The mistake of interpreting holy books literally.

[thomas t]

Let me reiterate for you.

but do not put words in my mouth!!!!

You support that the Earth is a new house and radically different than it was.

NOOOOOO
I said: I didn't claim that the new house is radically different from the old. It could be, though.

AGAIN: I didn't claim that the new house is radically different from the old. It could be, though.

ONCE AGAIN FOR YOU:
I didn't claim that the new house is radically different from the old. It could be, though.

You are stealing my time here. If you want to reiterate what I've said, go ahead and provide a quote please.

 

[thomas t]

There are many here who insist the Bible is God's "inerrant" word. They always use that loaded word, "Inerrant" like it's some kind of badge of honor. In truth, when studied, the Bible is ANYTHING but inerrant. In fact the errors contained within it are so numerous it'd be a simple task to collect them and compile a second Bible. One website catalogued 4,000 errors and that is not comprehensive. Zealots always haul out that old canard, "Context!" As if context could fix errors and egregious as these:

Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

Now how do you square that with this:

No one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him 1 John 5:18

But further, square it with this as well:

If anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 1 John 2:1

So which is it, Christians don't sin per 1 John 5:18 OR Christians DO sin and they can go to Jesus when they do per 1 John 2:1?

Another one:

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others Luke 24:9.

Now square that with this:

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. Mark 16:8

The gospel ends there so Mark doesn't say if the women changed their minds and we cannot make that assumption because if we do we are adding to the Bible.

One last one:

No man has seen or can see God 1 Timothy 6:16

But apparently someone has seen God:

The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend Exodus 33:11

But worse, later in Exodus

You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live! Exodus 33:20

And bear in mind this is just THREE errors out of a catalogued 4,000 errors!!!!! This is insanity.

"Inerrant" word of God indeed!!!!!!!

Hi SAT,
nice to meet you again.
Let me explain:
of course, you are allowed to add a potential scenario to the Bible the moment someone claims contradiction.
This is at least my way of doing apologetics.

In my opinion, there are no contradictions in the Bible. Not one.
Your first one can be explained like this:
Before Jesus, anybody sinned.
When Jesus came, it's possible to live and refrain from sinning (the second verse)... but if anyone does sin again according to 1 John 2:1.... you now ask how this is possible?
1 John 5:18 and 1 John 2:1 - do they seem incompatible?

In my opinion, everyone who is baptized belongs to the church. Immersion in water makes you a part of the church, says Paul somewhere...
However, not everyone that's baptized is also born again... so these two passages refer to different groups of people. The group that 1 John 2:1 is referring to is larger in size. This is at least my interpretation of these two verses.

And the Lord that Moses was talking to... could have been Jesus, the son. And still you cannot see God, the father.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Hi SAT,
nice to meet you again.
Let me explain:
of course, you are allowed to add a potential scenario to the Bible the moment someone claims contradiction.
This is at least my way of doing apologetics.

In my opinion, there are no contradictions in the Bible. Not one.
Your first one can be explained like this:
Before Jesus, anybody sinned.
When Jesus came, it's possible to live and refrain from sinning (the second verse)... but if anyone does sin again according to 1 John 2:1.... you now ask how this is possible?
1 John 5:18 and 1 John 2:1 - do they seem incompatible?

In my opinion, everyone who is baptized belongs to the church. Immersion in water makes you a part of the church, says Paul somewhere...
However, not everyone that's baptized is also born again... so these two passages refer to different groups of people. The group that 1 John 2:1 is referring to is larger in size. This is at least my interpretation of these two verses.

And the Lord that Moses was talking to... could have been Jesus, the son. And still you cannot see God, the father.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Thanks for sharing yours. You're a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[thomas t]

Thanks for sharing yours. You're a gentleman and a scholar.

Thank you very much for your kindness. But I can't receive this compliment. I never studied Greek or theology or anything like that.... (just read the Bible).
Have a nice day!

 

[halbhh]

The ice age I included a link to was of the entire Earth covered with water. Say it. You'll feel liberated.



Agreed.



Agreed.

With the actual wording in the OP suggestively painting that every miraculous event in the Old Testament must all of them be unreal or only metaphors (in contrast to a common Christian view that that some such things are metaphors but not all)....

From the OP:

For example the mere fact that ice floats (and a thousand other scientific facts) refutes the Old Testament if one interprets it literally.

Then one could be expected to then work out the logic from that --

e.g.:
a) given that not any miracles at all can happen, then

b) ergo, every such seeming instance in the the bible must be only metaphor (all instead of just some), and therefore

c) therefore any definitely non-parable like part of the bible showing a miracle would appear really just false (as the style of writing cannot even be slightly parable like in certain places), therefore we can surmise it must be falsehoods, and so

d) of course that implies that God as depicted in the bible doesn't exist, etc.

I made this example of circular reasoning especially clear and obvious only to illustrate it.

In actual posts here, it is typically indirect, less obvious, and pretty often just done here on RF using suggestion.

