The mistake of interpreting holy books literally.

[Subduction Zone]

here you go

People can walk uphill.

 

[Thief]

People can walk uphill.

but can't farm salted fields

 

[Subduction Zone]

but can't farm salted fields

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.

 

[JerryMyers]

I disagree. You are viewing it without the proper definition.

It is OBVIOUS it isn't talking about physical death. If it was, Paul's body would still be alive.

So, what exactly are you disagreeing ?? I just said your definition (in the context of what you had commented) is correct.

OBVIOUSLY, it isn’t talking about physical death, as if your understanding it was, then, you would have taken the meaning of ‘saved from that death’ literally, but you did not, even though you had said you take it ‘very literally’ (post #50) or are you now denying that ?

 

[Trailblazer]

"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."

Please note, it does not say that the Bible is literally true. It does not even imply that it is . It merely states that it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. If one treats the stories of Genesis, Exodus, and other parts of the Bible as being instructional and not factual they still "work". It is so odd that so many Christians do not understand this.

Okay, have at it. Bring up any stories myths etc. from your various holy books and tell us how they cannot be taken literally

The Bible is not the holy book of my religion, although I believe it was divinely inspired. I do not believe the 'resurrection stories' are literally true because I do not believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead and walked around. What happens if Christians admit that these stories were metaphorical? They lose the centerpiece of their religion which is based upon the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and if Jesus did not rise from the dead then Jesus cannot be alive in a 'glorified' physical body that Christians believe ascended to heaven and which they believe will return in the clouds. That one belief is the pivot point to the whole Christian belief system because without it Jesus is not alive, as they say. He is just a soul in heaven in a spiritual body, just like everyone else who has died physically.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Bible is not the holy book of my religion, although I believe it was divinely inspired. I do not believe the 'resurrection stories' are literally true because I do not believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead and walked around. What happens if Christians admit that these stories were metaphorical? They lose the centerpiece of their religion which is based upon the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and if Jesus did not rise from the dead then Jesus cannot be alive in a 'glorified' physical body that Christians believe ascended to heaven and which they believe will return in the clouds. That one belief is the pivot point to the whole Christian belief system because without it Jesus is not alive, as they say. He is just a soul in heaven in a spiritual body, just like everyone else who has died physically.

People in the Tanakh (Old Testament) spoke of their Messiah as suffering and dying to redeem
them. And after his decease He would see the fruits of His suffering, and be glad.

 

[Kenny]

So, what exactly are you disagreeing ?? I just said your definition (in the context of what you had commented) is correct.

OBVIOUSLY, it isn’t talking about physical death, as if your understanding it was, then, you would have taken the meaning of ‘saved from that death’ literally, but you did not, even though you had said you take it ‘very literally’ (post #50) or are you now denying that ?

I'm not sure whether I am not explaining myself well or you are interpreting it well.

Saving oneself from death is literal.

But the word "death" - is not physical death though very literal in its statement.

What part didn't you understand?

You see, when I accepted Christ, my separation from life (death) was removed and now I am alive and united unto God.

Very literally.

 

[Martin]

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.

There was a large sea level rise at the end of the last ice age I believe - about 10,000 years ago?

 

[thomas t]

However, you are claiming that the new house of the earth is radically different from the old and without any real evidence.

what?
I wrote (I don't like to reiterate myself, please...):
I didn't claim that the new house is radically different from the old. It could be, though.

 

[wellwisher]

I was going to limit this to Abrahamic religions, but the problem almost certainly exists for other religions as well. At least when it comes to the Abrahamic religions reading the Old Testament, Torah, or whatever name it goes by in Muslim sects literally can only refute those particular beliefs. For example the mere fact that ice floats (and a thousand other scientific facts) refutes the Old Testament if one interprets it literally. Other examples are welcome or an explanations of why the refute those books are welcome. Also questions about how the books are refuted is welcome too.

