[.eXe]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Of course. What you call faith a scientist might recognise as a giant guess. To accept the poetic statement that men in those days lived for many hundreds of years without credible supporting scientific evidence is simply preposterous, akin to believing that horcruxes exist.

Evidence need not only be scientific to be valid. People can have personal experiences too which can solidify their belief in God. I know several people in my church who were either atheists or in another religion, and started to read the Bible to figure out all the mistakes in it so they could prove that Christianity was all BS. They decided to become Christians in that process, without no outside motivation.

Now yes, you will reject this as anecdotal but to be honest, this isn't an isolated scenario. Lots of people become Christians due to some personal experience or change of thinking, which makes the Bible make sense.

As I have stated on several threads, I was an atheist for 19 years so trust me...your arguments are not at all new to me.

[+ polarity -]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
Don't know about Christians, but Jews understand this verse, in context and properly rendered, to mean that God is giving mankind 120 years to mend its ways before bringing the flood.

Cool

[Good bloke]

(Original post by .eXe)
Evidence need not only be scientific to be valid.

Well, it does really, you know. Science means

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

If you are going to arrive at a conclusion that gods exist without using your intellect, without using a system, without looking at mechanisms whereby things can occur, and with results that can be checked - maybe by just having a feeling about the matter - your conclusions aren't worth making.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by .eXe)
When you fulfill something, does that mean it ceases to exist or becomes invalid?
Or rather, does it mean that the objective has been reached and you are not pursuing that goal any longer?

Depending on your response, I will explain further.

Since you don't seem to understand why you questions don't lead logically where you think they do, I'll tell you.

The word fulfil (note the accepted British English spelling) has several meanings, not all of which imply completion. And not all translations use the word anyway. It is your assumption that such an ending is meant to be implied. Clarke's commentary disagrees with you, saying (http://clarke.biblecommenter.com/matthew/5.htm):

It is worthy of observation, that the word גמר gamar, among the rabbins, signifies not only to fulfill, but also to teach; and, consequently, we may infer that our Lord intimated, that the law and the prophets were still to be taught or inculcated by him and his disciples; and this he and they have done in the most pointed manner. See the Gospels and epistles; and see especially this sermon on the mount, the Epistle of James, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. And this meaning of the word gives the clear sense of the apostle's words, Colossians 1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, πληρωσαι τον λογον του Θεου, to fulfill the word of God, i.e. to teach the doctrine of God.

In fact, this view is supported by Romans 3

Are we abolishing Moses' Teachings by this faith? That's unthinkable! Rather, we are supporting Moses' Teachings

(Original post by .eXe)
If you can't be bothered to answer my question then I can't be bothered to answer yours.

Well?

[Dagnabbit]

(Original post by Nacho King)
Since when did we dismiss things because they were in the Old Testement? You can't just throw away 50% of the Bible.

Sorry to be pedantic, it's more like 70%

Only serves to emphasise your point more, though

[Design_Me_A_Tom]

(Original post by .eXe)
Evidence need not only be scientific to be valid. People can have personal experiences too which can solidify their belief in God.

You cannot use personal experiences and emotion to validate gods existence. People can feel many emotions, such as the thousands of people in mental hospitals truly believing they are Jesus Christ reincarnated, does this mean they really are just because they emotionally feel they are? No.



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Nacho King)
Since when did we dismiss things because they were in the Old Testement? You can't just throw away 50% of the Bible.

Most Christians do, actually, do you still stone naughty children?

(Explanation: it's widely accepted that Jesus came to turn over the Old Testament commandments. There's a quote somewhere, referencing the fact that a lot of old commandments were to give punishments for sin - now that Jesus has taken the punishment for all sin, nobody needs to be punished on earth for sin. The Old Testament is included because of references made to it in his teachings by Jesus and to give the historical context of the religion. By being a "Christian" you follow "Christ"'s teachings, which are purely in the New Testament.)

[Design_Me_A_Tom]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Most Christians do, actually, do you still stone naughty children?

(Explanation: it's widely accepted that Jesus came to turn over the Old Testament commandments. There's a quote somewhere, referencing the fact that a lot of old commandments were to give punishments for sin - now that Jesus has taken the punishment for all sin, nobody needs to be punished on earth for sin. The Old Testament is included because of references made to it in his teachings by Jesus and to give the historical context of the religion. By being a "Christian" you follow "Christ"'s teachings, which are purely in the New Testament.)

Is that not an excuse by Christians to avoid the craziness of the OT?

[.eXe]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Well, it does really, you know. Science means



If you are going to arrive at a conclusion that gods exist without using your intellect, without using a system, without looking at mechanisms whereby things can occur, and with results that can be checked - maybe by just having a feeling about the matter - your conclusions aren't worth making.