But, however well written (or not), circular reasoning is pretty common, when anyone starts with a rigid premise that God doesn't exist, even if it is only in the form of merely the assumption no miracles can happen, or other transforms of the same premise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With the actual wording in the OP suggestively painting that every miraculous event in the Old Testament must all of them be unreal or only metaphors (in contrast to a common Christian view that that some such things are metaphors but not all)....

Not stated or implied. But not an unreasonable conclusion. Again, context matters. It was clearly a post against the clearly mythical events of the Bible. If you want to call all miracles mythical that is on you.

From the OP:


Then one could be expected to then work out the logic from that --

e.g.:
a) given that not any miracles at all can happen, then

b) ergo, every such seeming instance in the the bible must be only metaphor (all instead of just some), and therefore

c) therefore any definitely non-parable like part of the bible showing a miracle would appear really just false (as the style of writing cannot even be slightly parable like in certain places), therefore we can surmise it must be falsehoods, and so

d) of course that implies that God as depicted in the bible doesn't exist, etc.

I made this example of circular reasoning especially clear and obvious only to illustrate it.

In actual posts here, it is typically indirect, less obvious, and pretty often just done here on RF using suggestion.

But, however well written (or not), circular reasoning is pretty common, when anyone starts with a rigid premise that God doesn't exist, even if it is only in the form of merely the assumption no miracles can happen, or other transforms of the same premise.

And even after your error was explained to you you continue to make it. That supports my earlier claim that some people will purposefully misinterpret a post whenever they have chance. There was no circular reasoning on my part, there was only a deliberate attempt to not understand on yours. Naughty, naughty.

Do you have anything real to contribute?

 

[halbhh]

Not stated or implied. But not an unreasonable conclusion. Again, context matters. It was clearly a post against the clearly mythical events of the Bible. If you want to call all miracles mythical that is on you.




And even after your error was explained to you you continue to make it. That supports my earlier claim that some people will purposefully misinterpret a post whenever they have chance. There was no circular reasoning on my part, there was only a deliberate attempt to not understand on yours. Naughty, naughty.

Do you have anything real to contribute?

Sorry, that won't work on me.

"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.

I don't mind if you attempt to paint it I'm the only person that can't see it the right way.... (lol)

(https://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, that won't work on me.

"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.

I don't mind if you attempt to paint it I'm the only person that can't see it the right way.... (lol)

(https://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html)

I am not saying that you are the only one with this flaw of reading things into posts that are not there. But for some reason you have a very very bad case of it in this thread. Perhaps you know that some of your favorite beliefs are false. You could discuss those and see if there is a good reason to realize that they are untrue or you could simply maintain your false narrative.

 

[JerryMyers]

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?

Maybe your understanding of ‘literal/literally’ is different from mine. ‘Saving oneself from death’ is not literal, it’s just a saying, a sentence which anyone can say or write, but it’s how someone understand the word ‘death’ in the context of that saying/sentence is what tells us whether that someone take the saying/sentence literally or otherwise.

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

So you thought.
What exactly do you mean when you said ‘when I accepted Christ’ ?? Is accepting Jesus Christ mean you accept him as God ??! If it is, I can tell you right now, Jesus is just a man, unique, one of a kind but still a man – very literally.

 

[Kenny]

Maybe your understanding of ‘literal/literally’ is different from mine. ‘Saving oneself from death’ is not literal, it’s just a saying, a sentence which anyone can say or write, but it’s how someone understand the word ‘death’ in the context of that saying/sentence is what tells us whether that someone take the saying/sentence literally or otherwise.

Yes... apparently we do differ from our definition.

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.

So you thought.
What exactly do you mean when you said ‘when I accepted Christ’ ?? Is accepting Jesus Christ mean you accept him as God ??! If it is, I can tell you right now, Jesus is just a man, unique, one of a kind but still a man – very literally.

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.

 

[halbhh]

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

Breakthrough.

Here's something that almost slipped past us.

First, let me say I liked your post.

But, there's a tricky thing I just now realized is a fundamental problem going on here.

You are referencing the Bible -- using the Bible for your discussion/thesis/consideration -- and trying reasonably to address whether certain things can be taken literally.

Now...the Bible is a book about God and presupposes God. It's based on God.

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.

And argue, in a way that seems reasonable, from such a premise about the Bible....

Then it's this situation:

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.

There's no there there.

 

[halbhh]

@1213
@loverofhumanity
@PureX
@KenS
@sun rise

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Breakthrough.

Here's something that almost slipped past us.

First, let me say I liked your post.

But, there's a tricky thing I just now realized is a fundamental problem going on here.

You are referencing the Bible -- using the Bible for your discussion/thesis/consideration -- and trying reasonably to address whether certain things can be taken literally.

Now...the Bible is a book about God and presupposes God. It's based on God.

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.

And argue, in a way that seems reasonable, from such a premise about the Bible....

