occurred in his lifetime.
The book of Jubilees makes this point explicit.
Jubilees 8:8 - And in the sixth year she bore him a son, and he called his name Peleg; for in the days when he was born the children of Noah began to divide the earth amongst themselves: for this reason he called his name Peleg. - Meaning at the beginning of his life, everyone was together and united, and by the end, the aforementioned story unfolded.
Pokota wrote:
Though I'm interested in seeing how the measurements of the ark spell out the word Tongue.
Noah's vessel is said to be 30x300x50. In Hebrew shorthand, letters double as numbers. These numbers spell out לשנ which means tongue.
As the actual dimensions of the vessel have no significance on the story, its usage must be symbolic. Genesis and Exodus is loaded with symbolism everywhere. The measurements for the Tabernacle and other things are all like this. Another example, the Hebrew word for year - שנה is also the number 355 which is the length of the typical year in Ancient Israel's lunar calendar. The origin of the word is probably derived from the number of days therein.
When I mention the symbolism everywhere, it's rather extreme. As one example, every single paragraph/chapter in Genesis has its keyword/concept mentioned exactly 7 times. However, you won't notice it in your translations of Genesis because:
A) The keywords are not translated uniformly so you cannot easily notice them.
B) The division of Genesis today is from Archbishop Stephen Langton, who was annoyed that his Greek and Latin translations of Genesis (and the other books) lacked chapters, and instead of just copying the original paragraph and chapter breaks which still exist in most Hebrew copies of the books today, he moronically made up his own.
The translations today are downright terrible and inexcusable. Even if they were reasonable, without a running commentary to tie various points together, or point out certain things, most of it is just *whoosh*.
If you want a decent translation of Genesis with original paragraphs / chapters, I recommend this. The translation isn't perfect, but it's the best I've seen, and alongside Langton's idiocy, it also includes the original divisions in the text (amongst others as well). It also includes the Hebrew alongside, which if you're willing to learn it, is the closest you're going to get to the original text of Genesis.
I can also recommend thiscommentary which continually points out much of the symbolism which is commonly lost in translation, and also provides a lot of background for much of the material so you don't have to read it in a confusing vacuum.
Pokota wrote:
It was actually a tactic of Christianity in general (and especially proto-catholicism) to subvert local faiths by saying "We have a feast day during Saturnalia/The Day of the Dead/The First Full Moon of Spring, and we honor so-and-so during that feast. We're not so different!."
Some say the origins of the Israelite religion was similar, which is why there is much discussion about animal sacrifices which was popular back then, even though the Prophets make it clear that such activities have no inherent value.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Pussycat is getting dizzy. No worries!
Since there is literally an infinite amount of possible claims about stamps and gods, the burden of proof is on the fellow who makes the positive claim of the existence of any such thing. Sherlock doesn't go around looking evidence for an infinite amount of non-murders. He searches evidence for a finite amount of murders.
Watson: Hey, Sherlock! Let's find evidence for a non-murder!
Sherlock: Watty, plz.
Hold your fedoras tight, here comes Wittgenstein:
Russell said: There is no rhinoceros in this room!
Wittgenstein said: Russ, plz.
Atheist doesn't necessarily make any claim at all, so why would an atheist need to provide evidence? Evidence for what?
*meow*
In more wider sense atheism also the rejection of belief in existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts.
You are confusing atheism with skepticism. Not the same thing. (Sure, someone who is one tends to be the other as well, but that's not always so, nor are they in any way synonyms.)
If you count all kids below age of 3 years as atheists i can agree with you - it not the same thing, but it is just weak atheism.
I meant to use wider/stronger sense of atheism as a philosophical worldview available only in adulthood (and in sound mind). Such worldview cannot be formed without skepticism.
Or you suppose that can exist rare kind of atheists (adult and in sound mind) which somehow able believe in:
Heaven/Hell/Other various spiritual-supernatural worlds? Or Ghost's/Fairies/Gins/Other spiritual-supernatural creatures?
