Is the Bible Just a Myth?

[Coder]

Paganism is paganism and Christianity has nothing to do with it. It just used some traditions and dates of pagan holidays to smoother the spread of the religion.

Hi, I know what you mean but when the "parable" becomes the "practice" to a great extent, the truth of God can be clouded and modern monotheists can become uncomfortable with such elements in worship and rightly so IMHO. I'm not talking about beautiful decorations like Christmas trees (no problem with that), I'm speaking about doctrines and practices in worship such as the Trinity and praying to saints including patron saints as a substitute for praying to Roman patron gods - yes the Romans had "patron gods". You also my want to consider just how much Greek/Roman pagan influences have affected Christian doctrines to this day especially when the Roman Empire was interfering and persecuting people and people may compromise with their Roman pagan religion.

Suggest see http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-trinity-is-wrong.6985/page-3#post-4938216

Also do a google on Greek/Roman pagan religion in the Roman Empire - I think you'll find it very eye-opening.

 

[roger1440]

Yes, the Tanakh is a tapestry woven together throughout the centuries and it seems to make a complete story with no mixture of different types of threads.

But, my point is if we find Hezekiah's Tunnel and continue to find supportive evidence of what was written, when can you then accept the written version of the same?

* science is always changing what it last said.

All fictional stories are more believable when they use real people, places and things in them. When the reader can relate to the story it makes the story even more believable.

Why does Santa Claus live at the North Pole rather than the East Pole or West Pole?

 

[Ben Avraham]

Oh. I had to stop at this for clarification. Do you mean when god performs miracles to say they he performed miracles is depreciating his power as the creator?

If anything, it would depreciate god if we said man did miracles rather than god. However, miracles, by biblical definition, comes from god. So how is that depreciating his power to say he perform miracles?

If he doesn't perform miracles, what does he do that man can't do that you wouldn't consider a miracle?

Have you ever opened a dictionary for the definition of a miracle? A supernatural event beyond the power of man to perform. The definition says "beyond the power of man to perform" not of God. Nothing is beyond the power of God to perform. Therefore, we cannot attribute miracles to God, or we will depreciating His power down to that of man. There is nothing miraculous to the Creator of the universe. Do you agree with me or not?

 

[Ben Avraham]

So just stopping the sun and moon for a day is beneath the dignity of a god capable of creating the universe including that sun and moon?

The author of that text did not write it to be interpreted literally but in an allegorical manner to symbolize the powers-to-be embodied in those five kings whom Joshua was battling with. It happened that as they realized that their armies were losing, all of them got into the cave of Makedah, were seen by some of our soldiers who reported them to Joshua, this sealed the cave, set some soldiers to watch and continued with the chasing of their armies on the running. That's how the "sun and moon" stopped in the sky. At the end of the battle Joshua returned, took them out of the cave and executed them all. So, the stopping of the sun and the moon in the sky never happened literally but impersonated in the five kings.

 

[Ben Avraham]

The point was that you said the sun and the moon stopping in the sky called for a metaphorical explanation. Why when supposedly God can stop them anytime he likes?

Yes, the Lord can do any thing and every thing any time He like but not because you wish He did or should have done.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Have you ever opened a dictionary for the definition of a miracle?

Yes, I have. That doesn't mean I understand you. I'm talking to you and how you see god not a dictionary. I know for a fact the dictionary goes off of christian norms. No sarcasm.

A supernatural event beyond the power of man to perform. The definition says "beyond the power of man to perform" not of God. Nothing is beyond the power of God to perform.

Do you believe god has power that is beyond man to perform?

When you take that "power" from god, he is no longer god. You put him at the same level as man. Is that what you believe since god doesn't perform miracles?

Therefore, we cannot attribute miracles to God, or we will depreciating His power down to that of man. There is nothing miraculous to the Creator of the universe.

You got it backwards. If a miracle is "beyond the power of man to perform" once you say god does not do miracles, you make him the same level as man. If god can do miracles, he is doing something that is beyond what man can do.

That's all a miracle is from a god-believers point of view. Outside of that, you'd have to show me other definitions of miracles because the one you gave me proves that god has power beyond man and once you take that power away (call what he does not a miracle) you depreciate him and make him the same level of man.

