The mistake of interpreting holy books literally.

[Subduction Zone]

ah, I'm noticing something else.

Where many do oppose literalism when it is simply mistaken ...it's looking to me that you are instead 'opposing literalism' as only opportunity to repeat ideological premises/assumptions, regardless of whether they are irrelevant to the text -- oblivious to the sometimes very obvious interesting meanings/messages about life in the text.

In other words, it's starting to seem that you don't care at all what the text says/means in terms of its messages about life.

That's why I think you may as well have simply said, "By golly, there are no miracles ever!"

You are a bit confused. Yes, there probably were no miracles ever. But that is besides the point. There are some events that we know did not happen because they would leave evidence of their occurrence even if they were "miracles". Which of course is a special pleading term for magical. It is clearly an error to say that some magic occurred when it can be shown that no such event ever happened.

 

[halbhh]

You are a bit confused. Yes, there probably were no miracles ever. But that is besides the point. There are some events that we know did not happen because they would leave evidence of their occurrence even if they were "miracles". Which of course is a special pleading term for magical. It is clearly an error to say that some magic occurred when it can be shown that no such event ever happened.

From the (hundreds of times repeated) content of the common bible, it's very clear that if God exists, He'd definitely remove every last trace of any evidence that could simply prove His existence, such as proof of miracles, that any skeptic could just examine on demand.

All evidence would have to be missing. (One could suppose then even hunted down and removed)

If there were clear, obvious evidence a skeptic could examine on demand, then we'd have to admit the common bible is clearly (100% clearly) in error hundreds of times in regard to what God wants from people in their mortal life.
(In that situation of clear proof type evidence, not only would all the New Testament be nonsense instantly, but also most of the Old Testament.)

This is because God wants faith from people, not just for all to know ahead of time He exists. He wants to select out those willing to trust. This is a meaning repeated hundreds of times in various ways in the common bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the (hundreds of times repeated) content of the common bible, it's very clear that if God exists, He'd definitely remove every last trace of any evidence that could simply prove His existence, such as proof of miracles, that any skeptic could just examine on demand.

All evidence would have to be missing. (One could suppose then even hunted down and removed)

If there were clear, obvious evidence a skeptic could examine on demand, then we'd have to admit the common bible is clearly (100% clearly) in error hundreds of times in regard to what God wants from people in their mortal life.
(In that situation of clear proof type evidence, not only would all the New Testament be nonsense instantly, but also most of the Old Testament.)

This is because God wants faith from people, not just for all to know ahead of time He exists. He wants to select out those willing to trust. This is a meaning repeated hundreds of times in various ways in the common bible.

The problem is that he cannot do so in all cases no matter how dishonest you claim that he is.

For example, if you believe the flood myth when did the God magic end?

 

[Wrangler]

You are a bit confused. Yes, there probably were no miracles ever.

I'm not sure why you are posting on a religious forum or this thread in particular. However, I'll just add you to my ignore list.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

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

Hi Subduction Zone. Good evening. I believe in all the historical accounts of the Bible. Events in the Bible have been proven by archaeology such as the the Mesha Stele, also known as the Moabite Stone, is a stele dated around 840 BCE containing a significant Canaanite inscription in the name of King Mesha of Moab. The inscription seems to parallel an episode in 2 Kings 3. The Bible accounts happened. Yahweh doesn't lie.

 

[Wrangler]

Actually, it kinda was...

In all fairness, when a theist makes some sort of claim, you're first in line to tell them to provide a citation to back up their claim.

And here is where atheists fail. They are looking for external evidence when the witness is right there in front of them. There response is to dismiss eye witness testimony as crazy. So be it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure why you are posting on a religious forum or this thread in particular. However, I'll just add you to my ignore list.

I love the dramatic "I am adding you to my ignore list". That little bit of drama only works if the person making the statement can argue logically.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And here is where atheists fail. They are looking for external evidence when the witness is right there in front of them. There response is to dismiss eye witness testimony as crazy. So be it.

Not the case. It is to point out that of all legal forms of evidence eyewitness evidence is the least reliable of all of them. And Christians do not even have proper eyewitness testimony for most of their claims. The Bible has very very little eyewitness testimony in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi Subduction Zone. Good evening. I believe in all the historical accounts of the Bible. Events in the Bible have been proven by archaeology such as the the Mesha Stele, also known as the Moabite Stone, is a stele dated around 840 BCE containing a significant Canaanite inscription in the name of King Mesha of Moab. The inscription seems to parallel an episode in 2 Kings 3. The Bible accounts happened. Yahweh doesn't lie.

What do you mean by "historical accounts"? That would leave out Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, the list goes on. Some of the stories do have archaeological support. But it is nice that you admit in your last sentence that Genesis and Exodus are not historical.

Yes, some of the Bible has

 

[halbhh]

Hi Subduction Zone. Good evening. I believe in all the historical accounts of the Bible. Events in the Bible have been proven by archaeology such as the the Mesha Stele, also known as the Moabite Stone, is a stele dated around 840 BCE containing a significant Canaanite inscription in the name of King Mesha of Moab. The inscription seems to parallel an episode in 2 Kings 3. The Bible accounts happened. Yahweh doesn't lie.