There is an out, at least for Christianity, and probably one for Judaism and for others religions as well. Many Christians misinterpret the following verse:

"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."

Please note, it does not say that the Bible is literally true. It does not even imply that it is . It merely states that it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. If one treats the stories of Genesis, Exodus, and other parts of the Bible as being instructional and not factual they still "work". It is so odd that so many Christians do not understand this.

Okay, have at it. Bring up any stories myths etc. from your various holy books and tell us how they cannot be taken literally

The literal approach appears to come from the atheists trying to refute the bible using the scientific method. Literal is how a materialist looks at reality. One will rarely hear an atheist approach the bible from the symbolism side, since to do so, weakens their materialist argument and position. They picked the fight using their own rules, and not the rules of symbolism, which can take account subjectivity and imagination and lessons that can be taught and learned this way. These are not easy to quantify with the science method since it take into account individual subjectivity.

For example, in the new Testament, Jesus speaks in parables. These parables were designed not to be taken literally. This was/is common knowledge among the religious who study this. For example, the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed.

“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that a man planted in his field. Although it is the smallest of all seeds, yet it grows into the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”…

Jesus is not saying the kingdom of God exist at the nanoscale and can fit into a tiny seed. That would be literal and it would make no sense in terms of science proof. There is no microscopic proof God and heaven is tiny. This will be the atheist approach so it sounds like nonsense. Instead, the parable is saying the kingdom of God was like a new idea that is still small, within the collective mind. But as it is discussed, it spreads to others and grows. Soon it is the main way everyone is thinking, as the imagination; birds, begins to animate around the premises.

The reason this was done is that parables, fairy tales, and such, appeal to children and are very easy to remember, even for a lifetime. A long winded logical analysis will be soon forgotten, but simple things like stories appeal to the minds of children and will live on forever. The brains of small children learn at very high rates and this approach strongly appeals to turbo state of the child's memory. Unless you be as children you cannot enter the kingdom.

If you look at small children, even the children of atheists, they all enjoy story time. Such stories may involving talking animals; Little Red Riding Hood or Cinderella. These animals are not real, but are nevertheless easy to remember, since they deal in visual imagery and provide a lesson; memory peg. These stories are symbolic, and are like compressed files that are easy to store in long term memory since they take very little space.

Any adult can recite the childhood fairly tales they liked, since these made full use of the brain's memory writing process; deeply engrained. As one gets older, many young adults will try to decompress these compressed files, in the light of changes in their own times. Jesus and the bible made use of how the brain works in terms of optimize long term data storage. If you want ideas to last centuries, you need a simple way to deeply ingrained memory placeholders, that can be decompressed in the future. Any atheist can recite the stories from compressed memories of childhood. They will decompress these using a materialist platform of premises, that can become self serving.

If you look at all religions, they all try to optimize humans, in some way or another, by setting guidelines and offering lessons to help funnel behavior. One may not agree with their choice for optimization but that is still the goal. This all comes down to working with the brain's natural operating system; tree of life. If we work within the parameters of the natural brain, life is easier and happier.

Visions of all wars ending, would take a serious update in the operating system, since you cannot depend on will power and choice to save day. It needs a more advanced human with a new operating system, so this is easier and innate to do even without will power.

In Revelations, half the world or so is eliminated. While the other half, more appropriate to the needs of the future survive. It looks like natural selection, selecting the good and natural. Before this can occur, there first needs to be a break down in the status quo; uninstall process, that is followed by an installation process. The new human is different and more naturally conducive to the needs of a 1000 reign of peace. The old operating system is stored as a backup. This becomes comes conscious again after the 1000 years of peace is over. There is one last war and then the backup is destroyed. The new human appears and remains.

 

[Wrangler]

Do you think that it means that? No, There was land, much of it covered by snow and ice but not liquid water.

Friend, I'm trying to show how wrong you are at the most basic level. As I said, it is an uncontested fact that the Earth was fully covered with water and I provided a link to substantiate that claim.

