The mistake of interpreting holy books literally.

[Subduction Zone]

There's no rush, I think. You probably have plenty of time to think through these questions you've raised with some attempt to consider different assumptions, such as I've pointed out.

I am not in a rush. When you can enter into a discussion without continually relying on strawman arguments we might get somewhere.

Meanwhile the question that you dodged is still waiting for an answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already answered this question - several times.

There is NO REASON why God should reveal himself to everyone. Most are a waste of his time and he will waste them in the end.

I hold there are 4 proofs of God’s existence. Those that deny it will not receive a 5th. They’ll receive judgment instead. In fact, they already have received judgment. Sad but true.

Another person that believes in an immoral God. I guess that goes with the Old Testament narrative.

 

[sun rise]

Trying to argue about something in the text that is about God with a premise that God doesn't exist: that events X, Y, Z are naturally impossible.

If I'm understanding the point, there can be a historical claim that is independent of God existing or not existing. And especially if you also allow for the lack of modern historical methods, something that originally had a historical basis could be mythologized. My favorite example is the study that said Moses could cross the "Reed Sea" at certain times by knowing a purely natural phenomenon.

This does not prove anything, but it's a reasonable conjecture.

Ergo, therefore, logically, every possible evidence that would clearly prove God exists must be removed from this world, so that mortals cannot simply observe the fact of His existence.

In the East it's said that the proofs of God are everywhere but people can't see those proofs because of "veils" over their consciousness. Once those veils are removed, Divinity is seen.

 

[JerryMyers]

How can one understand the word "death" in context? Study of the original words. Remember, it was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Just like Greek has many words that the English language translates into just "love" (in the Bible) - you have to actually understand the literal context.

Sure, but we have what we have, and to a certain degree, we have to accept that the folks who translated the Greek texts into English in the English-translated Bibles you have today knew what they were doing. Nevertheless, context is not about a single word, context is about how that word is placed in a sentence and how that sentence is connected to the other sentences of a passage.

Yes... I know it sounds foolish for you.
What I mean is that I believed in my heart that he was raised from the dead and made him my Lord.
Some people think of him as just a unique and kind man, I see him as the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.

Truth is, it’s foolish to believe Jesus is God when Jesus himself told you that eternal life is about knowing the ONLY TRUE God and that TRUE God is the One who sent him (John 17:3) and it’s foolish to believe that Jesus can take away the sin of the world or die for your sin when Jesus himself taught you in ‘the Lord’s Prayer’ (Matthew 6:9-14) to pray to the ONLY God who is in heaven and seek His forgiveness for your sin. Now, can you quote from your scripture where Jesus said or imply he’s God the son or that he was sent to die for your sin? Can you quote from your scripture where the One, True God Himself said or imply Jesus is God the son or was sent to die for man’s sin ?? Who do you really listen to ??

 

[thomas t]

I think my reference to 2 Peter 3:5-6 makes perfect sense. It says that earthes were exchanged for reasons of the flood.

Either the Earth was not changed and thus, there is no available evidence of a global flood.

The Earth was changed, but replaced with more or less the same thing, so there is no available evidence of a global floor.

Or the Earth was radically changed after the flood and there is no evidence for that.

Exactly (I agree with the redded passage).
You see: this sounds so much different than "You support that the Earth is a new house and radically different than it was. " which is a citation from your #154, for instance.

Somebody needs to [put words in my mouth] since yours don't make any sense.

never do this!
Even if you think my stance needs clarification, never put words in my mouth that I never said!
Thank you.

 

[1213]

@1213
...Please help if you would by looking at post #171 and telling me if it is clear and/or needs improvement (or makes sense, etc.). I've been trying to find wording to explain how one cannot use any of the various forms/or variety of premises that are all versions/transforms/forms of the premise God does not exist in order to rationally or logically consider something in the common bible, such as miraculous events or justice, death, redemption, and so on, basically the entire contents of all the common bible it seems.

Sorry, to me it is little unclear. But, I agree, if the premise is that God doesn’t exist, then the whole Bible becomes baseless. Many things in the Bible, would not have happened, if God would not exist. And if God really exists, it makes many things possible that would not be naturally possible, by our current knowledge.

 

[PureX]

The entire content of all the books are based on God existing.

So, no matter how reasonably you use any commonplace premise -- A-Z, doesn't matter which -- that is a premise about something not being possible -- something that could never happen in nature.

Nature does not determine what is or is not possible beyond itself. "God" would generally be defined as the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is (including nature). The source of nature cannot then logically be defined out of existence by the result (nature).

