Let's go for a short hike around the forest.

rossum said:
The Bible contains untrue statements.

• Isaiah 55:12 "For you shall go out in joy and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands,"​
​
• Matthew 1:1 "This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham"​

As written those statements are untrue: trees do not have hands, and David was not the son of Abraham.

The Bible also fails as a science textbook. It does not mention the planet Neptune, pulsars or the continent of Australia.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure I see your point.
 
rossum said:
The Bible contains untrue statements.

• Isaiah 55:12 "For you shall go out in joy and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands,"​
​
• Matthew 1:1 "This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham"​

As written those statements are untrue: trees do not have hands, and David was not the son of Abraham.

The Bible also fails as a science textbook. It does not mention the planet Neptune, pulsars or the continent of Australia.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that you understand the use of allusions and anthropomorphisms as literary devices. The Bible uses them too and within the targeted audience they project meaning that would normally go over the heads of others that do not understand their cultural and religious nuances. Why else would people toss stones at Jesus because He said:

  • John 8:58, “Jesus said to them, "I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!"”

The crowd understood exactly what Jesus implied and they wanted Him dead because of it.

____
.
 
CrowCross said:
I'm not quite sure I see your point.
Click to expand...
My point is that your statement "the truth of the Bible" is not as clear as you appear to think. The Bible is both incomplete, no mention of Australia, and requires human interpretation. By adding human interpretation, errors are introduced, hence the number of different denominations that claim to follow the Bible and which differ on what it says.
 
inertia said:
I'm sure that you understand the use of allusions and anthropomorphisms as literary devices.
Click to expand...
I do. However that means that extra-Biblical knowledge is needed to correctly interpret what it says.

For example, a modern story that begins, "Once upon a time..." is signalling that this story is fiction, not to be taken literally. Do translators know what, if anything, was the equivalent in Old Testament Hebrew? Or the equivalent in New Testament Greek? Has that knowledge been lost?

We might be missing some flags in the Bible. Two magic trees and a talking serpent? Really?
 
rossum said:
My point is that your statement "the truth of the Bible" is not as clear as you appear to think. The Bible is both incomplete, no mention of Australia, and requires human interpretation. By adding human interpretation, errors are introduced, hence the number of different denominations that claim to follow the Bible and which differ on what it says.
Click to expand...
Why would it mention Australia? Australia isn't the intention of the bible. Salvation through Christ Jesus is.
 
rossum said:
We might be missing some flags in the Bible. Two magic trees and a talking serpent? Really?
Click to expand...
You don't seem to understand there is a "super natural" world of some sort

Do you believe The golden bowl flowed upstream?

Is it true that immediately after Gautama's birth, he stood up, took seven steps north?

Did Buddha burst into flames and become fire?

Did Buddha used his powers to contract and expand the earth?

Buddha and his monks crossing the Ganges River by disappearing and reappearing on the other side..is this teleportation?

....and you have a problem with two tree's and a talking serpent???? Perhaps we might be missing some flags in the Buddhist faith.
Perhaps you don't accept these Buddhist beliefs... hence the number of different buddhist denominations.
 
CrowCross said:
Why would it mention Australia? Australia isn't the intention of the bible. Salvation through Christ Jesus is.
Click to expand...
This is a science forum, not a theology forum. The Bible is not a science textbook, as is shown by its failure to mention Neptune, pulsars and Australia. Something Ken Ham and other YECs would do well to understand. Or do you have scientific evidence of a talking serpent?

Salvation is something for theology, not science.
 
CrowCross said:
You don't seem to understand there is a "super natural" world of some sort

Do you believe The golden bowl flowed upstream?

Is it true that immediately after Gautama's birth, he stood up, took seven steps north?

Did Buddha burst into flames and become fire?

Did Buddha used his powers to contract and expand the earth?

Buddha and his monks crossing the Ganges River by disappearing and reappearing on the other side..is this teleportation?

....and you have a problem with two tree's and a talking serpent???? Perhaps we might be missing some flags in the Buddhist faith.
Perhaps you don't accept these Buddhist beliefs... hence the number of different buddhist denominations.
Click to expand...
Famous men attracted stories in the past: Jesus, Herakles, King Arthur and the Buddha. Those are stories, most of which have a moral, even if the moral is "This was an important person." Another example is Suetonius' Twelve Caesars; those were real men which all had some miraculous stories attached because they were important.

I treat the Buddhist stories the same way I treat Genesis; not literally. The miraculous stories are not important for the Buddhist path.
 
rossum said:
This is a science forum, not a theology forum. The Bible is not a science textbook, as is shown by its failure to mention Neptune, pulsars and Australia. Something Ken Ham and other YECs would do well to understand. Or do you have scientific evidence of a talking serpent?