All you do is show your WILLFUL IGNORANCE with retorts like pointing out the water that covered the Earth that is uncontested was not liquid.

That is not a flood or even close to it.

Never claimed it was. I'm merely addressing your errors one at a time. Fact is, the whole Earth was covered with water. If you cannot accept this fact, there is really no point in delving into the next level of detail, such as how many times, when and under what condition.

It seems to me that you are appealing to the fallacy of perfection; my rebuttal is not comprehensive enough for you to accept any validity to it.

Now do you wonder how the fact that ice floats refutes the Noah's Ark story?

I have no idea what you are trying to express here. Again, it will be very liberating for you to say the truth: the Earth was fully covered by water (even if not liquid.)

 

[night912]

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the kid;
and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
and a little child shall lead them.
And the cow and the bear shall feed;
their young ones shall lie down together:
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain:
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD,
as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11: 6-9)

No. No. No. That's all wrong. It is referring to the Australian Zoo. After Steve Irwin died, his son basically replaced him, hence the verse about being led by a child.

And the lion eating straw verse is just information saying that lions don't eat straws, like how an ox don't eat straws.




* *WARNING**
If anyone took this literally, then you're mistakenly interpreting what I meant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Friend, I'm trying to show how wrong you are at the most basic level. As I said, it is an uncontested fact that the Earth was fully covered with water and I provided a link to substantiate that claim.

All you do is show your WILLFUL IGNORANCE with retorts like pointing out the water that covered the Earth that is uncontested was not liquid.

Oh my, once again you have it backwards. You are grasping at straws to defend an indefensible belief. And no, the Earth was not "covered by water". Even with snowball Earth there would be bare areas. All it would take for that is a fairly low lying desert. There might be some hoar ice on it here and there, but even then they would much of it would be bare.

Never claimed it was. I'm merely addressing your errors one at a time. Fact is, the whole Earth was covered with water. If you cannot accept this fact, there is really no point in delving into the next level of detail, such as how many times, when and under what condition.

It seems to me that you are appealing to the fallacy of perfection; my rebuttal is not comprehensive enough for you to accept any validity to it.



I have no idea what you are trying to express here. Again, it will be very liberating for you to say the truth: the Earth was fully covered by water (even if not liquid.)

Please, I made no error. There is no "fallacy of perfection" and if there was one it is yours. The context should have been clear to anyone with an elementary school level of reading comprehension. Since this was in regard to the flood myth why would you expect it to be water in any other form?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

what?
I wrote (I don't like to reiterate myself, please...):
I didn't claim that the new house is radically different from the old. It could be, though.

Let me reiterate for you. You support that the Earth is a new house and radically different than it was. You have no evidence the earth is radically different and that the difference is from or following a global flood. Simple as that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me reiterate for you. You support that the Earth is a new house and radically different than it was. You have no evidence the earth is radically different and that the difference is from or following a global flood. Simple as that.

His "evidence" is that he would be wrong if that were not the case. Not the best evidence at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

His "evidence" is that he would be wrong if that were not the case. Not the best evidence at all.

There are always those that claim that the world is different now than before the flood, but none of those claimants ever provide actual evidence to support that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The literal approach appears to come from the atheists trying to refute the bible using the scientific method. Literal is how a materialist looks at reality. One will rarely hear an atheist approach the bible from the symbolism side, since to do so, weakens their materialist argument and position. They picked the fight using their own rules, and not the rules of symbolism, which can take account subjectivity and imagination and lessons that can be taught and learned this way. These are not easy to quantify with the science method since it take into account individual subjectivity.

Well you got that one one hundred percent backwards! I have never seen an atheist try to refute Christianity by using the fact that much of the Old Testament is purely mythical. Check my history. For years I have stated (in fact for years before I joined here) I have always said the fact of evolution does not disprove Christianity. Nor have I ever used that argument. Evolution only proves the "God" of fundamentalists does not exist.