The Bible is a collection of some tribes-men's musings on the interactive character of this great existential mystery 'God'. Even before a word was written, it was interpretive. It was men interpreting their natural circumstances, as they perceived them, as indicative of God's will and character. As such, it would quite illogical for us, then, to interpret their interpretation as actual historical fact. Or worse, as a divine mandate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think my reference to 2 Peter 3:5-6 makes perfect sense. It says that earthes were exchanged for reasons of the flood.

Exactly (I agree with the redded passage).
You see: this sounds so much different than "You support that the Earth is a new house and radically different than it was. " which is a citation from your #154, for instance.
never do this!
Even if you think my stance needs clarification, never put words in my mouth that I never said!
Thank you.

First, I don't take orders from you. Get that straight in your head.

You do support that the Earth is a new house and radically different than it was. You just said so here.

Peter doesn't say that the Earth was exchanged by the flood. That is your interpretation, that I can reject by not agreeing with. And I do reject your interpretation. Look how easy that is.

 

[Thief]

Wait, did you say that sea level rose? Sorry, you would need to show that happened. No evidence of that that I am aware of. Events of that sort leave evidence.

if you flood the earth.....the water would be salted

can you find evidence .....no layer of salt

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think my reference to 2 Peter 3:5-6 makes perfect sense. It says that earthes were exchanged for reasons of the flood.

Exactly (I agree with the redded passage).
You see: this sounds so much different than "You support that the Earth is a new house and radically different than it was. " which is a citation from your #154, for instance.
never do this!
Even if you think my stance needs clarification, never put words in my mouth that I never said!
Thank you.

That is because you only have a very biased and skewed perspective. Most Christians do not agree with your interpretation. It is one born out of desperation. And you seem to know that. I will ask again, how long after the flood did the God magic end? Was it when the rain stopped? When the water began to go away? When the water was all gone?

 

[Subduction Zone]

if you flood the earth.....the water would be salted

can you find evidence .....no layer of salt

There is no single predicted layer of salt. There are salt deposits in locations that occurred at different times with some hundreds of millions of years older than others. And places where there are multiple salt layers. But not layer as predicted by a global flood.

 

[Thief]

There is no single predicted layer of salt. There are salt deposits in locations that occurred at different times with some hundreds of millions of years older than others. And places where there are multiple salt layers. But not layer as predicted by a global flood.

archeology is your forte'...?

besides.....biblical stories are most useful
when you glean some meaning of them

you would do better to stop asking for evidence

what do you THINK the story is really about?

 

[Wrangler]

I experienced non-literal verses in Exodus 12 today.

Repeatedly, the text says how the LORD will kill all the first borns. In v23 it suggests an Angel of Death is actually the agent of judgment at the LORD’s direction.

A similar thing with who wrestled with Jacob and who is speaking to Moses via the burning bush.

 

[Wrangler]

Another person that believes in an immoral God. I guess that goes with the Old Testament narrative.

This post suggests this forum is not for me.

Peace

 

[Subduction Zone]

archeology is your forte'...?

besides.....biblical stories are most useful
when you glean some meaning of them

you would do better to stop asking for evidence

what do you THINK the story is really about?

No, it is not. And my point has been that the stories do have a use as moral instruction. The mistake is in thinking that they are literally true.

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The above verse does not say that all of the Bible is true nor does it even imply that. It says all of it is inspired and useful for instruction etc.. There is nothing that says the events literally happened and that has been the point of this whole thread. Many of the mythical events in the Bible never happened. Literalism is an incorrect approach to the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I experienced non-literal verses in Exodus 12 today.

Repeatedly, the text says how the LORD will kill all the first borns. In v23 it suggests an Angel of Death is actually the agent of judgment at the LORD’s direction.

A similar thing with who wrestled with Jacob and who is speaking to Moses via the burning bush.

I am pretty sure that you did not. What first borns did you see killed?

 

[Thief]

No, it is not. And my point has been that the stories do have a use as moral instruction. The mistake is in thinking that they are literally true.

so the arguement you REALLY want

do the scriptures bear .....truth

 

[Subduction Zone]

so the arguement you REALLY want

do the scriptures bear .....truth

Please, let's not abuse terms. "Truth" is a meaningless term in this context. One could claim that the scriptures are of use. One makes a mistake when one claims that it is literally true since that is demonstrably wrong and worse yet leads to some very immoral beliefs.

 

[Thief]

Please, let's not abuse terms. "Truth" is a meaningless term in this context. One could claim that the scriptures are of use. One makes a mistake when one claims that it is literally true since that is demonstrably wrong and worse yet leads to some very immoral beliefs.

care to show what immoral belief is found in the story of Noah?

 

[Subduction Zone]

care to show what immoral belief is found in the story of Noah?

That genocide is okay.