Questioning God's Chosen Communication

[POI]

(1) Why would an omniscient God reveal to ancient societies the questions that modern scientific communities would be interested in? (2) Why would God care more about making scientific knowledge available in these texts versus addressing how He wanted humans to live?

For debate: Does the provided video below answer the above two questions sufficiently? If not, why not? If so, then I guess God is inept?

[TRANSPONDER]

I don'tcare about your vulgarity. I case about your case in your above post. You make none.

No you don't. You don't case about my case at all. Because I make none. The case was yours to make, not mine. Tell me what the Bible says and where it says it that makes you think there was a failed prophecy regarding Tyre. Remember?

I care about your case, or I would if you make one. Ezekiel 26.12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.

Though this apparently relates to Nebuchadnezzar's attack he didn't do any of that. Alexander's did in part 332 B.C. But the prophecy is 'You will never be rebuilt' and this is presented by the Evangelical apologists as proof of prophecy. But Tyre was rebuilt and was a thriving Phoenecian centre of trade in Jesus' time and still is today.

The excuses are that a 'New Tyre' was built somewhere els and the Old Tyre is only ruins in the sea (or the Necropolis which was built outside the city anyway. But the fact is Tyre was rebuilt and extended to cover Mainland and Island Tyre and the causeway when it silted up. The archaeology is under the present city, known as 'Sur'.

I suspect that Ezekiel can be dated to the one time Tyre looked like the prophecy, when it hadn't been rebuilt after Alexander wrecked it and fishermen were indeed drying their nets on the causeway that Alexander built out of the rubble. Indeed I suspect that as Genesis and Exodus might have been written during the Babylonian Exile 600 B.C (dating the writing -style) Ezekiel was written after 300 BC still during the Exile and with the dream of rebuilding Jerusalem and the Temple was keeping the Jewish people a distinct group, as indeed it does today.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #71]


There is no point in quoting the overlong response as there is no case and no argument, just denial. Denial that the Bible - if it is critiqued (which it isn't by Believers) - IS being treated like any other book, and yes I can equally say I am not going to buy your refusal to accept that abolition was a moral (humanist) decision and not a Christian one, just because pretty much everyone was a Christian then and would wave the Bible flag as validation for whatever they were doing (including slavery), even grabbing Mexican or Native American lands. Morals and politics are nothing to do with Christianity even if those doing them played the Religion card.

Q document imaginary? So is the Synoptic original. Where is it? It doesn't exist. We can reconstruct it based on what was copied (and no, Mark is NOT the original and cannot be). So I not only say that Matthew/Luke material can be used to recreate a separate document ("Q") but Mark/Matthew material can be used to recreate a synoptic gospel that Luke did not use. That it doesn't exist no more matters than we don't have the original written text of Genesis or Daniel.

I have given my case for why the Bible is not to be trusted and I still await a proper response, not just faithjbased dismissal and pot - kettle accusations of bias.

Over to you

Calling my response "overlong" is rich coming from the poster who writes reams of answer much longer than what I ever wrote. I was thinking of asking you if you think you can reduce your lengthy posts.

The Bible is definatly critiqued as no other book is. Instead of reading the astounding truths that shed light on understanding man and how to live a life that benefits you and the world, you focus in prophesies about Tyre. No other book is looked at with the sole purporse of FINDING passages that do not match what one thinks. It is like reading the words of Shakespeare and because some words are spelled differently, none of those characters in any of those pieces ever lived and all of those words are bunk. No one looks at Shakespeare that way and yet the Bible is dissected in exactly this way. You see, the goal of the atheist is to prove that they need not believe ANY of it. That is never the goal of those critically reading other works. They might find parts that are inaccurate, but the whole of the piece is not therefore rejected as you reject the Bible.

One begins to see the wisdom of Jesus in saying that if a man wants to know the truth, he needs to make decisions in his life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and he will come to know the truth. How right that is. Those who refuse to do any of it will never come to see the truth therein. In short, if an atheist wants to know if the Bible is true, he needs to forgive those who have wronged him, for starters. He needs to practice mercy towards them. He needs to practice justice towards others not putting himself and his desire ahead of everyone else. He needs to make the truth a priority in everything he says. I know it is a tall order but that is the way to find out if the Bible is true, not whether Tyre was rebuilt or not. (It was not standing in Jesus' day and a city of ruins today, not rebuilt.)