I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Current projects: NES: Tetris "fastest 999999" (improvement, with r57shell)
Genesis: Adventures of Batman & Robin (with Truncated); Pocahontas; Comix Zone (improvement); Mickey Mania (improvement); RoboCop versus The Terminator (improvement); Gargoyles (with feos)
Not disagreeing with your definition of fairy tales or old and contemporary connotations, but is it even sane to say that the Bible in its entirety is entirely such? Is it sane to say David never existed? That no one named Jeremiah every went around preaching surrender?
I never said any of that. The Bible acts a lens through which you can glimpse some history, sometimes. But not all Biblical stories are true. And not all fairy tales are completely false. For instance, Snow White is thought to be based on the life of a real 16th century daughter of a Count named Margaretha von Waldeck. Many other fairy tales have their beginnings in reality.
Nach wrote:
How do you even look at the book of Proverbs and call it a "fairy tale"? To do so requires a complete lack of reading comprehension, as the book doesn't even contain tales.
I think here you're being a touch pedantic. Yes, the Book of Proverbs contains no tales. So what? My claim was that the Bible is "more or less" a fairy tale. Some parts fitting more than others.
You don't need me to tell you that you shouldn't paint the bible with too wide a brush. It's the collected works of dozens possibly hundreds of authors and editors over the space of approximately 1200 years, initially based in part on the Enuma Elish, which could date back to the 18th century BCE.
Nach wrote:
Again, a point which I have tried stressing over and over, the Bible is not one single book with one literary style. It's multiple books with different viewpoints and different literary styles within. I would be quite quick to proffer some of the books are mere flights of fancy devoid of serious content which are tagging along for the ride alongside the others.
Ah, I should read these posts before attempting to reply to them. Yes. I do not disagree with your points about the Bible.
However, I think you're being much too quick to skewer fairy tales as mere flights of fancy devoid of serious content.
Nach wrote:
As an example, the fourth article of the ten articles (commonly mistranslated as ten commandments) is that people should work for six days and take off one day a week from their job. In the western world, only the destitute and the greedy work all seven days a week. Most people take off for the weekend. This concept was sheer lunacy millenia ago, yet today in large parts of the world is nearly universal.
If you start looking at the ideas beneath the surface, you see that society as a whole now conforms with most of them. This even pervades to ideas and expressions people use without even realizing it. Take "don't put all your eggs in one basket" or "the writing is on the wall", both are biblical concepts, yet even Atheists use them.
The first is a proverb, the second is merely a literary allusion.
For the first, you're assuming that the idea behind the saying somehow originated with and is unique to the Bible. It's something that you need to demonstrate, and you'll find that other cultures have sayings with similar meanings.
For the second, this means nothing. No one thinks that Shakespeare is literally divine even though a significant portion of our day to day language relies on phrases that he coined. I would argue that the works of Shakespeare is far more ubiquitous in our language compared to the Bible.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Aqfaq wrote:
ars4326 wrote:
The Midianite women, along with Balaam, caused the children of Israel to trespass against God; which in turn, brought about a plague.
What was the plague like?
It's not defined, it just mentions that thousands of people died.
Aqfaq wrote:
What caused it exactly?
According to the causal effect as discussed in Numbers and Deut, it was the sin of the Isralites who lusted after the women and worshiped their gods.
Aqfaq wrote:
Sorry, if I misunderstand something, but isn't killing also sin?
No. Premeditated murder is sin. Executions are common throughout the Bible, and often mandated as avoidance of sin.
Aqfaq wrote:
Doesn't God and The Moses Raiders already permit sin by killing children among other people? How does it make sense to sinfully kill the women in order to avoid sinfully loving them?
Nothing wrong with just loving them, see above answers.
Aqfaq wrote:
Also, why didn't God just destroy the women? Was God not able to kill them himself? Makes so much sense that I am starting to believe in an omnipotent God.
Where in the Bible do you see God getting involved to kill people other than when there was no other people around who capable of doing the job?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
General annoyance, not directed towards anyone in this thread.
I love how people assume that because God doesn't intervene in day to day life that he doesn't exist/can't be omnipotent/can't be omniscient.