Yes, the basic situation of nations and kings is of course well supported, and there is even some evidence that goes past that for instance such as how archaeologists found evidence of the pagan sacrifice of children in fires that was described in the old testament and strongly warned against.

But, we can expect there will never be clear, obvious evidence of God or miracles that would just convince anyone regardless of their attitude, as that would preclude/prevent/obviate the opportunity to have faith, which is to believe before seeing proof. (see also post #242 just above)

 

[Messianic Israelite]

What do you mean by "historical accounts"? That would leave out Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, the list goes on. Some of the stories do have archaeological support. But it is nice that you admit in your last sentence that Genesis and Exodus are not historical.

Yes, some of the Bible has

Hi Subduction Zone. You may have cut yourself off, I'm not sure. But in regards to what you have said, Genesis, Exodus, Job and other accounts did happen. Haven't you read the BBC article on the Exodus? BBC - Religions - Judaism: Moses It says:

"Were the Hebrews in Egypt?
The story goes that Moses led two million Hebrews out of Egypt and they lived for 40 years in the Sinai desert - but a century of archaeology in the Sinai has turned up no evidence of it. If the Hebrews were never in Egypt then perhaps the whole issue was fiction, made up to give their people an exotic history and destiny.

Some archeologists decided to search instead in the Nile Delta: the part of Egypt where the Bible says the Hebrews settled.

They combed the area for evidence of a remarkably precise claim - that the Hebrews were press-ganged into making mud-bricks to build two great cities - Pithom and Ramses. Ramses II was the greatest Pharaoh in all of ancient Egypt - his statues are everywhere. Surely his city could be traced? But no sign could be found. There were suggestions it all been made up by a scribe.

Until a local farmer found a clue: the remains of the feet of a giant statue. An inscription on a nearby pedestal confirmed that the statue belonged to Ramses II. Eventually, archeologists unearthed traces of houses, temples, even palaces. Using new technology, the archaeologists were able to detect the foundations and they mapped out the whole city in a few months. The city they had discovered was one of the biggest cities in ancient Egypt, built around 1250BCE. 20,000 Egyptians had lived there.

But was this city actually built by Hebrew slaves? There is a reference in ancient Egyptian documents to a Semitic tribe captured by Pharaoh and forced to work on the city of Ramses. A clay tablet lists groups of people who were captured by the Pharaoh and one of the groups was called Habiru. Could these be the Hebrews? No-one can be sure."

There is also evidence of a flood, if you know where to look. The Bible accounts happened and were recorded faithfully. Saying that the Bible is not to be taken literally is nonsense.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Yes, the basic situation of nations and kings is of course well supported, and there is even some evidence that goes past that for instance such as how archaeologists found evidence of the pagan sacrifice of children in fires that was described in the old testament and strongly warned against.

But, we can expect there will never be clear, obvious evidence of God or miracles that would just convince anyone regardless of their attitude, as that would preclude/prevent/obviate the opportunity to have faith, which is to believe before seeing proof. (see also post #242 just above)

Hi and good evening halbhh. Indeed. Hebrews 11:1 says "Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen." However, they are proofs for example that Sodom was destroyed by a violent burning, of Noah's flood etc and although we cannot see these things taking place, they are things which indicate they did happen other than that written in the Word. It doesn't matter what evidence there exists that Yahweh created, none of us were there when He did so it all comes down to faith in the end, you are right. I wasn't always a firm believer that I am today, although I grew up in my faith. It was in my teens when I truly began to believe the Word of Yahweh. I saw from my life all the good that keeping the commandments were doing, but I feel obligated to at least try present evidence of the Bible to those who disbelieve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

N

Hi and good evening halbhh. Indeed. Hebrews 11:1 says "Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen." However, they are proofs for example that Sodom was destroyed by a violent burning, of Noah's flood etc and although we cannot see these things taking place, they are things which indicate they did happen other than that written in the Word. It doesn't matter what evidence there exists that Yahweh created, none of us were there when He did so it all comes down to faith in the end, you are right. I wasn't always a firm believer that I am today, although I grew up in my faith. It was in my teens when I truly began to believe the Word of Yahweh. I saw from my life all the good that keeping the commandments were doing, but I feel obligated to at least try present evidence of the Bible to those who disbelieve.

That the Bible claims that faith is evidence doesn't make it so. The Bible is only the claim, it is not evidence nor does it have an valid authority on what is and is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi Subduction Zone. You may have cut yourself off, I'm not sure. But in regards to what you have said, Genesis, Exodus, Job and other accounts did happen. Haven't you read the BBC article on the Exodus? BBC - Religions - Judaism: Moses It says:

"Were the Hebrews in Egypt?
The story goes that Moses led two million Hebrews out of Egypt and they lived for 40 years in the Sinai desert - but a century of archaeology in the Sinai has turned up no evidence of it. If the Hebrews were never in Egypt then perhaps the whole issue was fiction, made up to give their people an exotic history and destiny.