You may be right in accusing me of overlong posts. That may be why your responses bit by bit are also often long.

You repeat the same point long after it was already made.

Sorry. I do try to give a full and detailed explanation. My problem is that I find it ocasions disinclination syndrome when there are a score of bit by bit responses to my long post. I accept your critique.

Just say your point once and do not continue after being made. Shall I answer in one paragraph? I will do so....

That said I do accept your response. The Bible is gone over in detail because it is the basis of the Christian religion and why we are supposed to believe it - because the Bible says so. Or rather says why we should believe it.

I try to confine myself to the Biggies - the reasons why it is not to be trusted. Order of creation wrong, sun does not stand still (earth ceases rotation, that is, rebutting your evasion) Tyre showing prophecy wrong, Nativities demonstrably unsound, Resurrection nearly as bad.

That's why I tend to repeat the same Biggies in Bible debunk; in the interests of keeping the posts short.

The sun actually stands still more or less in comparison with the earth. It appears to move but actually the earth moves. In relation to the earth, it stands still and we move. You are asking how extra daylight hours were given to a man requesting it for battle reasons. Why do you think that you need to stop the orbit of the earth to accomplish this. They just needed light. And light they got. Drop attaching to it matters that are not attached. Tyre does not exist today. It is just ruins. It was therefore never rebuilt. Look up wikipedia. It is ruins.

[POI]

Christians, does the provided video (in the OP) answer the two (OP) questions sufficiently? If not, why not?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #71]


There is no point in quoting the overlong response as there is no case and no argument, just denial. Denial that the Bible - if it is critiqued (which it isn't by Believers) - IS being treated like any other book, and yes I can equally say I am not going to buy your refusal to accept that abolition was a moral (humanist) decision and not a Christian one, just because pretty much everyone was a Christian then and would wave the Bible flag as validation for whatever they were doing (including slavery), even grabbing Mexican or Native American lands. Morals and politics are nothing to do with Christianity even if those doing them played the Religion card.

Q document imaginary? So is the Synoptic original. Where is it? It doesn't exist. We can reconstruct it based on what was copied (and no, Mark is NOT the original and cannot be). So I not only say that Matthew/Luke material can be used to recreate a separate document ("Q") but Mark/Matthew material can be used to recreate a synoptic gospel that Luke did not use. That it doesn't exist no more matters than we don't have the original written text of Genesis or Daniel.

I have given my case for why the Bible is not to be trusted and I still await a proper response, not just faithjbased dismissal and pot - kettle accusations of bias.

Over to you

Calling my response "overlong" is rich coming from the poster who writes reams of answer much longer than what I ever wrote. I was thinking of asking you if you think you can reduce your lengthy posts.

The Bible is definatly critiqued as no other book is. Instead of reading the astounding truths that shed light on understanding man and how to live a life that benefits you and the world, you focus in prophesies about Tyre. No other book is looked at with the sole purporse of FINDING passages that do not match what one thinks. It is like reading the words of Shakespeare and because some words are spelled differently, none of those characters in any of those pieces ever lived and all of those words are bunk. No one looks at Shakespeare that way and yet the Bible is dissected in exactly this way. You see, the goal of the atheist is to prove that they need not believe ANY of it. That is never the goal of those critically reading other works. They might find parts that are inaccurate, but the whole of the piece is not therefore rejected as you reject the Bible.

One begins to see the wisdom of Jesus in saying that if a man wants to know the truth, he needs to make decisions in his life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and he will come to know the truth. How right that is. Those who refuse to do any of it will never come to see the truth therein. In short, if an atheist wants to know if the Bible is true, he needs to forgive those who have wronged him, for starters. He needs to practice mercy towards them. He needs to practice justice towards others not putting himself and his desire ahead of everyone else. He needs to make the truth a priority in everything he says. I know it is a tall order but that is the way to find out if the Bible is true, not whether Tyre was rebuilt or not. (It was not standing in Jesus' day and a city of ruins today, not rebuilt.)