Then it's this situation:

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.

There's no there there.

Sorry, but your last post only describes your post once again. By the very supposed nature of God in the Bible we can tell that parts of the Bible are not true. For example, can you tell me, can God lie? Can he attempt to deliberately attempt to mislead everyone?

 

[halbhh]

Sorry, but your last post only describes your post once again. By the very supposed nature of God in the Bible we can tell that parts of the Bible are not true. For example, can you tell me, can God lie? Can he attempt to deliberately attempt to mislead everyone?

When you ask "Can he attempt to deliberately attempt to mislead everyone?" I think you might be trying to ask a classic (key, and well put) question: Why shouldn't God simply let everyone know He exists?

Why not, after all.

So, a main theme when one reads through the entire collection of scriptures called the common bible, present in every book even in some manner, is that God wants us to choose to trust Him in a high degree, not simply the alternative possibility of an acquiescence.

He doesn't want acquiescence. And for a very good reason.

To illustrate: if God simply was clearly seen at times, so that everyone knew He exists as a basic given, then a very large portion of people would choose the following orientation:
To kowtow to Him, acknowledging Him as the Lord (leader, monarch), while harboring in their hearts whatever attitude they prefer, whatever degree of mistrust or potential desire to go against Him, but on the surface and even in the conscious thoughts accepting (the unavoidable reality) that He is Lord...

A terrible, dangerous, and awful outcome in very many individual instances.

Because eventually, in an indefinitely extending eternal life, many of these would not only rebel against His guidance/way/structuring of the new world....but would seek to destroy that way. You'd get war.

The only relationship that can work in that vastly longer timeframe is one of Love and trust (trust is necessary for the maintenance of love, in that distrust tends to misread things and also discounts the value of good things, both).

So, therefore, logically, the only functional relationship for eternity is one based on faith -- a deep trust in Him, in the Good.

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. We must instead choose to trust Him. Only faith is adequate for eternal life situations. Faith, one could put it well enough, is to trust in the Good before any evidence of that Good has arrived. To trust before proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you ask "Can he attempt to deliberately attempt to mislead everyone?" I think you might be trying to ask a classic (key, and well put) question: Why shouldn't God simply let everyone know He exists?

Why not, after all.

So, a main theme when one reads through the entire collection of scriptures called the common bible, present in every book even in some manner, is that God wants us to choose to trust Him in a high degree, not simply the alternative possibility of an acquiescence.

He doesn't want acquiescence. And for a very good reason.

To illustrate: if God simply was clearly seen at times, so that everyone knew He exists as a basic given, then a very large portion of people would choose the following orientation:
To kowtow to Him, acknowledging Him as the Lord (leader, monarch), while harboring in their hearts whatever attitude they prefer, whatever degree of mistrust or potential desire to go against Him, but on the surface and even in the conscious thoughts accepting (the unavoidable reality) that He is Lord...

A terrible, dangerous, and awful outcome in very many individual instances.

Because eventually, in an indefinitely extending eternal life, many of these would not only rebel against His guidance/way/structuring of the new world....but would seek to destroy that way. You'd get war.

The only relationship that can work in that vastly longer timeframe is one of Love and trust (trust is necessary for the maintenance of love, in that distrust tends to misread things and also discounts the value of good things, both).

So, therefore, logically, the only functional relationship for eternity is one based on faith -- a deep trust in Him, in the Good.

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. We must instead choose to trust Him. Only faith is adequate for eternal life situations. Faith, one could put it well enough, is to trust in the Good before any evidence of that Good has arrived. To trust before proof.

I can see that you are still desperate and are trying to read into posts claims that are not there. When you calm down please tell me and we can try again.

 

[halbhh]

I can see that you are still desperate and are trying to read into posts claims that are not there. When you calm down please tell me and we can try again.

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.

 

[Wrangler]

Why shouldn't God simply let everyone know He exists?

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.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

but do not put words in my mouth!!!!

NOOOOOO
I said: I didn't claim that the new house is radically different from the old. It could be, though.

AGAIN: I didn't claim that the new house is radically different from the old. It could be, though.

ONCE AGAIN FOR YOU:
I didn't claim that the new house is radically different from the old. It could be, though.

You are stealing my time here. If you want to reiterate what I've said, go ahead and provide a quote please.

Then your reference to the biblical passage makes no sense. Which is it?

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.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

but do not put words in my mouth!!!!

Somebody needs to since yours don't make any sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

but do not put words in my mouth!!!!

NOOOOOO
I said: I didn't claim that the new house is radically different from the old. It could be, though.

AGAIN: I didn't claim that the new house is radically different from the old. It could be, though.

ONCE AGAIN FOR YOU:
I didn't claim that the new house is radically different from the old. It could be, though.

You are stealing my time here. If you want to reiterate what I've said, go ahead and provide a quote please.

I am not stealing your time. You do not have to read my posts or respond to them. You are accountable for what you do. Not me.