• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The mistake of interpreting holy books literally.

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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. I think you're creating a double standard by saying you made no claim when it's evident that you did.
Perhaps. I could link him where Job asks God what gives him the right and God launches into his "Were you there when I . . . " diatribe. Which of course was not an answer, but it was an example of the "I made you therefore I can kill you" beliefs of the Bible. I thought that a supposed student of the Bible would know that without a link.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
what? Did you just say you are not stealing away my time? I had to constantly set things straight after you put words in my mouth I never said.
Lets have a look:








4 times!!!! you put the words in my mouth that I, according to you, have said that the new earth is radically different.
I had to set this straight every single time.
And now: don't steal away my time any more and let's finish it here!
It's horrible.
(Of course I have scriptural evidence for what I say)
You have no evidence.

You really lose it pretty easy. You have a good day.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
what? Did you just say you are not stealing away my time? I had to constantly set things straight after you put words in my mouth I never said.
Lets have a look:








4 times!!!! you put the words in my mouth that I, according to you, have said that the new earth is radically different.
I had to set this straight every single time.
And now: don't steal away my time any more and let's finish it here!
It's horrible.
(Of course I have scriptural evidence for what I say)
I am still smiling and shaking my head over this.

You have to appreciate the absurdity of your position, but clearly you cannot see it.
 

Wrangler

Ask And You Will Receive
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?

Not sure how you connect the dots between my post about non-literal interpretation of Scripture to what my personal experiences are?
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
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.



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.
About whether 'miracles' can happen at all, ever, I thought those were only imagination. But I learned otherwise first hand. I'd not expect anyone to believe that 2nd hand, myself, but I'd suggest they try what Christ said to do instead, for themselves.

Oh, God is definitely everywhere and evidence on a subtle level around us....Yes. But...not an easy obvious proof no one could deny. (as the latter would preclude/obviate 'faith')
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
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.
Ah, I'm still not getting it across that well yet. I'm meaning to point out why atheists arguments against the contents of the common bible are illogical whenever they use any premise of any form that is a form/transform of a premise of God not existing. (such as the common premise that death of this mortal body is a real death (not just a sleep from which all awaken), which quickly would imply that God is murdering, and so on, 'genocide' for instance; actually post #200 is a perfect example above)
 
Last edited:

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
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.
I can see that I need to lay out what I'm saying in a more clear way. Thanks for your reply.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
and within Job......

the Lord gives.......the Lord takes away

Well, since the Flood story you and Subduction were discussing is from the common bible, which same collection also tells us later that those that drowned in the Flood are not exactly dead -- but simply transported (a word I think fits well) -- still in existence: 1rst Peter 3:18-20....

Still alive basically.

Then....well, it's not a "genocide" (as Subduction claimed).

Not really.

If someone claimed Stan killed Maggie, but then later we learn that Maggie is just living in Australia now...

Well, she's not dead.

These types of illogical premises atheists use when discussing the bible we should not let slide by I'm realizing.
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Well, since the Flood story you and Subduction were discussing is from the common bible, which same collection also tells us later that those that drowned in the Flood are not exactly dead -- but simply transported (a word I think fits well) -- still in existence: 1rst Peter 3:18-20....

Still alive basically.

Then....well, it's not a "genocide" (as Subduction claimed).

Not really.

If someone claimed Stan killed Maggie, but then later we learn that Maggie is just living in Australia now...

Well, she's not dead.

These types of illogical premises atheists use when discussing the bible we should not let slide by I'm realizing.
and a documentary I saw years ago....noted
many countries have a flood story in their own version
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
and a documentary I saw years ago....noted
many countries have a flood story in their own version
Yes. Some thoughts: we know that a lot of big floods happen, and of course it makes sense there will be some once in 10,000 year floods (as you may be guessing I think the story is parable mostly. but....of course in a large flood it would be to the narrators that all the 'world' they knew flooded, even all that could be seen out to the far horizon, i.e. hills and all). That a lot of cultures/nations use a similar story does tend to suggest some thing that is substantive though (even an atheist could see that stories/accounts/myths that get repeated are repeated because they are either meaningful or valuable; in other words recurrence strongly suggests about any motif that there is more to it than only a random story). Any case, I see the story as having value primarily in its parable side. It starts off for instance telling us something dramatic and far reaching about the human condition.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Common sense.

Humans are the highest consciousness making all claims.

Reason apes biological closest form don't speak.

Hearing speaking...only humans speak origin of.

Recorded speech...atmosphere by machine human controlled records speech. Transmits speech.

When no status existed nor did consciousness.

Consciousness only expressed in an owned human form after a bio ape.

Common sense. What we all own first.

Stories are only told by........a Human thinking who writes as a record what they believe.

Stories do not own the statements being discussed. As information is written after the fact.

Flood for example happens and happened. So it owns two premises. Natural history and then modern day cause.

Comparison is therefore involved to discuss advice.

Past is therefore one premise.

Comparing information today to the past a second premise as a warning.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
the story may have died for YOUR reality

but the story won't die

you can't kill it
I didn't try to kill the story. It is still there. It may even have a legitimate lesson to teach. But it is still a story and that is all. It did not happen in real life. It is like the Ant and the Grasshopper. Knowing that that is just a story does not kill it either.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
And it appears that you can understand Greek analogies any better than you can understand English ones. Since God does not breathe your excessive literal approach fails.

I wasn't making a literal case with a metaphorical expression, I was explaining the meaning of a word to you from the source language. The devil can inspire people to say foolish things, you can feel inspired to express yourself through art or vocal song, but when God inspires, it is filled with His Spirit, perfect.

Jesus is God. He breathed God's air while on Earth and is today still in His resurrection body, if you want to be excessively literal in your understanding.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I wasn't making a literal case with a metaphorical expression, I was explaining the meaning of a word to you from the source language. The devil can inspire people to say foolish things, you can feel inspired to express yourself through art or vocal song, but when God inspires, it is filled with His Spirit, perfect.

Jesus is God. He breathed God's air while on Earth and is today still in His resurrection body, if you want to be excessively literal in your understanding.
Or not. He may have never existed. You seem to have forgotten that I am the one opposing literalism where it does not belong. You used literalistic logic to try to argue against me and failed as a result.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Or not. He may have never existed. You seem to have forgotten that I am the one opposing literalism where it does not belong. You used literalistic logic to try to argue against me and failed as a result.
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!"



 
Top