You may be right in accusing me of overlong posts. That may be why your responses bit by bit are also often long.

You repeat the same point long after it was already made.

Sorry. I do try to give a full and detailed explanation. My problem is that I find it ocasions disinclination syndrome when there are a score of bit by bit responses to my long post. I accept your critique.

Just say your point once and do not continue after being made. Shall I answer in one paragraph? I will do so....

That said I do accept your response. The Bible is gone over in detail because it is the basis of the Christian religion and why we are supposed to believe it - because the Bible says so. Or rather says why we should believe it.

I try to confine myself to the Biggies - the reasons why it is not to be trusted. Order of creation wrong, sun does not stand still (earth ceases rotation, that is, rebutting your evasion) Tyre showing prophecy wrong, Nativities demonstrably unsound, Resurrection nearly as bad.

That's why I tend to repeat the same Biggies in Bible debunk; in the interests of keeping the posts short.

The sun actually stands still more or less in comparison with the earth. It appears to move but actually the earth moves. In relation to the earth, it stands still and we move. You are asking how extra daylight hours were given to a man requesting it for battle reasons. Why do you think that you need to stop the orbit of the earth to accomplish this. They just needed light. And light they got. Drop attaching to it matters that are not attached. Tyre does not exist today. It is just ruins. It was therefore never rebuilt. Look up wikipedia. It is ruins.

I don't think so. We can look at the passage, but I'm sure the miracle is that the sun appears to stop moving. Not 'I will stop the earth rotating' (not orbiting, much less the sun not moving through space with it's planets). It's the old apologetics trick of making stuff up to explain away a problem. The question is begged If God said in the Bible "The sun will set as it must, as I can't stop it spinning (there would be 'Science in the Bible" for sure). but I will make light so that you can finish the battle as it it was day." But that is not what it says. It reads like the writer thought the sun was in a circuit of the inside of the Babylonian sky -dome and God just needed to put the brakes on.

Christians, does the provided video (in the OP) answer the two (OP) questions sufficiently? If not, why not?

I think it calls into question the common apologetics excuse that God could not tell how it really was. As we have seen with the apologetic for the sun made later than daylight, never mind the earth. We have seen various invented excuses that ignores what the Bible says (a cosmic light would not provide morning an evening) and every objection just gets more invented excuses when God should surely could have said what the situation really was.

This depends on what science they are willing to deny. They may deny the order of evolution and insist it was as in the Bible, but few will argue for the sun made later than the earth (and daylight) or for a flat earth. They will deny anything that the can bet enough people will also believe so they do not become a laughing - stock.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #71]


There is no point in quoting the overlong response as there is no case and no argument, just denial. Denial that the Bible - if it is critiqued (which it isn't by Believers) - IS being treated like any other book, and yes I can equally say I am not going to buy your refusal to accept that abolition was a moral (humanist) decision and not a Christian one, just because pretty much everyone was a Christian then and would wave the Bible flag as validation for whatever they were doing (including slavery), even grabbing Mexican or Native American lands. Morals and politics are nothing to do with Christianity even if those doing them played the Religion card.

Q document imaginary? So is the Synoptic original. Where is it? It doesn't exist. We can reconstruct it based on what was copied (and no, Mark is NOT the original and cannot be). So I not only say that Matthew/Luke material can be used to recreate a separate document ("Q") but Mark/Matthew material can be used to recreate a synoptic gospel that Luke did not use. That it doesn't exist no more matters than we don't have the original written text of Genesis or Daniel.

I have given my case for why the Bible is not to be trusted and I still await a proper response, not just faithjbased dismissal and pot - kettle accusations of bias.

Over to you

Calling my response "overlong" is rich coming from the poster who writes reams of answer much longer than what I ever wrote. I was thinking of asking you if you think you can reduce your lengthy posts.