Some archeologists decided to search instead in the Nile Delta: the part of Egypt where the Bible says the Hebrews settled.

They combed the area for evidence of a remarkably precise claim - that the Hebrews were press-ganged into making mud-bricks to build two great cities - Pithom and Ramses. Ramses II was the greatest Pharaoh in all of ancient Egypt - his statues are everywhere. Surely his city could be traced? But no sign could be found. There were suggestions it all been made up by a scribe.

Until a local farmer found a clue: the remains of the feet of a giant statue. An inscription on a nearby pedestal confirmed that the statue belonged to Ramses II. Eventually, archeologists unearthed traces of houses, temples, even palaces. Using new technology, the archaeologists were able to detect the foundations and they mapped out the whole city in a few months. The city they had discovered was one of the biggest cities in ancient Egypt, built around 1250BCE. 20,000 Egyptians had lived there.

But was this city actually built by Hebrew slaves? There is a reference in ancient Egyptian documents to a Semitic tribe captured by Pharaoh and forced to work on the city of Ramses. A clay tablet lists groups of people who were captured by the Pharaoh and one of the groups was called Habiru. Could these be the Hebrews? No-one can be sure."

There is also evidence of a flood, if you know where to look. The Bible accounts happened and were recorded faithfully. Saying that the Bible is not to be taken literally is nonsense.

Let's deal with the flood myth first. There is no scientific evidence for the flood there is only evidence against it.

Does ice float in your world?

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Let's deal with the flood myth first. There is no scientific evidence for the flood there is only evidence against it.

Does ice float in your world?

Yes, ice floats. Why do you ask? Ice floats because it is about 9% less dense than liquid water. Well, I would say one of the most obvious signs that there was a global flood is fossilized organisms. For example, mass so called graves of fossilized organisms found in caves, or sea creatures fossilized on top of mountains. The question I ask is, did these fossilized organisms happen over millions of years with a bit of mud here, and some dust there, or did it happen suddenly? Some organisms are fossilized in the middle of eating another organism. Does this suggest that fossils were created quickly or not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, ice floats. Why do you ask? Ice floats because it is about 9% less dense than liquid water. Well, I would say one of the most obvious signs that there was a global flood is fossilized organisms. For example, mass so called graves of fossilized organisms found in caves, or sea creatures fossilized on top of mountains. The question I ask is, did these fossilized organisms happen over millions of years with a bit of mud here, and some dust there, or did it happen suddenly? Some organisms are fossilized in the middle of eating another organism. Does this suggest that fossils were created quickly or not?

Then we know that there was no flood of Noah. The icecaps are hundreds of thousands of years old. They would have floated away in a global flood. That is just one small piece of evidence that tells us that there was no flood.

Meanwhile flood believers do not tend to understand what is and what is not evidence much less have any. I often try to get them to learn what is and what is not evidence, but they rarely want to learn.

 

[halbhh]

Yes, ice floats. Why do you ask? Ice floats because it is about 9% less dense than liquid water. Well, I would say one of the most obvious signs that there was a global flood is fossilized organisms. For example, mass so called graves of fossilized organisms found in caves, or sea creatures fossilized on top of mountains. The question I ask is, did these fossilized organisms happen over millions of years with a bit of mud here, and some dust there, or did it happen suddenly? Some organisms are fossilized in the middle of eating another organism. Does this suggest that fossils were created quickly or not?

He wants to pretend the bible implies that ice sinks see, and then he wants you to imagine that means the bible is full of false statements.

It's predicated on the idea that nothing miraculous can ever happen.

The miraculous, by definition, isn't natural.

But he wants you to accept the premise that only natural things could ever happen. This is an old idea, very widespread, and it's called "naturalism", and presumes that God can't exist or alternatively that God would be subject to nature instead of above it or transcending nature. God would then be merely another being, under nature, like a man, or a horse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He wants to pretend the bible implies that ice sinks see, and then he wants you to imagine that means the bible is full of false statements.

It's predicated on the idea that nothing miraculous can ever happen.

The miraculous, by definition, isn't natural.

But he wants you to accept the premise that only natural things could ever happen. This is an old idea, very widespread, and it's called "naturalism", and presumes that God can't exist or alternatively that God would be subject to nature instead of above it or transcending nature. God would then be merely another being, under nature.

LOL! Still using the old strawman arguments I see.

You dodged a question. People do that when they know that they are wrong. In regards to the Flood myth when did the God magic end?

 

[halbhh]

LOL! Still using the old strawman arguments I see.

heh heh....

I have good motivation to be humble, because I know the real way life works.

Like this: Matthew 7:3 Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?

Or in a more secular wording: "Pot, kettle, black"

Why not learn some of that stuff too, for your own gain?

 

[Subduction Zone]

heh heh....

I have good motivation to be humble, because I know the real way life works.

Like this: Matthew 7:3 Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?

Or in a more secular wording: "Pot, kettle, black"

Why not learn some of that stuff too, for your own gain?

Again, don't make false claims about the motives of others and you will not be roasted for it. Using strawman arguments is not a valid way to debate. I would suggest that you lower your level of projection.

You only want your opponent to be a "kettle".