If a god wrote a book ...

[1AOA1]

Hand written for sure, in perfect cursive, likely in a glowing golden ink.

Those who practice materialism occasionally put forward a list of holy books in the context of asking which one is right. Are those the criteria used to build the list of holy books?

 

[PackJason]

An all-knowing god would probably know that bats aren't birds.

Leviticus 11:13-19

 

[Thief]

.... what would we expect to see in that book? What would we expect to not see?

As "a God", I'm speaking of a being most commonly associated with god: Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omni-benevolent.

IF such a being truly wrote a book .... what would it look like?

it's suppose to have many characters in it...including you

 

[Demonslayer]

it's suppose to have many characters in it...including you

I had books like that when I was a kid. They were called "read about me and..." whatever. The best one was "Read about me and the Yellow Eyed Monster." You wrote in with your kids name and they would put you in the story. As a kid I remember thinking it was just about the coolest thing possible to have me as part the main character in the story.

 

[Thief]

I had books like that when I was a kid. They were called "read about me and..." whatever. The best one was "Read about me and the Yellow Eyed Monster." You wrote in with your kids name and they would put you in the story. As a kid I remember thinking it was just about the coolest thing possible to have me as part the main character in the story.

I was a geek.....I would read the encyclopedia

 

[Demonslayer]

I would read the encyclopedia

Me too...before the Google machine came along and rendered it pointless.

 

[Quintessence]

As I've stated before, basically the Elder Scrolls.

I love this answer!

But I have to poke a hole, since we're (unfortunately) limited to discussing the classical monotheist type of god in this thread. Remember that reading the elder scrolls causes irreparable damage, from blindness to insanity. An omnibenevolent god couldn't allow that, right?

 

[Demonslayer]

An omnibenevolent god couldn't allow that, right?

All the omnibenevolent Gods I've heard of seem to be prone to fits of extreme cruelty.

 

[Thief]

it might be more like a horror novel.....the Screaming Void

 

[PackJason]

I can one-shot giants with my archery wood elf.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If you are not interested in the answer I provided so far, let me tell you than that it would be error free, can stand on its own, and be a complete guidance for people how to live their life in all circumstances. It also should have explanations and answers to the most important questions that we need an answer to.

That is a very high standard you have set and really the kind of answer I was looking for; except, the Quran fails to stand up to these standards. If it could be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the Quran fails to meeet these standards, would you then decide that the Quran isn't the "word of God" after all?

Where does it say that?

Ephesians 6:5; the book of Phileomon (Paul sends Onasis back to his master); Numbers 31:8; Matthew 18:25; Colossians 4:1 actually gives instructions to owners of slaves and how they should treat them ...

An all-knowing god would probably know that bats aren't birds.

I'm not willing to go that far. What we have taxonomically classified as "bird" or "fowl" is a sematic construct. There is plenty wrong with "the Bible being the word of God" without picking at sematics, imo. Things like slavery, genocide, mysogeny, choosing one "race" to favor above all others, etc.

 

[PackJason]

What we have taxonomically classified as "bird" or "fowl" is a sematic construct. .

What?

 

[Sabour]

That is a very high standard you have set and really the kind of answer I was looking for; except, the Quran fails to stand up to these standards. If it could be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the Quran fails to meeet these standards, would you then decide that the Quran isn't the "word of God" after all?

Thanks for the feedback.

Islam is based on the fact that Quraan is the Word of God. If it can be shown with evidence that Quraan fails to meet the criteria, than not only me, but all muslims should leave Islam and the Quraan.

After all the Quraan says

2:2
This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -

4:82
Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.

If any verse was not true in the Quraan, than there is no need to believe in it in the first place.

 

[PackJason]

I prefer the Holy Crayon.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

What?

In other words: Evidentally, the author of the scripture you refer to (placing Bats as Fowl) was using a different defintion of "fowl"; or, at least, a different criteria for that which classified a given animal as belonging to the "fowl" family. The meanings of words and how they are used is called "sematics"; which is a purely linguistic/man-made construct. Applying the current taxanomic definition of "fowl" to an archaic definition of "fowl" as a means to disprove the bible is, in my opinion, a fallacious argument. There are much stronger scientific errors in the bible that create a more compelling argument for the bible's errancy rather than simply "picking apart words".

 

[Demonslayer]

choosing one "race" to favor above all others

The Boston Marathon is the best race for sure, none of the others compare.

 

[Demonslayer]

In other words: Evidentally, the author of the scripture you refer to (placing Bats as Fowl) was using a different defintion of "fowl"; or, at least, a different criteria for that which classified a given animal as belonging to the "fowl" family.

Not just different, but wrong. The breakdown of species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom isn't just randomly selected, there is genetic reasoning behind it.

If, for example, you have a classification system that lumps everything with wings in one species, that is not only a different classification system, but an incorrect one, scientifically speaking.

I'm not arguing that there aren't bigger scientific errors in the Bible, but this certainly counts as one of them.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Not just different, but wrong. The breakdown of species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom isn't just randomly selected, there is genetic reasoning behind it.

If, for example, you have a classification system that lumps everything with wings in one species, that is not only a different classification system, but an incorrect one, scientifically speaking.

I'm not arguing that there aren't bigger scientific errors in the Bible, but this certainly counts as one of them.

Let's keep in mind that the reference to "bats" as "fowl" lies in a scripture within mosaic law forbidding the consuming of certain foods; and "bats" are included in a list with other fowl.

Phylogenetically, yes, referring to "bats" as "fowl" is in error. Note the "genetic" in "phylogenetic".

Taxanomically, maybe not so much so. While these two models do work hand in hand in modern scientific understanding, taxonomy's focus was not initially based on genetics (as taxonomy predates genetics).

Thus, to conclude "fowl" as "birds" as an error in the bible, we must refer strongly to sematics.

I'm not saying it isn't an error; I'm just stating that it's not a strong enough error to prove the case. A flat earth being on pillars, windows opening up to let in water from the expanse, a flat earth model, geocyntriciity ... I consider these much stronger and compelling arguments against the scientific accuracy of the bible (thus the bible being the word of god) thus making the error of "bats" listed under "fowl" as being trivial. So I'm not entirely disagreeing; I'm just saying that this specific example lacks punch.

Does that make sense?

 

[Demonslayer]

Does that make sense?

Sure, it does indeed, I get what you're saying.

 

[Riverwolf]

I love this answer!

But I have to poke a hole, since we're (unfortunately) limited to discussing the classical monotheist type of god in this thread. Remember that reading the elder scrolls causes irreparable damage, from blindness to insanity. An omnibenevolent god couldn't allow that, right?

Fair point. LOL

Okay, revised. Like the Elder Scrolls, without the cost of reading.