The Bible is definatly critiqued as no other book is. Instead of reading the astounding truths that shed light on understanding man and how to live a life that benefits you and the world, you focus in prophesies about Tyre. No other book is looked at with the sole purporse of FINDING passages that do not match what one thinks. It is like reading the words of Shakespeare and because some words are spelled differently, none of those characters in any of those pieces ever lived and all of those words are bunk. No one looks at Shakespeare that way and yet the Bible is dissected in exactly this way. You see, the goal of the atheist is to prove that they need not believe ANY of it. That is never the goal of those critically reading other works. They might find parts that are inaccurate, but the whole of the piece is not therefore rejected as you reject the Bible.

One begins to see the wisdom of Jesus in saying that if a man wants to know the truth, he needs to make decisions in his life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and he will come to know the truth. How right that is. Those who refuse to do any of it will never come to see the truth therein. In short, if an atheist wants to know if the Bible is true, he needs to forgive those who have wronged him, for starters. He needs to practice mercy towards them. He needs to practice justice towards others not putting himself and his desire ahead of everyone else. He needs to make the truth a priority in everything he says. I know it is a tall order but that is the way to find out if the Bible is true, not whether Tyre was rebuilt or not. (It was not standing in Jesus' day and a city of ruins today, not rebuilt.)

You may be right in accusing me of overlong posts. That may be why your responses bit by bit are also often long.

You repeat the same point long after it was already made.

Sorry. I do try to give a full and detailed explanation. My problem is that I find it ocasions disinclination syndrome when there are a score of bit by bit responses to my long post. I accept your critique.

Just say your point once and do not continue after being made. Shall I answer in one paragraph? I will do so....

That said I do accept your response. The Bible is gone over in detail because it is the basis of the Christian religion and why we are supposed to believe it - because the Bible says so. Or rather says why we should believe it.

I try to confine myself to the Biggies - the reasons why it is not to be trusted. Order of creation wrong, sun does not stand still (earth ceases rotation, that is, rebutting your evasion) Tyre showing prophecy wrong, Nativities demonstrably unsound, Resurrection nearly as bad.

That's why I tend to repeat the same Biggies in Bible debunk; in the interests of keeping the posts short.

The sun actually stands still more or less in comparison with the earth. It appears to move but actually the earth moves. In relation to the earth, it stands still and we move. You are asking how extra daylight hours were given to a man requesting it for battle reasons. Why do you think that you need to stop the orbit of the earth to accomplish this. They just needed light. And light they got. Drop attaching to it matters that are not attached. Tyre does not exist today. It is just ruins. It was therefore never rebuilt. Look up wikipedia. It is ruins.

I don't think so. We can look at the passage, but I'm sure the miracle is that the sun appears to stop moving. Not 'I will stop the earth rotating' (not orbiting, much less the sun not moving through space with it's planets). It's the old apologetics trick of making stuff up to explain away a problem. The question is begged If God said in the Bible "The sun will set as it must, as I can't stop it spinning (there would be 'Science in the Bible" for sure). but I will make light so that you can finish the battle as it it was day." But that is not what it says. It reads like the writer thought the sun was in a circuit of the inside of the Babylonian sky -dome and God just needed to put the brakes on.

Christians, does the provided video (in the OP) answer the two (OP) questions sufficiently? If not, why not?

I think it calls into question the common apologetics excuse that God could not tell how it really was. As we have seen with the apologetic for the sun made later than daylight, never mind the earth. We have seen various invented excuses that ignores what the Bible says (a cosmic light would not provide morning an evening) and every objection just gets more invented excuses when God should surely could have said what the situation really was.

Again, this needs an answer but I’ll keep the number of paragraphs few. Again, th common atheistic excuse that assumes facts no where in evidence.You assume “God could not tell how it really was” as though that would have been important to those men in battle.I mean mere mortals can usually tell what they did to evoke some physical change in matter around them. That few do in emergency or other situations doesn’t mean they CANNOT. You ought to at least grant the God you refuse to believe is there the abilities mere mortals have. Do you go around telling everyone how you did what you did? Are they all interested in hearing this?

