Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Law in the Garden


Edgarcito

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But it's definitely the infallible revelation of an omniscient god about himself, so we can trust it.  🙄

it is only infallible to those who really really really really really really believe it is maybe.  who is such a person anyways?  :)  but their's and other's beliefs of what it all means and overall might mean also, might vary greatly.  and not all are static in their beliefs either, but are over time changing their beliefs while still believing in God and Christ, and not in all ways the Bible (a book put together by humans and people in power).  there is alot to learn has been my experience, in life and the Bible says also that people should grow.  it also says this:

 

English Standard Version
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

 

and this:


King James Bible
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

 

and this:

 

Romans 8

5Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

 

and this:

 

17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…

 

and this:

 

Matthew 7:12
In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

 

put these all together and what do you get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
4 minutes ago, v__a__s__t said:

put these all together and what do you get?

A magical pile of horseshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2021 at 8:39 AM, Edgarcito said:

No, it makes rather good sense in light of raising humanity in general.....you know, by this time you should be eating meat rather than milk.  Adam was the toddler(dont' touch that), Israel was the teen (here are the rules), and the church is the adult (your choice).  

 

But you did it differently with your "humanity", your children....I'm certain you didn't.

     What is the purpose of this system?

 

     For humans it's pretty simple.  We need to establish a system so that each generation can eventually grow up and replace the ones that came before them.  If we don't then we risk dying out.  It wouldn't take too long for all our helpless babies to die off if no one cared for them which would put an end to humanity in fairly short order.  Even if we stopped caring when they became toddlers the results would be the same.  The point here is that we need to raise children up to become adults so that they can sustain themselves without their parents and have the ability to raise another generation up behind them to prepare them for the day that they are no longer alive.

 

     However, what is the purpose for this god?  The idea here is that once the end of this present system ends that we switch over to a new system.  All people are raised from the dead.  There's a judgment.  This judgment doesn't really matter here but it's mentioned as a point of reference.  Then the new system comes into play.  This system is one where everyone that is present doesn't need to be self-reliant, living without the parent or creator, but the opposite.  They are now reliant on the god.  Essentially a full-circle back to the Garden of Eden.  One where any commands, such as "touch this tree" or "do not touch this tree" are simply expected to be obeyed.

 

     This is a return to being a child not acting as an adult.  This system as you describe it appears to be an exorcise in futility.  Gaining liberty as an adult and then placed back under childish limitations seems more punishment than reward.

 

          mwc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

Well, not knowing good and evil does not mean necrssarily he did not understand God's command about death.

    As I said it realky depends on you think those words mean and there is a tradition of thousands of volumes disagreeing on what that actually meant. What Scripture says is a hotly debated topic even amongst Christians and Jews and to some extent Muslims as the Korannhas a version of the same story. So I would not be sure so certain about what Scripture "says" or means.

 

I get where you're coming from Myrkhoos, trust me on that.

 

In this thread I have adopted the Christian position; that the bible is god's inerrant and perfect word which cannot contradict itself and does not lead to error.  

 

Doing this is a time-honoured debating tactic, where you take the opposing position and then work it through logically to clearly show how illogical, contradictory and flawed it really is.

 

Edgarcito is on record as saying that this is his position re the bible, too.

 

Therefore, he and I are both on a level playing field, metaphorically speaking.

 

That is sufficient for this debate to proceed, even though, outside of this forum, there is a wide spectrum of disagreement as to the meaning of scripture.

 

 

 

On the basis of my adoption of the Christian position Myrkhoos, I can respond to what you say about Adam understanding about death.

 

According to scripture death came into the world through Adam because he listened to Eve and disobeyed god.

 

God warned him not to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree in Genesis 2 : 16 and 17, before Adam discovered that a suitable helpmate could not be found for him among the animals.

 

In Genesis  2 : 21 and 22 god makes a suitable helpmate for Adam out of one of his ribs - Eve.

