I decided to periodically continue to develop my theory that the Bible is really about the fundamental theories of cosmology and subsequent application to develop new technology.
Previously, I have posted how the English phrase, "In the beginning God created...." has a non-theistic translation in the original Chaldee, or ancient Hebrew. The word imagery is identical conceptually to string theory if one were to illustrate the idea.
I also think that the imagery describing Jesus in the New Testament is a primitive form of the theory of relativity. The problem is the need to find an Aramaic concordance like Strong's to compare the Hebrew and Aramaic words since Greek is so dis-similar linguistically. Also, Greek rhetoric has a different mythological influence so it is really like comparing apples and oranges.
I stopped blogging due to family pressure -- certain members are afraid I will not get a job. Although I am under-/unemployed I doubt it has anything to do with my doubt about this G*d.
Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.
Havent these ideas been looked into before? I dont know but it sounds familiar.
Sorry about the late replies.
"I am not that invested in these ideas, just trying to brainstorm and think outside the box."
Sure, I understand and I hope you don't think I'm trying to be antagonistic because that's really not my intention.
My point is that the mentality of "thinking outside the box" with regards to history is a dangerous thing. I sometimes like to compare historical analysis to those puzzles we used to play as kids where you had a page full of dots and you had to connect them to reconstruct the drawing. History works the same way, and the way you investigate history properly is to be very very careful about which lines you're going to draw and which connections you're going to make. That's the only way to guarantee that you'll come up with a reconstruction that is actually likely to be true.
The analogous behaviour to "thinking outside of the box" would be looking at the puzzle and deciding to, instead of reconstructing by making as many logical connections as possible, you just "brainstorm" and connect the dots with any other pattern that seems right or that you can make fit.
Not surprisingly, you can do that and still come up with a complete drawing. It just isn't the drawing it was supposed to be.
That's why, when thinking about history, we need to tread very carefully because just a few unwarranted or faulty assumptions really can screw up your entire drawing.
"I personally don't see how flooding with water and the heat associated with nuclear proliferation are similar other than both are catastrophic "acts of God"."
Well I wasn't saying that that's what the passage means. The Raelians are idiots and they're seeing patterns and similarities where nothing really exists.
But that's precisely my point: it's easy to do this. You can conceptually link just about any set of ideas, but that in itself can never be evidence. Even if I grant you that your proposed analogies work better than those of the Raelians, it is still the same kind of evidence, and stil flawed for the same reasons.
"BTW, I am not looking at it as a holy book."
Obviously. Neither am I.
"Also, why do people believe the Bible is the Word of God? At one time I believed this. I am trying to understand."
I'm probably the wrong person to ask this for the reason above, but I guess the main reason is that they're taught to think that it is and they are coached to read it in such a way that it actually makes sense.
By the way, I'm curious to know how you link Jesus to relativity... Could you explain that?