This depends on what science they are willing to deny. They may deny the order of evolution and insist it was as in the Bible, but few will argue for the sun made later than the earth (and daylight) or for a flat earth. They will deny anything that the can bet enough people will also believe so they do not become a laughing - stock.

The Bible doesn’t say the earth is flat nor that the sun was made later. But tell me, what is the order of evolution beginning with the universe. Let’s test your claim. By the way, from evolution why is there something rather than nothing?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #71]


There is no point in quoting the overlong response as there is no case and no argument, just denial. Denial that the Bible - if it is critiqued (which it isn't by Believers) - IS being treated like any other book, and yes I can equally say I am not going to buy your refusal to accept that abolition was a moral (humanist) decision and not a Christian one, just because pretty much everyone was a Christian then and would wave the Bible flag as validation for whatever they were doing (including slavery), even grabbing Mexican or Native American lands. Morals and politics are nothing to do with Christianity even if those doing them played the Religion card.

Q document imaginary? So is the Synoptic original. Where is it? It doesn't exist. We can reconstruct it based on what was copied (and no, Mark is NOT the original and cannot be). So I not only say that Matthew/Luke material can be used to recreate a separate document ("Q") but Mark/Matthew material can be used to recreate a synoptic gospel that Luke did not use. That it doesn't exist no more matters than we don't have the original written text of Genesis or Daniel.

I have given my case for why the Bible is not to be trusted and I still await a proper response, not just faithjbased dismissal and pot - kettle accusations of bias.

Over to you

Calling my response "overlong" is rich coming from the poster who writes reams of answer much longer than what I ever wrote. I was thinking of asking you if you think you can reduce your lengthy posts.

The Bible is definatly critiqued as no other book is. Instead of reading the astounding truths that shed light on understanding man and how to live a life that benefits you and the world, you focus in prophesies about Tyre. No other book is looked at with the sole purporse of FINDING passages that do not match what one thinks. It is like reading the words of Shakespeare and because some words are spelled differently, none of those characters in any of those pieces ever lived and all of those words are bunk. No one looks at Shakespeare that way and yet the Bible is dissected in exactly this way. You see, the goal of the atheist is to prove that they need not believe ANY of it. That is never the goal of those critically reading other works. They might find parts that are inaccurate, but the whole of the piece is not therefore rejected as you reject the Bible.

One begins to see the wisdom of Jesus in saying that if a man wants to know the truth, he needs to make decisions in his life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and he will come to know the truth. How right that is. Those who refuse to do any of it will never come to see the truth therein. In short, if an atheist wants to know if the Bible is true, he needs to forgive those who have wronged him, for starters. He needs to practice mercy towards them. He needs to practice justice towards others not putting himself and his desire ahead of everyone else. He needs to make the truth a priority in everything he says. I know it is a tall order but that is the way to find out if the Bible is true, not whether Tyre was rebuilt or not. (It was not standing in Jesus' day and a city of ruins today, not rebuilt.)

You may be right in accusing me of overlong posts. That may be why your responses bit by bit are also often long.

You repeat the same point long after it was already made.

Sorry. I do try to give a full and detailed explanation. My problem is that I find it ocasions disinclination syndrome when there are a score of bit by bit responses to my long post. I accept your critique.

Just say your point once and do not continue after being made. Shall I answer in one paragraph? I will do so....

That said I do accept your response. The Bible is gone over in detail because it is the basis of the Christian religion and why we are supposed to believe it - because the Bible says so. Or rather says why we should believe it.

I try to confine myself to the Biggies - the reasons why it is not to be trusted. Order of creation wrong, sun does not stand still (earth ceases rotation, that is, rebutting your evasion) Tyre showing prophecy wrong, Nativities demonstrably unsound, Resurrection nearly as bad.

That's why I tend to repeat the same Biggies in Bible debunk; in the interests of keeping the posts short.

The sun actually stands still more or less in comparison with the earth. It appears to move but actually the earth moves. In relation to the earth, it stands still and we move. You are asking how extra daylight hours were given to a man requesting it for battle reasons. Why do you think that you need to stop the orbit of the earth to accomplish this. They just needed light. And light they got. Drop attaching to it matters that are not attached. Tyre does not exist today. It is just ruins. It was therefore never rebuilt. Look up wikipedia. It is ruins.