 

Fast forward to Genesis 3 : 6 and we see Eve tempted by the serpent and giving some fruit to Adam.

 

The moment he accepted the fruit from her and ate was when he sinned and when he first acquired a knowledge of good and evil.

 

On the back of his disobedience god cursed him and Eve with death.

 

That was when death first entered into the world.

 

So, back in Genesis 2 : 16 and 17, death had not entered into the world because god had not uttered his curse yet.

 

This is why scripture clearly tells us that Adam had no knowledge or concept of death at the time god warned him about eating from the tree.

 

And this is why I have maintained that the penalty for disobedience (death) was incomprehensible to Adam.

 

He only understood the true nature of his penalty when god cursed him.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing the emphasis from Adam to god Edgarctio, what does US mean?

 

Genesis 3 : 22

 

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

 

Why is god speaking about himself in the plural?

 

Who are these others?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
37 minutes ago, v__a__s__t said:

@TheRedneckProfessor

 

or maybe this:

 

Saying 34: The Parable of Those Who Can't See

Jesus said, "If someone who's blind leads someone else who's blind, both of them fall into a pit."

Yes.  This is why I no longer follow christian leadership. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe God meant "this fruit is to die for." Not that you would really die from eating it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

I get where you're coming from Myrkhoos, trust me on that.

 

In this thread I have adopted the Christian position; that the bible is god's inerrant and perfect word which cannot contradict itself and does not lead to error.  

 

Doing this is a time-honoured debating tactic, where you take the opposing position and then work it through logically to clearly show how illogical, contradictory and flawed it really is.

 

Edgarcito is on record as saying that this is his position re the bible, too.

 

Therefore, he and I are both on a level playing field, metaphorically speaking.

 

That is sufficient for this debate to proceed, even though, outside of this forum, there is a wide spectrum of disagreement as to the meaning of scripture.

 

 

 

On the basis of my adoption of the Christian position Myrkhoos, I can respond to what you say about Adam understanding about death.

 

According to scripture death came into the world through Adam because he listened to Eve and disobeyed god.

 

God warned him not to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree in Genesis 2 : 16 and 17, before Adam discovered that a suitable helpmate could not be found for him among the animals.

 

In Genesis  2 : 21 and 22 god makes a suitable helpmate for Adam out of one of his ribs - Eve.

 

Fast forward to Genesis 3 : 6 and we see Eve tempted by the serpent and giving some fruit to Adam.

 

The moment he accepted the fruit from her and ate was when he sinned and when he first acquired a knowledge of good and evil.

 

On the back of his disobedience god cursed him and Eve with death.

 

That was when death first entered into the world.

 

So, back in Genesis 2 : 16 and 17, death had not entered into the world because god had not uttered his curse yet.

 

This is why scripture clearly tells us that Adam had no knowledge or concept of death at the time god warned him about eating from the tree.

 

And this is why I have maintained that the penalty for disobedience (death) was incomprehensible to Adam.

 

He only understood the true nature of his penalty when god cursed him.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

          Sorry, you do not get my point. There is NO SINGLE Christian position on the Bible or what it means. The Christian Orthodox have several views, the Catholics others, the protestants others. The hundreds of sects now dissapeared others, So you cannot actually have a general Christian position on the Bible. Because there is no such thing. Likewise no general true position of Jews on the Old Testament.

                 Point in fact, the Orthodox consider as canon a series of interpretative works by the the accepted Church fathers. Reading the Bible and interpreting it by yourself is considered a sin, and the root of heresy.  So yes, they really do think readingf the Bible can lead you into error. Plus it is not really perfect in that sense. So for an Orthodox Christian, trust me, I know this, there really is no Bible says, there is what Saint Basil the Great, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Gregory the Theologian, Saint Pregory Palamas etc plus the series of ecumenical councils say the Bible says. For them, as one theologia put it, the Bible is a word ABOUT the perfect WORD of God, which is Jesus, not the PERFECT WORD in itself. They consider Sola Scriptura and many protestant views of the Bible as Bible worship instead of God worship similar to the Jews that worshipped the Law so much so that they forgot about the law was about. Namely pointing towards Jesus.