Uh no. God is not meant to be scientifically explainable. If that were the case, we would be able to work out what God is, his characteristics and workings. Such discovery would basically mean that we have reduced god down to some dogma within science rather than preserving his inexplicable nature. Further it would directly contradict the bible which states that we are not meant to comprehend god. So no, I don't need scientific evidence to believe. I prefer scientific evidence for the physical and natural world...not the supernatural.

-[Posted via mobile app]-

[.eXe]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Since you don't seem to understand why you questions don't lead logically where you think they do, I'll tell you.

The word fulfil (note the accepted British English spelling) has several meanings, not all of which imply completion. And not all translations use the word anyway. It is your assumption that such an ending is meant to be implied. Clarke's commentary disagrees with you, saying (http://clarke.biblecommenter.com/matthew/5.htm):



In fact, this view is supported by Romans 3






Well?

So? The word can mean something different...wow what great insight! Uh lots of words can mean many different things. Does that mean we just start changing the meaning of sentences.

Note this sentence: upon seeing a tear in the painting, I shed a tear.

The first tear can mean two things and in both ways, the sentence makes sense. Either the viewer cried because of a tear (rip) in the painting or they cried because they actually saw a picture of something with a tear in their eyes. Logic dictates that the first meaning is the intended one.

In the same way, logic, along with examination of other Jesus' versus shows us that Jesus didn't come here to teach us the old laws but to redeem us from them by fulfilling them. Jesus says several times that obedience to the law cannot give you forgiveness, that only through him could sins be revoked. The disciples themselves preached to the pharisees that following the old laws was futile. There is a statement in Galatians which h clarifies that the laws only existed until Jesus came. After his coming (or the coming of he faith) the law was super ceded and not required any longer.

Don't condescend to me again bud, just because you find somewhere some tiny evidence to against my claim doesn't mean my claim is invalid.

-[Posted via mobile app]-

[shirlz2808]

Technically a day in terms of God's terms could be a 1000 or more.
God sent Jesus to give us life in abundance (could mean eternal life or physical life)
Some people are just blessed =)
120 days could be the amount of time God will put up with man and physically talk to him. (120 days not necessarily man's version of days, just 120 periods of time)

[yawn]

(Original post by Nacho King)
Genesis 6:3

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

Many Christians interpret this as God putting a limit on human age up to 120 years old.

However Jeanne Louise Calment lived to 122 years, 164 days from 21 February 1875 – 4 August 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

Understanding cannot become a realility without taking account of context. Context is crucial:

Between the account of the marriage of the sons of gods with the daughters of men and the men of violence their unions produced, comes a curiously terse statement: Yahweh said, 'My spirit cannot be indefinitely responsible for human beings (adam/man), who are only flesh; let the time allowed each be a hundred and twenty years' (Gen 6:3). This verse must be interpreted within the context of the verses that came before and after the statement, and the parts of Scripture that focused on the conditions that contributed to the continued alienation of man and God. The last time Scripture focused on mankind as a whole was in Genesis 5:2 where it was recorded that God created male and female and he blessed them and gave them the name Man (adam), when they were created, referring to "Man" in the collective sense. In Genesis 6:3 the focus returned to man (adam) as a whole, with the roll of the long lived individuals of the "promised seed" in the line of Seth sandwiched in between the two statements concerning mankind collectively. The statement in 6:3 that God's spirit cannot continue to prolong the lives of men who are made of "flesh" suggests it was not "flesh" that prolonged the lives of the righteous line of the "promised seed," but it was the spirit of God that gave them unusually long lives.

let the time allowed each be a hundred and twenty years.

The limit of the 120 years can be interpreted two ways:

• From this point the lives of the individuals recorded in Genesis will continue to grow shorter until the conclusion of the Pentateuch were Moses dies at the age of 120 (Dt 34:7), or
• God allotted 120 years for mankind to come to repentance before God cleansed the earth with the Great Flood. The granting of 3 times 40 years (=120 years) could be similar to the 40 days allotted the sinful people of Nineveh to come to repentance in the Book of Jonah (John 3:1-10).

Like many Jewish scholars, Sts. Ephraim and Jerome saw the 120 years as an open door to repentance before judgment:

• This generation will not live 900 years like the previous generations, for it is flesh and its days are filled with the deeds of flesh. Therefore, their days will be 120 years. If they repent during this time, they will be saved from the wrath that is about to come upon them. [..]. Grace granted one hundred and twenty years for repentance to a generation that, according to justice, was not worthy of repentance (Ephraim, Commentary on Genesis, 6.4.1; quoted from Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, vol. I, page 125).