I don't think so. We can look at the passage, but I'm sure the miracle is that the sun appears to stop moving. Not 'I will stop the earth rotating' (not orbiting, much less the sun not moving through space with it's planets). It's the old apologetics trick of making stuff up to explain away a problem. The question is begged If God said in the Bible "The sun will set as it must, as I can't stop it spinning (there would be 'Science in the Bible" for sure). but I will make light so that you can finish the battle as it it was day." But that is not what it says. It reads like the writer thought the sun was in a circuit of the inside of the Babylonian sky -dome and God just needed to put the brakes on.

Christians, does the provided video (in the OP) answer the two (OP) questions sufficiently? If not, why not?

I think it calls into question the common apologetics excuse that God could not tell how it really was. As we have seen with the apologetic for the sun made later than daylight, never mind the earth. We have seen various invented excuses that ignores what the Bible says (a cosmic light would not provide morning an evening) and every objection just gets more invented excuses when God should surely could have said what the situation really was.

Again, this needs an answer but I’ll keep the number of paragraphs few. Again, th common atheistic excuse that assumes facts no where in evidence.You assume “God could not tell how it really was” as though that would have been important to those men in battle.I mean mere mortals can usually tell what they did to evoke some physical change in matter around them. That few do in emergency or other situations doesn’t mean they CANNOT. You ought to at least grant the God you refuse to believe is there the abilities mere mortals have. Do you go around telling everyone how you did what you did? Are they all interested in hearing this?

This depends on what science they are willing to deny. They may deny the order of evolution and insist it was as in the Bible, but few will argue for the sun made later than the earth (and daylight) or for a flat earth. They will deny anything that the can bet enough people will also believe so they do not become a laughing - stock.

The Bible doesn’t say the earth is flat nor that the sun was made later. But tell me, what is the order of evolution beginning with the universe. Let’s test your claim. By the way, from evolution why is there something rather than nothing?

First with Joshua's battle, it is an excuse why God did not do what was possible (let the sun set and just provide light) but said he would would do what was not; stop the progress of the day with the sun not (apparently) moving. It was not a question of God explaining it in terms they would understand, but saying what could not happen. Which is just one reason why miracle claims in the Bible are demonstrably wrong and can only be explained with poor excuses or denial.

God just didn't try to explain planetary orbits (which isn't the point) is a poor excuse or indeed misdirection. As is indeed starting evolution of with 'something from nothing'. While not all evolution is biological (there's chemical and social evolution, too) Biological evolution is the alternative theory to creation. It is based of course on the fossil record showing progression of life from the very simple through the strata, progressing from sea to land, and finally domination of mammals.

This is not only validated by science while creation is not, but it contradicts creation as in Genesis.

First day Light and dark, morning and evening. This means (unless you reject science) universe, sun and planets in that order.
day 2. division of waters above from waters below. Not quite right but arguable.
day 3. land appears and the waters called seas. The science says it was all land and water only appeared when the earth cooled. Then it was a global ocean with one supercontinent which broke up (and one might then speak of seas) then and combined again a couple of times. Then we get the vegetation. It is an understandable guess, but the fossil record says first life in the sea and nothing on land.
day 4 sun moon and other heavenly bodies made. Again a fair guess if the writer believes in a Babylonian flat earth with a dome over it It makes no sense when morning and evening had existed from day One.
Day 5 sea creatures and birds. No. Apart from great whales which appeared only when mammals were made (6th day) the first creatures (Cambrian) were in the sea and birds didn't appear until the Jurassic. Unless one rejects the palaeontological evidence, Genesis is wrong.
6th day animals and mention of a mammalian species, cattle (or a bovine baryma, perhaps and finally humans. roughly right even though mammals had evolved by the Jurassic if not earlier.

So, unless one rejects geology and palaeontology with order of strata and radiopmetric dating, and the fossil sequence, Evolution is right and Genesis wrong.

