SolomonW wrote:
SteveP wrote:
SolomonW wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
"Look at the sky and
see if you can count the stars. That's how many descendants you will
have."
-------------------------------------------------------------
"I will bless you and give you such a large family, that
someday your descendants will be more numerous than the stars in the sky
or the grains of sand along the beach.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++

trying to resolve these two quotes one possible solution, the writer
of this chapter states that ancients might have had a telescope.

Any thoughts?

Thoughts? Sure.

The quotes are not ambiguous unless taken literally. Each indicates
simply that his descendents would be too numerous to count.

To have a population too numerous to count, would be a feat even in
biblical times.

I don't think so. Too numerous to count for me is probably anything
over 100 or so, where my mind would begin to wander. Heck, I have
trouble counting the Skee Ball tickets I win at Chuck E Cheese with
the kids. Thank goodness they make a ticket counter to save us all the
trouble. :-)


The bible for example talks of "ten thousand times ten thousand", that
is 100 million.

Are we still talking about descendants of Abraham? If so, are we
talking living only, or all descendants past, present, and future? Are
we talking about "spritual" descendants, or only physical, blood line
descendants?

Most (if not all) of the Bible is written as a spiritual text, and in
the context of spirituality, family and descendants are not limted to
the physcal realm. For example, Jesus claims that all who do the will
of the father are sons. He was of course referring to acting on behalf
of others, to bring about spiritual renewal, joy, happiness, relief
from their suffering.

And there's the crux. The Bible is a spiritual book, not concerned
with the physical in any context. Hence it is filled with tales of
evil, death, pain, and suffering. Much of which are not inaccurate
historically, even if taken liberty with in the telling.

Too bad both "sides" miss that extremely important point of
distinction in their evangelism and propoganda.


Trying to reconcile Biblical quotes as literal, one against the other,
is an exercise in futility.

Which I am not really trying to do!

Yeah, I got that. :-)

It was the author of your reference that seems to be trying to
reconcile what he perceives as inconsistencies, based on his own bias
toward finding fault with the text, rather than simply appreciating it
for what it is.

Typically, his battle is instigated not by the text itself, but by
what other's claim about the text. I understand that completely.
Again, these are two factions on opposite sides of the text, neither
of whom is interested in the intent of the text, but rather in
defending a way of life in which the text is exerting undo influence,
whether pro or con, whether directly or indirectly.

Me? I have no side. I try to "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and
unto God what is God's". What I actually believe is Caesar's and what
I actually believe is God's, is between me and them. Not me and anyone
else.

-SteveP
Live and let live.