Is that true? Do you believe that?

Do you agree with me or not?

I believe you have the definition and interpretation backwards.

I experience miracles everyday. I know for a fact the dictionary is based on god-believer norms. Here is another definition:

"An unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God."

Man can create usual events. We can create cars, come together to form babies, and plant trees. If god is beyond the power of man, he performs things we cannot perform such as creating the universe, creating the actual baby in the womb, and creating the earth. These are called miracles.

Whether you call them miracles or not is your preference; however, by strict definition, if god didn't perform miracles, you would be depreciating him to the level of man.

 

[Coder]

You got it backwards. If a miracle is "beyond the power of man to perform" once you say God does not do miracles, you make him the same level as man. If God can do miracles, he is doing something that is beyond what man can do.

Hi Carlita, I know what you mean but I also know what Ben means. Jesus taught that nothing is impossible for God. Mark 10:27 So, it's not a "miracle" in relation to God when God does something. To us humans we use the word "miracle" to mean that it's something a human can't do. So I agree with Ben because "miracle" is from human perspective and from a human perspective a "miracle" is something that we don't know how it could happen and often we say God did it, but the definition of miracle doesn't always specifically refer to something God did. Also, again for God, nothing is a miracle, because God can do whatever God wills.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi Carlita, I know what you mean but I also know what Ben means. Jesus taught that nothing is impossible for God. Mark 10:27 So, it's not a "miracle" in relation to God when God does something. To us humans we use the word "miracle" to mean that it's something a human can't do. So I agree with Ben because "miracle" is from human perspective and from a human perspective a "miracle" is something that we don't know how it could happen and often we say God did it, but the definition of miracle doesn't always specifically refer to something God did. Also, again for God, nothing is a miracle, because God can do whatever God wills.

I'm talking from a man's perspective. Why would @Ben Avraham use that definition of miracle when, if god doesn't do miracles from a god perspective, that word wouldn't make sense to quote?

In other words, why use the dictionary word miracle which is man's perspective if he is talking about it from god's?

That, and extra question. I always thought it was inappropriate to quote how god feels about the situation. We-John, Paul, and Mathew included-only know from our own perspective, that of a man or woman.

Without humans, I'd agree, god doesn't perform miracles. Since we are here, miracles exist, if they didn't I don't see how the dictionary quote supports the point you and Ben are making.

 

[Coder]

In other words, why use the dictionary word miracle which is man's perspective if he is talking about it from God's?

Hi Carlita, I see. Alrighty then,... Ben?...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi Carlita, I see. Alrighty then,... Ben?...

I'm serious, though. You see both views, is there something I overlooked?

 

[Coder]

I'm serious, though. You see both views, is there something I overlooked?

Hi Carlita, I can see it is confusing but I think Ben was just making that point that "miracles" are from human perspective only. As you say he chose to use the term "miracle of God" to make the point so it may seem confusing - but I know what he meant. It's also a good point that the universe is a "miracle" from a human perspective but we humans use "miracle" to describe something outside the norm or outside the expected laws of physics.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm.

Hi Carlita, I can see it is confusing but I think Ben was just making that point that "miracles" are from human perspective only. As you say he chose to use the term "miracles of God" to make the point so it may seem confusing - but I know what he meant.

In post 160, the original one, @Ben Avraham says that saying god doing miracles depreciates god to man's level. Saying god does miracles is just saying that god has the power to do things man cannot. So, my confusion is how can the power of god (whether its called miracle or just plain works of god) be depreciated by calling his work a miracle?

How does the human perspective and defining god's power depreciate god's work regardless if, from god's perspective, if it's a miracle or not?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is a comment that so many people use saying that the Bible is, indeed, mythical stories. And yet I find it so interesting, as archeological discoveries continue, that it continues to validate what was written.


At what point does one accept, after validating documentation appears again and again, does on finally accept it as historical?


Here is the latest one that has been discovered validating the works of King Hezekiah who lived around 700 BC.


http://www.livescience.com/56300-gate-shrine-excavated-in-israel.html

Hard to understand, Ken, why a few archaeological discoveries that confirm the existence of places or landmarks, should convince you that the Bible is essentially a historical document. Homer managed the sam feat with Troy and Attic Greece, so do you credit the Cyclops or Circe? Indian scripture contains an immense number of references to things that archaeology has uncovered, so do you credit Brahma, Hanuman and Ganesh?