• Furthermore, least [God] may seem to be cruel in that he had not given to sinners a place for repentance, he added, "But their days will be 120 years," that is, they will have 120 years to do repentance
• It is not therefore that human life was contracted to 120 years, as many wrongly assert, but that 120 years were given to that generation for repentance, since indeed we find that after the flood Abraham lived 175 years and others more than 200 and 300 years (Jerome, Questions on Genesis, 6.3; quoted from Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, vol. I, page 125).

The number 120 in the significance of numbers in Scripture would signify 10 times 12, or perfection of order multiplied times perfection of government'in other words, a perfectly allotted span of time according to God will.

Source: agapebiblestudy.com

Hope this helps all those interested to appreciate that wrenching scripture out of its context causes only confusion to the reader.

[TheGrinningSkull]

(Original post by Nacho King)
Genesis 6:3

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

Many Christians interpret this as God putting a limit on human age up to 120 years old.

However Jeanne Louise Calment lived to 122 years, 164 days from 21 February 1875 – 4 August 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

How can this be the case, when they say prophet Noah lived for 950 years?

[Good bloke]

(Original post by .eXe)
Logic dictates that the first meaning is the intended one.
]-

You are invoking logic to try and explain the meaning of the bible?

In the same way, logic, along with examination of other Jesus' versus shows us that Jesus didn't come here to teach us the old laws but to redeem us from them by fulfilling them.

You forgot to explain away Romans 3:31, which says:

Are we abolishing Moses' Teachings by this faith? That's unthinkable! Rather, we are supporting Moses' Teachings

It is a shame that the published commentaries don't all agree with you, eh? In fact there is a wide diversion in interpretation of biblical meanings, indicative of the arbitrary and subjective nature of religions.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Good bloke)
~

See this translation from the new Living Translation:

New Living Translation (©2007)
Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

Notice the bolded.

Only when we have the faith...do we truly fulfill the law.

So let's say the law is: do not kill, do not lie, do not bear false witness, etc.

Well you can certainly follow that law...just like the pharisees were doing.

But what Jesus said was...concentrate on faith first...rather than concentrating on obeying the law.

Here is the main point: IF you follow the faith, you will AUTOMATICALLY follow the law.

There is no such thing as a Christian with faith...who will then break the law.


Meaning, there is no such thing as a real Christian, who follows and trusts Jesus Christ, who will then go and commit murder.

Having the faith will automatically equip you best to follow the law. Thus, the primary objective should be to have the faith, and the obedience to the law wil then be automatic.

Now keep in mind of course, that just because someone is Christian doesn't mean that will be 100% sinless...they will certainly break the law even as Christians, but if they resist their temptations to sin, they will be made right again by having the faith.

On the flip side, only obeying the law will do nothing. Why not? Because if they break the law...there is nothing they can do to receive forgiveness. The law itself cannot forgive...only having the faith can forgive. Only Jesus can grant you forgiveness. Thus, having faith is of paramount importance.

If one has the faith, they will automatically also fulfill the law.

That was a good question.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by .eXe)
See this translation from the new Living Translation:

Cherry-picking a translation that suits you isn't really valid, is it? You would have to justify why that translation is the correct one.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Cherry-picking a translation that suits you isn't really valid, is it? You would have to justify why that translation is the correct one.

It's not my fault multiple translations exist. And if they were all the exact same, they wouldn;t be different translations. The reason I like this one better is because it is more explanatory.

I mean, I can say I woke up and had breakfast today or I could say I woke up at 5 am and had sausage and eggs for breakfast.

Both convey the same message....but one of them is obviously a better version.

It's the same thing here...the translation I chose is better because it is more explanatory and thus provides the most information and context to work with.

If you don't like it...tough luck. Don't question me on the translation I chose, when it clearly says the exact same thing as the one you had...just provides a little more context.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by .eXe)
one of them is obviously a better version

Of course it is. Obviously. I take it you are a scholar of biblical languages to make a comment like that.

I'm unclear how either of

(Original post by .eXe)
Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.

or

Are we abolishing Moses' Teachings by this faith? That's unthinkable! Rather, we are supporting Moses' Teachings

means that Christians should believe that the OT laws are irrelevant.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Of course it is. Obviously. I take it you are a scholar of biblical languages to make a comment like that.

I'm unclear how either of



or



means that Christians should believe that the OT laws are irrelevant.

Go look at my breakfast example. Just because a version excludes some words doesn't mean they were never there in the first place.

Some biblical versions are more condensed...focused on getting the main message out there. Others, as the one I quoted are more explanatory and elaborative in nature and thus better for the purposes of understanding.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by .eXe)
Some biblical versions are more condensed...focused on getting the main message out there. Others, as the one I quoted are more explanatory and elaborative in nature and thus better for the purposes of understanding.

You are missing the point. The best translation is the one that gives the same meaning as the original language. Picking and choosing between translations is only valid for people who understand what the original means.