Salvation is something for theology, not science.
Click to expand...
The only people who call the bible a science book are those in opposition to the truth of the Bible. You would be one of them who use this strawman approach....that is your declaring that bible believers say the bible is a science text book.
 
rossum said:
Famous men attracted stories in the past: Jesus, Herakles, King Arthur and the Buddha. Those are stories, most of which have a moral, even if the moral is "This was an important person." Another example is Suetonius' Twelve Caesars; those were real men which all had some miraculous stories attached because they were important.

I treat the Buddhist stories the same way I treat Genesis; not literally. The miraculous stories are not important for the Buddhist path.
Click to expand...
Well, I treat the truth of the bible as literal when it comes to Genesis. There's no reason why I shouldn't.
 
CrowCross said:
The only people who call the bible a science book are those in opposition to the truth of the Bible. You would be one of them who use this strawman approach....that is your declaring that bible believers say the bible is a science text book.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. Answers in Genesis treat the Bible as a science textbook. According to them, all science has to agree with their literal interpretation of Genesis.

Here is their Statement of Faith on the subject:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.​

That treats the Bible as a science textbook. That is a major mistake from the scientific point of view. Obviously Ken Ham did not learn from the story of Galileo: "eppur si muove".
 
rossum said:
You are incorrect. Answers in Genesis treat the Bible as a science textbook. According to them, all science has to agree with their literal interpretation of Genesis.

Here is their Statement of Faith on the subject:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.​

That treats the Bible as a science textbook. That is a major mistake from the scientific point of view. Obviously Ken Ham did not learn from the story of Galileo: "eppur si muove".
Click to expand...
If that's what you need to claim AiG says the bible is a text book....then go for it.

Basically they said, for an example....the bible describes a world wide flood. Considering this is the truth....geological science will agree with that historical fact and it does.
 
CrowCross said:
If that's what you need to claim AiG says the bible is a text book....then go for it.

Basically they said, for an example....the bible describes a world wide flood. Considering this is the truth....geological science will agree with that historical fact and it does.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Geological science along with biological science, physical science, palaeontology, chemistry, climatology and anthropology, all agree that the story of a world wide flood a few thousand years ago is complete bunkum. To believe in the Flood you have to throw science out of the window.
 
rossum said:
....

We might be missing some flags in the Bible. Two magic trees and a talking serpent? Really?
Click to expand...

Even in this day you've likely heard someone say:

-"that snake stole my..."
-"Their fountain of youth is just a temporary ..."
-"The money tree"

What's interesting about the Tree of Life is that it is also mentioned in the book of Revelation. It exists where God is and God is spirit.

___
.
 
Temujin said:
No, it doesn't. Geological science along with biological science, physical science, palaeontology, chemistry, climatology and anthropology, all agree that the story of a world wide flood a few thousand years ago is complete bunkum. To believe in the Flood you have to throw science out of the window.
Click to expand...
LOL...if you say so.
 
inertia said:
Even in this day you've likely heard someone say:

-"that snake stole my..."
-"Their fountain of youth is just a temporary ..."
-"The money tree"
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming my point. Your 'snake' is not a literal snake, but a human being with unpleasant characteristics. Your 'fountain of youth' is not a literal fountain. Your 'money tree' is not a literal tree.

Just as the trees and serpent in Genesis are not literal, and show that a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect.
 
rossum said:
Thank you for confirming my point. Your 'snake' is not a literal snake, but a human being with unpleasant characteristics. Your 'fountain of youth' is not a literal fountain. Your 'money tree' is not a literal tree.

Just as the trees and serpent in Genesis are not literal, and show that a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect.
Click to expand...

What is simultaneously occurring is the way people expressed spiritual reality in God's domain.

Paul clarified this ongoing situation saying:

"For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known." ( 1 Corinthians 13:12 )


___
.
 
CrowCross said:
Do you think I need to demonstrate the truth of the bible to you? I've shown you the obvious before and you spit on it.
Click to expand...
I don't think you could demonstrate the truth of the bible.
It seems it's only obvious to you. What you say is obvious, others find unconvincing.
 
Tiburon said:
I don't think you could demonstrate the truth of the bible.
Click to expand...
I don't need to demonstrate the truth of the bible to you.
Tiburon said:
It seems it's only obvious to you. What you say is obvious, others find unconvincing.
Click to expand...
It's obvious to me and thousands of millions of other people. If you don't want to believe you have a creator God..then have at it. I really can't help you. You choose to be blind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top