Like every author (except fantasy/sci-fi), writers tend to write about what they know. They set their stories – whatever story they wish to tell – in environments that are familiar to them. I’ve read thousands of completely fictional stories that have taken place in venues I have personally visited – yet I don’t credit those novels as being historical fact. Why would I?

 

[Coder]

So, my confusion is how can the power of god (whether its called miracle or just plain works of god) be depreciated by calling his work a miracle?

He's probably just saying that to say it's a "miracle" for God to do something, is not right because it's not a miracle from God's perspective. However, when someone says "God performs a miracle", they refer to the human perspective. I think it's just semantics. It's true though, that the word "miracle" has a connotation of being something hard to do - for example, someone might say as an expression: "If I pass this test, it will be a 'miracle'". So, it's true that that common connotation of the word "miracle" is not applicable when speaking of God.

 

[Shad]

Yes, the Lord can do any thing and every thing any time He like but not because you wish He did or should have done.

God can not do the logically impossible. God can not make a squared circle. God can only do what is logically possible.

 

[Ben Avraham]

God can not do the logically impossible. God can not make a squared circle. God can only do what is logically possible.

Why would He, because you wanted Him to prove something to you? Keep praying for it. Perhaps one day you will have
an answer for your prayers.

 

[psychoslice]

All stories about god are Myth, its our way to try and understand a world we are afraid of being in, but not for me, its a great world and I don't need any beliefs to make me feel more secure, sadly it seems most need a belief to keep the secure.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Yes, I have. That doesn't mean I understand you. I'm talking to you and how you see god not a dictionary. I know for a fact the dictionary goes off of christian norms. No sarcasm.

Well! In that case you have no choice but keep what you have aka the NT.

Do you believe god has power that is beyond man to perform?

Yes, God caused the universe to exist. Could man have done it?

When you take that "power" from god, he is no longer god. You put him at the same level as man. Is that what you believe since god doesn't perform miracles?

You still do not understand miracle by definition.

You got it backwards. If a miracle is "beyond the power of man to perform" once you say god does not do miracles, you make him the same level as man. If god can do miracles, he is doing something that is beyond what man can do.

What God does, cannot be defined as a miracle. At least, not after what He did when He caused the universe to exist.

That's all a miracle is from a god-believers point of view. Outside of that, you'd have to show me other definitions of miracles because the one you gave me proves that god has power beyond man and once you take that power away (call what he does not a miracle) you depreciate him and make him the same level of man.

God does have all the power in the universe and out of it. Hence, what He does cannot be called a miracle. To define the works of God a miracle will only mess up with the power of God down to the level of man.

Is that true? Do you believe that?

Sorry! But no, I don't

I believe you have the definition and interpretation backwards.

With Christian preconceived notions, one tends to believe all things.

I experience miracles everyday. I know for a fact the dictionary is based on god-believer norms. Here is another
definition: "An unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God."

"That's believed to be caused by the power of God." Perfectly possible but you can't call it a miracle. Why would you minimize the power of God?

Man can create usual events. We can create cars, come together to form babies, and plant trees. If god is beyond the power of man, he performs things we cannot perform such as creating the universe, creating the actual baby in the womb, and creating the earth. These are called miracles.

...to the gullible who believes all things.

Whether you call them miracles or not is your preference; however, by strict definition, if god didn't perform miracles, you would be depreciating him to the level of man.

Rather the opposite is true. At least until you finally understand what a miracle stands for. A miracle must be beyond the power of the miracle-maker to be true.

 

[psychoslice]

I cannot see why so many are frightened of the word Myth, it doesn't take away the spiritual meaning of the story, in fact it enhances the story, it makes you go deeper, where as just the story keeps you at that level, you are like a child wanting a story before bedtime. Yes we need to grow up and mature spiritually, and let go they mere stories, and go where the stories point to........try it, you will be surprised.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Stop with the sarcasm. I'm not being cross with you. I'm not being rude. Also, you accidentally misquoted me. My questions are indented.