    Maybe you are unfamiliar with that approach because you did not grow up or experience non protestant christianity?

    And do you know ancient Greek, ancient Hebrew, ancient Latin and ancient Aramaic , plus ancient Coptic and Ethiopic and Armenian and Georgian? Aka the first language of Scripture, and the first translations? Or their cultures? I mean really, even after my step back from the Orthodox, I still hold the position the Sola Scriptura claim is simply irrational, not to mention unworkable.

     But maybe you started with the assumption that the NIV Bible and modern evangelical fundamentalism as a starting point. If that was case, sorry, but as I said, that was NOT my default position as a Christian nor of my denomination so I need further clarification when someone says something about the Christian view of the Bible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

          Sorry, you do not get my point. There is NO SINGLE Christian position on the Bible or what it means. The Christian Orthodox have several views, the Catholics others, the protestants others. The hundreds of sects now dissapeared others, So you cannot actually have a general Christian position on the Bible. Because there is no such thing. Likewise no general true position of Jews on the Old Testament.

                 Point in fact, the Orthodox consider as canon a series of interpretative works by the the accepted Church fathers. Reading the Bible and interpreting it by yourself is considered a sin, and the root of heresy.  So yes, they really do think readingf the Bible can lead you into error. Plus it is not really perfect in that sense. So for an Orthodox Christian, trust me, I know this, there really is no Bible says, there is what Saint Basil the Great, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Gregory the Theologian, Saint Pregory Palamas etc plus the series of ecumenical councils say the Bible says. For them, as one theologia put it, the Bible is a word ABOUT the perfect WORD of God, which is Jesus, not the PERFECT WORD in itself. They consider Sola Scriptura and many protestant views of the Bible as Bible worship instead of God worship similar to the Jews that worshipped the Law so much so that they forgot about the law was about. Namely pointing towards Jesus.

    Maybe you are unfamiliar with that approach because you did not grow up or experience non protestant christianity?

    And do you know ancient Greek, ancient Hebrew, ancient Latin and ancient Aramaic , plus ancient Coptic and Ethiopic and Armenian and Georgian? Aka the first language of Scripture, and the first translations? Or their cultures? I mean really, even after my step back from the Orthodox, I still hold the position the Sola Scriptura claim is simply irrational, not to mention unworkable.

     But maybe you started with the assumption that the NIV Bible and modern evangelical fundamentalism as a starting point. If that was case, sorry, but as I said, that was NOT my default position as a Christian nor of my denomination so I need further clarification when someone says something about the Christian view of the Bible.

 

Myrkhoos,

 

My starting point was the assumption that events described chronologically in the bible should be treated as such.

 

Why?  Because that is the way the bible is written.

 

The patriarchs preceded the prophets and the prophets preceded the apostles.

 

The plagues of Egypt happened in a certain sequence and not in any other way.

 

Paul's missionary journeys happened in a certain order and not in any other way.

 

And god warned Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree before he expelled Adam and Eve from Eden.

 

You get the idea?

 

Does that clarify my position, Myrkhoos?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

 

     But maybe you started with the assumption that the NIV Bible and modern evangelical fundamentalism as a starting point. If that was case, sorry, but as I said, that was NOT my default position as a Christian nor of my denomination so I need further clarification when someone says something about the Christian view of the Bible.

 

Myrkhoos,

 

Perhaps a little more explanation from me would be helpful for you to gain a better understanding of what I'm doing.

 

This thread was started by Edgarcito, who is on record as holding the bible to be god's inerrant and perfect word.