There's more. Aside from DNA biological links showing evolutionary connection, there's morphology. Whale and bird skeletons show that flippers and wings derived from legs. They evolved from land animals.

I mentioned the cetan sequence (whale evolution). To back up the morphology, there is as complete a skeletal sequence showing evolution from a land animal (Pakicetus) to whales with gradual changes, e.g the nostril gradually moves from the tip of the snout to the top of the head. This also matches distribution of fossils which shows that as the critter got better adapted to water, it spread to different parts of the world, crossing the seas.

The cetan sequence validates evolutionary speciation - land critter to a sea critter. They were not made as an unchanging kind in a single act of creation. Genesis (on the evidence) wrong.

Dismiss the science if you must but the evidence all supports evolution and not the Bible.

Over to you.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #83]

Some of the other threads I've been in have wound down, so I thought I'd finally check this one out (plus I got a notification for this post by POI). I've watched the video and it isn't addressed directly to these questions but does seem to touch upon them in different ways, but since you brought the video in it would be helpful for you to summarize what answers you think this video gives for the two questions? Let's take the first question first:

1. Why would an omniscient God reveal to ancient societies the questions that modern scientific communities would be interested in?

What is/are the video's answer to this question?

If you answered this in the thread already, just point me to that post(s), please.

[TRANSPONDER]

For my part, the answer is the one I have to Mae Van H above. It isn't about giving a deep science lecture to primitive communities, but at least telling them the truth even if it does go against the Bronze age level of knowledge.

It is all of a piece with the daylight before the sun. Sun standing still, or indeed permitting slavery. It would not be more than Bronze age minds could wrap around to say The sun could not be seen because of clouds around the ball - like earth' or 'the sun will set, Joshua but I will make light so you can finish the battle' or 'Thou shalt not own another human being as property.Indentured servitude ok with rules of conduct, but chattel slavery, no; not even of foreigners'.

This would not break the Bronze age mind, and to say God had to stick within bronze age (or Iron age in fact after the 11th c BC) is just an excuse. Even if these excuses held water, the mundane counter - hypothesis is as good if not better: "It stays within ancient mental parameters, because it was written by ancient persons'. There is absolutely no good or valid reason why anyone should think the Bible originated in anything else. The attempts to find hidden, advanced or scientific knowledge in the Bible fail, prophecy fails, and even history according to the Bible looks like failing.

Even if the excuses worked there is equal reason to find for the skeptical view of the Bible, let alone far more good reasons. The believers of course think that explanations (even made up with no evidence) excuses and just denial gets them the win because they have refused to admit they were mistaken. That too is a mistake. The logical error of assuming God, Bible and religion as true until 100% debunked. That is not how the logic works, and what it comes down to, as it has since the 90's, is 'Atheism won the argument. All people need to do is understand that'. Theism knows it isn't about evidence, theories or knowledge, but numbers of votes. It doesn't matter if you are dead wrong so long as a majority support your views. It's been about that for a long time and the debate has been polemical, not epistemological, for a long time.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #88]

Okay, so to make sure I’m understanding you, God should have revealed scientific truths (like that the earth revolves around the sun, it’s ball-like in shape, and the chronological order of creation) to these ancient Israelites because they could have handled it? Or did I misread you?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #88]

Okay, so to make sure I’m understanding you, God should have revealed scientific truths (like that the earth revolves around the sun, it’s ball-like in shape, and the chronological order of creation) to these ancient Israelites because they could have handled it? Or did I misread you?

You missed the important point. It would have been just as easy and comprehensible (and a coup for later on when science endorsed it) to have had the correct information in the story rather than incorrect information that (unless we deny science) didn't actually happen, something that strains credulity now (the sun was made to stand still) but was just how they thought back then (the celestial bodies were things that could be stopped and started) and while putting dietary lawn in place for no good reason, it would have been a great point for Biblegod to anticipate emancipation instead of going along with it for foreigners and even Hebrews if it could be wangled.

Even if the excuse can be made ..I don't know.. 'God knows best'? It only works for those determined to believe, never mind doubt and question. Those with mind a bit ajar are going to have doubts and we goddless will provide the questions.