​

Well! In that case you have no choice but keep what you have aka the NT.

I hate to ask, but most of you who are Jewish are like this. I get this from most Jews on here. No sarcasm.

It is true. I know for a fact the Bible is Christian bias outside religious means.

Keep the NT? I am not Christian. I'm asking for clarification not proving you right or wrong.

Do you believe god has power that is beyond man to perform?​

Yes, God caused the universe to exist. Could man have done it?

That is why it is a miracle. It is a power outside of what man can perform. (Your dictionary definition). It also means "1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs. 2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment. 3 Christian Science : a divinely

From man's perspective, it is a miracle. From god (which I think you're telling me?????) it is not. Right?​

By your definition and by Merriam's, it is a power (yours) and divine event that man cannot perform.

Do you agree that man can't perform what god can? (That is a miracle. Nothing fancy and nothing more)
​

What God does, cannot be defined as a miracle. At least, not after what He did when He caused the universe to exist.

​

The dictionary defines a miracle from man's perspective not god's. What god does is miracles because it is a power beyond what man cannot can perform.

Outside of that, what other definition are you using?​

God does have all the power in the universe and out of it. Hence, what He does cannot be called a miracle. To define the works of God a miracle will only mess up with the power of God down to the level of man.

​

Is that true? Do you believe that?

No. I don't. I don't differentiate between natural and supernatural. There is nothing more powerful than humans. No miracles from god and my perspective. No hierarchy.

That is not the point. Logically, once you take the power of god away, he is no longer god. He can no longer do miracles (power of what man can't perform) and that depreciates him to that of man. If god is more powerful than man, then whatever he does, from a man's perspective is defined by the dictionary as a miracle.

You don't believe god is more powerful than man and he can do things beyond what man can perform? (Whether you call it miracle per dictionary or not is not the point)​

I believe you have the definition and interpretation backwards.

Thank gosh I'm not Christian. It seems a lot of Jews on RF hate Christians. Only one Jew I know does not. I don't understand that.

Finally a straight forward question without sarcasm

"That's believed to be caused by the power of God." Perfectly possible but you can't call it a miracle. Why would you minimize the power of God?

A miracle is saying that "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God." Here's another dictionary definition.

From man's perspective are you saying that god can do the same thing as man? If nothing he does is beyond what man can do, you make him at man's level.​

So, you're saying that other believers are gullible to call what god does that they cannot do a miracle? If not a miracle from their view what can they call it that doesn't make god the same level as man?​

Rather the opposite is true. At least until you finally understand what a miracle stands for. A miracle must be beyond the power of the miracle-maker to be true.

That's not the dictionary's definition. The dictionary says that a miracle is a power (or someone who has the source of power) to do things that is beyond what man can do. That's the dictionary definition you gave me.

A miracle, by definition, is "beyond the power of man" not god. There is nothing beyond the power of god. That's why man considers it a miracle. The power of god is beyond humans and nothing is more powerful than him. Miracles, by definition, are from a man's point of view not god's.

Whether you decide to call what he does that you cannot do a miracle, that's your preference. That doesn't change the definitions you gave me and certainly doesn't change that god does miracle's from a man's perspective.

Please read this actively. I think you're missing the point of views. There is no such thing as a miracle to god only man.

With Christian preconceived notions, one tends to believe all things.

Well, Christians accept that they cannot do what god can do. They also accept that god is beyond the power of man. So, by their point of view, whatever god does that they cannot do they call it a miracle. Also, in RF we come from all parts of the world. So whatever you call god's actions that's beyond your power is up to you. Just no sarcasm about it.

Rather the opposite is true. At least until you finally understand what a miracle stands for. A miracle must be beyond the power of the miracle-maker to be true.

What you're doing here is making the miracle-maker man not god. Of course if man make's miracles, whatever god does would depreciate god if we called what he does what man can do. However, that's not the definition of a miracle. I can't change the definitions. I just can say you're looking at miracles from god's perspective. The dictionary is talking from man's perspective.

Unless you clarify which perspective you're talking about, I will continuously be genuinely confused. Not because it's your opinion but because without knowing whose perspective you're using, I can't tell if you're using the definition terms or religious.