For example, in the new Testament, Jesus speaks in parables. These parables were designed not to be taken literally. This was/is common knowledge among the religious who study this. For example, the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed.

Nor have I used parables to argue against Christianity, but I have debated with Christians that believe that the parables had to be true or else the "Bible was a lie". Again I do not know of any atheists that use those arguments either.

Jesus is not saying the kingdom of God exist at the nanoscale and can fit into a tiny seed. That would be literal and it would make no sense in terms of science proof. There is no microscopic proof God and heaven is tiny. This will be the atheist approach so it sounds like nonsense. Instead, the parable is saying the kingdom of God was like a new idea that is still small, within the collective mind. But as it is discussed, it spreads to others and grows. Soon it is the main way everyone is thinking, as the imagination; birds, begins to animate around the premises.

The reason this was done is that parables, fairy tales, and such, appeal to children and are very easy to remember, even for a lifetime. A long winded logical analysis will be soon forgotten, but simple things like stories appeal to the minds of children and will live on forever. The brains of small children learn at very high rates and this approach strongly appeals to turbo state of the child's memory. Unless you be as children you cannot enter the kingdom.

If you look at small children, even the children of atheists, they all enjoy story time. Such stories may involving talking animals; Little Red Riding Hood or Cinderella. These animals are not real, but are nevertheless easy to remember, since they deal in visual imagery and provide a lesson; memory peg. These stories are symbolic, and are like compressed files that are easy to store in long term memory since they take very little space.

Any adult can recite the childhood fairly tales they liked, since these made full use of the brain's memory writing process; deeply engrained. As one gets older, many young adults will try to decompress these compressed files, in the light of changes in their own times. Jesus and the bible made use of how the brain works in terms of optimize long term data storage. If you want ideas to last centuries, you need a simple way to deeply ingrained memory placeholders, that can be decompressed in the future. Any atheist can recite the stories from compressed memories of childhood. They will decompress these using a materialist platform of premises, that can become self serving.

If you look at all religions, they all try to optimize humans, in some way or another, by setting guidelines and offering lessons to help funnel behavior. One may not agree with their choice for optimization but that is still the goal. This all comes down to working with the brain's natural operating system; tree of life. If we work within the parameters of the natural brain, life is easier and happier.

Visions of all wars ending, would take a serious update in the operating system, since you cannot depend on will power and choice to save day. It needs a more advanced human with a new operating system, so this is easier and innate to do even without will power.

In Revelations, half the world or so is eliminated. While the other half, more appropriate to the needs of the future survive. It looks like natural selection, selecting the good and natural. Before this can occur, there first needs to be a break down in the status quo; uninstall process, that is followed by an installation process. The new human is different and more naturally conducive to the needs of a 1000 reign of peace. The old operating system is stored as a backup. This becomes comes conscious again after the 1000 years of peace is over. There is one last war and then the backup is destroyed. The new human appears and remains.

Okay, so we agree to a large part on how Christianity should be taught.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are always those that claim that the world is different now than before the flood, but none of those claimants ever provide actual evidence to support that claim.

There is one question that I keep asking and he keeps ducking. It is because the even with his argument it can be shown that the flood did not happen. I do not think that he has an answer for it so he tries to ignore the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was a large sea level rise at the end of the last ice age I believe - about 10,000 years ago?

Yes, but it did not retreat. It caused migration, but it would not have poisoned any fields as in @Thief 's example. A flood is temporary in nature, not permanent. Since he did not go into any details the point of his example is largely lost.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is one question that I keep asking and he keeps ducking. It is because the even with his argument it can be shown that the flood did not happen. I do not think that he has an answer for it so he tries to ignore the question.

There are so many questions to flood supporters that remain unanswered in all the discussions of the flood that I have ever seen.

When they do come up with answers, these create further questions that, again, remain unanswered.