 

Therefore, I have adopted his position, even though, as an atheist and sceptic, I do not subscribe to such a belief myself.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

 

 

In common language, the phrase playing devil's advocate describes a situation where someone, given a certain point of view, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further using a valid reasoning that both disagrees with the subject at hand and proves their own point valid. Despite being medieval in origin, this idiomatic expression is one of the most popular present-day English idioms used to express the concept of arguing against something without actually being committed to the contrary view.

 

As such, there is no requirement for me to take into account your entirely valid point about the broad diversity of interpretations of scripture.

 

I don't need to take into account how the Catholics or the Cathars interpret scripture.

 

Nor do I need to bother with the interpretations of the Anabaptists, the Jansenists or the Hutterites.

 

All I need to take into account is Edgarcito's position on scripture.

 

 

 

I just happen to use the NIV because I'm most familiar with that version, btw.

 

 

 

Does that clarify things for you?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Therefore, he and I are both on a level playing field, metaphorically speaking.

 

1 way to consider the Tree of the Knowledge (so-called) might be like unto thinking all for ouselves, figuring out the Bible or any of a number of Books out in the world that people consider Holy.  and the Tree of Life, on the other hand -- quite different -- to learn from the Spirit also --, inner voice, or however a person might term it.  in other words... to rest..... to whatever degree one does or is able to, in Christ/spirit/God/Higher power as well as learning from books and life, school, the internet.  to learn with the help of Christ/spirit/God/inner voice/.  

 

Christianity believes in a helper -- the Spirit of God.  of praying to God and listening for His answers to come.  and of growing in Christ.  at least some, quite a few Christians do i guess, though not all are invested as much or concerned with such things on day to day basis maybe. 

 

but, when debating with a Christian, you might never know where they are at spiritually speaking.  and unless you are involved or interested in such matters as well, arguing all day about literal interpretations just doesn't cut it for a Christian (or any kind of spiritual person).  and depending on their many varied beliefs also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many mythologies, historical fictional works and much ancient literature provide numerous metaphors, allegories, analogies, symbols and similitudes all of which humans interpret, analyze, consider and opine.  The Abrahamic religions, in their written and spoken forms, fit squarely within this description.

 

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, the claims and statements within such mythology/fiction/literature are true and correct is one way to facilitate discourse.

 

Asserting the claims and statements within such mythology/fiction/literature are actually true and correct in the first place, without providing evidentiary support for such assertions, does not facilitate discourse, but is merely an invitation to others to presume what is asserted is actually true and correct.  In such a situation, rational thinkers/skeptics demand the asserter demonstrate the efficacy of their assertions before proceeding further.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Myrkhoos,

 

Perhaps a little more explanation from me would be helpful for you to gain a better understanding of what I'm doing.

 

This thread was started by Edgarcito, who is on record as holding the bible to be god's inerrant and perfect word.

 

Therefore, I have adopted his position, even though, as an atheist and sceptic, I do not subscribe to such a belief myself.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

 

 

In common language, the phrase playing devil's advocate describes a situation where someone, given a certain point of view, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further using a valid reasoning that both disagrees with the subject at hand and proves their own point valid. Despite being medieval in origin, this idiomatic expression is one of the most popular present-day English idioms used to express the concept of arguing against something without actually being committed to the contrary view.

 

As such, there is no requirement for me to take into account your entirely valid point about the broad diversity of interpretations of scripture.

 

I don't need to take into account how the Catholics or the Cathars interpret scripture.

 

Nor do I need to bother with the interpretations of the Anabaptists, the Jansenists or the Hutterites.

 

All I need to take into account is Edgarcito's position on scripture.

 

 

 

I just happen to use the NIV because I'm most familiar with that version, btw.