Let me ask you this.
1) Are you or do you know a parent?
2) Do you/the parent you know do everything for your/their children?
3) If yes, how does that child behave when the child doesn't get their way? If no, why not?
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Nach wrote:
Not disagreeing with your definition of fairy tales or old and contemporary connotations, but is it even sane to say that the Bible in its entirety is entirely such? Is it sane to say David never existed? That no one named Jeremiah every went around preaching surrender?
I never said any of that.
That wasn't directed at you, I was agreeing with what you were saying, it was for others reading it and may take either side of the fairy tale debate.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Nach wrote:
How do you even look at the book of Proverbs and call it a "fairy tale"? To do so requires a complete lack of reading comprehension, as the book doesn't even contain tales.
I think here you're being a touch pedantic. Yes, the Book of Proverbs contains no tales. So what? My claim was that the Bible is "more or less" a fairy tale. Some parts fitting more than others.
Same as above.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
However, I think you're being much too quick to skewer fairy tales as mere flights of fancy devoid of serious content.
I don't think that, I'm just addressing the most popular contemporary connotation thereof (and using your wording to do so).
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
This is absolutely false. If anything working hours have been increasing, not decreasing, over the course of civilization
I'm not referring to work hours, I'm referring to a set day once every seven days on a continual cycle where people do not go to their job.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the first 3 all discuss work hours, and the last is the only one which remotely resembles the Israelite Sabbath.
The ancient custom there on Wikipedia is talking about a superstition on not working during certain days of the moon cycle, because those days were believed to amount to nothing. Any work performed on those days of the month would somehow become undone.
The Israelite Sabbath is indeed connected to this concept, however, unlike it, it consists of a continual cycle unconnected to planetary phases somehow influencing nature (astrology, pagan superstition).
Today the concept of a "weekend" is a thing which is nearly universal and everyone gets behind. The concept as is comes from the Bible.
To further backup this point, I've read works of history from authors living in Greece or Egypt some 2000+ years ago who upon visiting Israel found their "once a week holiday" to be peculiar and mad. I don't remember offhand which works these are, but if need be, I can try to hunt through my books for the various quotes.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Also "greedy" or "destitute?" What about "motivated" or "impassioned?"
Most highly motivated people I know refuse to go to their office on the weekend. Your mileage may vary.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
For the first, you're assuming that the idea behind the saying somehow originated with and is unique to the Bible.
I'm not, I don't even think the proverbs of the book of Proverbs originated with the Bible or are unique to it. A close examination of the book of Proverbs shows how its not even connected to the Isralite religion or the nation thereof. It even mentions proverbs of people like King Lemuel who isn't an Isralite King.
I'm stressing how ideas that are in the Bible which may be unique to Isralite thought or unique to the region (but not specifically the Isralites themselves) spread throughout most of the world in thanks to the Bible.
Even if these ideas are in the Ugartic texts, epics of Danel or Gilgamesh, or anything else you might find in ANET, these works were not responsible for spreading their concepts elsewhere, the books are virtually unknown. Meanwhile you'll be hard-pressed to find a single town in the modern world which doesn't have a few copies of the Bible.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
I would argue that the works of Shakespeare is far more ubiquitous in our language compared to the Bible.
I'm not disagreeing with what you wrote regarding this, and perhaps Shakespeare has more influence and more copies spread in the English world. Now go to South America, is Shakespeare as well known as the Bible?
The Bible has not (yet) conquered the far east, but for the west as a whole, I doubt you'd find another collection of books that has had more influence than it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Or you suppose that can exist rare kind of atheists (adult and in sound mind) which somehow able believe in:
Heaven/Hell/Other various spiritual-supernatural worlds? Or Ghost's/Fairies/Gins/Other spiritual-supernatural creatures?
It's not so uncommon among New Age people to believe in spiritual worlds and beings, while still being atheists, in the sense that they don't believe in "god/gods".
But it depends on what the definition of god is.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Aqfaq, can I also please request that you tone down the condescension a little?
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