 

 

 

Does that clarify things for you?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Yes, it does. Thank you. As I said it was a little confusing as I did not subscribe to that vision if the Bible even as a Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

Asserting the claims and statements within such mythology/fiction/literature are actually true and correct in the first place, without providing evidentiary support for such assertions, does not facilitate discourse, but is merely an invitation to others to presume what is asserted is actually true and correct.  In such a situation, rational thinkers/skeptics demand the asserter demonstrate the efficacy of their assertions before proceeding further.

 

hmm... but maybe it takes faith to begin with, or so they say. 🤔 

 maybe like a scientist we would need to want to at least get somewhat involved, to find out.  Christianity might take action plus faith to work, and to know... i don't know for sure.

 

but it could be that many here who aren't Christian already have listened and listen to that other kind of learning/knowing good things... some more than others... and take action on such things also every day.  maybe even everyone in ways, i don't know.  Christianity is about listening more and more maybe... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2021 at 12:21 AM, Edgarcito said:

The argument is always God is evil for not have sufficiently given Adam and Eve enough knowledge.  

 

But isn't there a point with humanity where God defines the law/morality.  So I guess my question is why aren't the conditions rather the same, where God's commands to Adam essentially define holiness for the benefit of Adam/Eve, are morality defining for their benefit.

 

And instead of death as was certain, grace was afforded by moving man to "test your holiness 2.0", outside of the garden.

 

God gave them an instruction to follow. They had all the information they needed. 

 

When Adam and Eve decided to do their own thing it brought destruction and chaos into the world. God then gave Moses the law

 

Death entered mankind through the disobedience of Adam & Eve but eternal life is granted through messiah.. 

 

Guyd don't go mad at my response, summerising scripture 🤣

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2021 at 9:36 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  This is why I no longer follow christian leadership. 

 

a wise choice maybe.  if we follow one person or group too much or ideology too much we might be misled eventually, or even on a regular basis.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Georgia said:

 

God gave them an instruction to follow. They had all the information they needed. 

 

When Adam and Eve decided to do their own thing it brought destruction and chaos into the world. God then gave Moses the law

 

Death entered mankind through the disobedience of Adam & Eve but eternal life is granted through messiah.. 

 

Guyd don't go mad at my response, summerising scripture 🤣

 

 

But at the time god warned Adam (and not Eve) he was not able to understand what good and evil were.

 

Nor was he able to understand what death was.

 

So, they god didn't give them all the information they needed.

 

He withheld giving them the ability to understand good and evil, right and wrong.

 

This was something they only acquired after they ate the fruit of the forbidden tree.

 

They did not possess this ability beforehand.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Georgia said:

 

God gave them an instruction to follow. They had all the information they needed. 

 

When Adam and Eve decided to do their own thing it brought destruction and chaos into the world. God then gave Moses the law

 

Death entered mankind through the disobedience of Adam & Eve but eternal life is granted through messiah.. 

 

Guyd don't go mad at my response, summerising scripture 🤣

 

 

I just dont really believe scripture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Edgarcito,

 

Here's an incomplete list (in no particular order) of the characters who appear in Eden, according to scripture.

 

Please complete the list by naming the other three characters.

 

1.   Eve

2.  The cherubim with the flaming sword

3.  Adam

4.  The serpent

5.

6.

7.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
5 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Ok Edgarcito,

 

Here's an incomplete list (in no particular order) of the characters who appear in Eden, according to scripture.

 

Please complete the list by naming the other three characters.

 

1.   Eve

2.  The cherubim with the flaming sword

3.  Adam

4.  The serpent

5.

6.

7.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

YourShack, MyShack, and ToBedWeGo?  Wait, no, those were the dudes with the burning desire in the fiery furnace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

YourShack, MyShack, and ToBedWeGo?  Wait, no, those were the dudes with the burning desire in the fiery furnace.

 

Daniel 3 : 19 & 20

 

19 Then Nebuchadnezzar was furious with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and his attitude toward them changed. He ordered the furnace heated seven times hotter than usual 

20 and commanded some of the strongest soldiers in his army to tie up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and throw them into the blazing furnace.

 

Hey Professor!

 

Here's one for you, seeing you mention those three stooges.

 

Historically we're talking about events taking place about 580 years B.C.

 

Ever wondered how they were able to measure the temperature of the furnace to be 7 x hotter than usual?

 

Especially when you consider that the heat was enough to kill those approaching the furnace?

 

 22 The king’s command was so urgent and the furnace so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, 

23 and these three men, firmly tied, fell into the blazing furnace.

 

Maybe Daniel had one of those ancient Middle Eastern thermocouples that used infra red radiation?

 

Whaddaya think?

 

;) 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Daniel 3 : 19 & 20

 

19 Then Nebuchadnezzar was furious with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and his attitude toward them changed. He ordered the furnace heated seven times hotter than usual 

20 and commanded some of the strongest soldiers in his army to tie up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and throw them into the blazing furnace.

 

Hey Professor!

 

Here's one for you, seeing you mention those three stooges.

 

Historically we're talking about events taking place about 580 years B.C.

 

Ever wondered how they were able to measure the temperature of the furnace to be 7 x hotter than usual?

 

Especially when you consider that the heat was enough to kill those approaching the furnace?

 

 22 The king’s command was so urgent and the furnace so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, 

23 and these three men, firmly tied, fell into the blazing furnace.

 

Maybe Daniel had one of those ancient Middle Eastern thermocouples that used infra red radiation?

 

Whaddaya think?

 

;) 

 

 

Walter.

     They took the temp rectally.  It's the most precise.

 

     Everyone knows that you can just make fires hotter by ordering them to be hotter.  That's how it works.  Unfortunately, this wasn't widely known and so we had to progress through the various metal ages slowly as one poor ruler made the order for a hotter fire, allowing for progress but then dying before ordering an ever hotter fire, so that we had to wait for another ruler to stumble upon the same order and so on.  Otherwise one ruler could have managed to progress us up through hot enough fires to melt the various metals in one go since this wasn't a limitation of the furnaces themselves.

 

     This is also a good survival tip.  If your fire is too weak simply order it 7 times hotter.  Just make sure to back away first otherwise you may well die from the heat.

 

     Of course, if we want to make guesses as to how you might be able to tell if something is hotter then it might make changes to the structure or other items in the structure (ie. glazes or metals).  Kilns should have been able to reach around 2000F (since we're talking about the end of the Iron Age and they were melting copper and probably other things, like pottery, at higher temps).  So we're assuming this furnace would then be less than 300F normally.  I can't think of anything off-hand that this might be used for and a quick search didn't help.  Maybe there's something?  We need a couple hundred more degrees at least, give or take, but that places the upper bound out of reach.

 

     A few hundred years later these limits changed and the lower and upper bounds would work.  We could get up to 3000F+ degrees but then that means Daniel was writing around the second century (which seems to be the case).

 

          mwc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
49 minutes ago, mwc said:

So we're assuming this furnace would then be less than 300F normally.  I can't think of anything off-hand that this might be used for and a quick search didn't help.  Maybe there's something? 

You're overlooking that before the various metal ages, of which you note, there was an Ice Age.  Obviously, the 300F furnace was designed for that purpose.  Soon afterward, though, the king realized that it didn't matter how much ice was melted, it still couldn't be forged into weaponry; but the furnace was nice (and a handy form of public execution) so they kept it around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You're overlooking that before the various metal ages, of which you note, there was an Ice Age.  Obviously, the 300F furnace was designed for that purpose.  Soon afterward, though, the king realized that it didn't matter how much ice was melted, it still couldn't be forged into weaponry; but the furnace was nice (and a handy form of public execution) so they kept it around.

     You're overlooking the entire universe is only 6000 years old.  What's the Ice Age?

 

     But, yeah, tossing folks into furnaces is just the best.  That's probably why we read about it so much.  At least this once for sure.

 

          mwc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.