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?

[The Tanager]

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.

Thanks for clarifying that. I’m not sure it would have been as effective for what God was trying to accomplish, though. Would people be just as likely to trust this God, if it is going against their view of reality? It seems that people today often reject God because they think He doesn’t conform to beliefs they already hold about reality. And if these teachings weren’t accepted, they wouldn’t be passed down to have the later coup. I think this just misses the point of the scriptures. It’s not about giving new facts about reality or writing science textbooks but about God transforming their character and trust and approach to life.

[POI]

It’s not about giving new facts about reality or writing science textbooks but about God transforming their character and trust and approach to life.

Sure, it can be about giving new facts about reality. Their approach would be greatly improved by giving them advanced knowledge. The video addressed this point. But in this case, God does not even need to do anything nearly as remarkable as "the Tower of Babel". Shapero's argument is that God was speaking to a specific group, at a specific time. And yet, there also exists many many many other groups and generations both then, later, and now. Isn't the Bible for all, or just this one perceived very close-minded group?

[POI]

[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.

Believers have not really responded too much about the video. I have no follow up response yet. If you truly do not feel this question was sufficiently answered, then I suggest you may need to watch the video again.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Thanks for clarifying that. I’m not sure it would have been as effective for what God was trying to accomplish, though. Would people be just as likely to trust this God, if it is going against their view of reality? It seems that people today often reject God because they think He doesn’t conform to beliefs they already hold about reality. And if these teachings weren’t accepted, they wouldn’t be passed down to have the later coup. I think this just misses the point of the scriptures. It’s not about giving new facts about reality or writing science textbooks but about God transforming their character and trust and approach to life.

That's at least an arguing - point. But after all, even if one argued that God decided it was too much on a strain on Faith to say the earth was tround when everyone could see it was flat, but why say the sun was madelater than daylight? Why not tell the truth - that the sun was there but obscured by cloud or something. Why lie?

And again why not say 'Joshua, the sun will set but I will provide light until you finish the battle'. God did not have to talk nonsense about what He was going to do and - a real nailing down, lead lining and bulldozing over the Coffin of Bible validity, what God promised would happen did not as it could not. Earth stopping rotation - inertia would strip the globe in seconds. "Oh, God can do anything"? here's an unwritten apologetics rule of OT validation - no magic wands - OT miracle claims have to Work without magic.

And as to slavery (apologies for not editing my last better) While God didn't think twice about dishing out cleanliness laws that required some personal giving stuff up, it is not going to answer to pretend that God could not at least have said 'Let every slave go with a grubstake' for everyone, not just Hebrews, but no, Foreigners were chattel slave property that could be handed on to the kids like the grandfather clock.

God is either a dude with a view on Slavery that would have had Nathan bedford Forrest nodding approval, or there ain't no Biblegod and what we got ourselves here is a book by men of the time, and by nobody and nothing else.

Tanager, dude, you must see that this is the better case, even if you can't (on Faith) accept it.

[The Tanager]

Sure, it can be about giving new facts about reality. Their approach would be greatly improved by giving them advanced knowledge. The video addressed this point.

It could be about giving new facts, but I’m saying it’s clear that the Bible is not meant to be that kind of book. It’s about getting people to wrestle with ideas, to seek God, to grow. For your critique to be maintained, you’ve got to show that God should rather give an encyclopedia type book versus that kind of writing to be passed down.

But in this case, God does not even need to do anything nearly as remarkable as "the Tower of Babel". Shapero's argument is that God was speaking to a specific group, at a specific time. And yet, there also exists many many many other groups and generations both then, later, and now. Isn't the Bible for all, or just this one perceived very close-minded group?

Yes, it’s for all, but those to whom it wasn’t directly written need to learn about the culture it was written to, so that they can better apply the lessons to their own life. Why would someone talk to one generation in ways that only future generations would appreciate and understand? It wouldn’t help those when it was written and wouldn’t be passed down to even reach the future generation. While the way it is, future generations can still gain from the more ancient writings, if they understand the context correctly.

Believers have not really responded too much about the video. I have no follow up response yet. If you truly do not feel this question was sufficiently answered, then I suggest you may need to watch the video again.

First off, the video wasn’t just about the two questions I posed that started this thread for you. It does touch upon them. And I do feel it isn’t a good response, but different people often see different things from the videos, so all I’m doing is asking you to summarize the answers it gives that you feel are sufficient for us to talk about.

[The Tanager]

That's at least an arguing - point. But after all, even if one argued that God decided it was too much on a strain on Faith to say the earth was tround when everyone could see it was flat, but why say the sun was madelater than daylight? Why not tell the truth - that the sun was there but obscured by cloud or something. Why lie?

You know I read the creation account as poetic and mythic (which doesn’t mean false), so I don’t think it necessarily asserts the chronology of creation, thus it isn’t lying. It’s imply a framework to talk about God’s role in creating both environments and the things that populate those environments, not a scientific treatise.

And again why not say 'Joshua, the sun will set but I will provide light until you finish the battle'. God did not have to talk nonsense about what He was going to do and - a real nailing down, lead lining and bulldozing over the Coffin of Bible validity, what God promised would happen did not as it could not. Earth stopping rotation - inertia would strip the globe in seconds. "Oh, God can do anything"? here's an unwritten apologetics rule of OT validation - no magic wands - OT miracle claims have to Work without magic.

What verse has God saying that he will stop the sun? Joshua 10 has Joshua asking this of God and saying it happened, but not God describing himself as scientifically doing that.

As to the more general point on miracles, why would a miracle have to work without “magic”? Do you mean a miracle should have a natural explanation?

And as to slavery (apologies for not editing my last better) While God didn't think twice about dishing out cleanliness laws that required some personal giving stuff up, it is not going to answer to pretend that God could not at least have said 'Let every slave go with a grubstake' for everyone, not just Hebrews, but no, Foreigners were chattel slave property that could be handed on to the kids like the grandfather clock.

God is either a dude with a view on Slavery that would have had Nathan bedford Forrest nodding approval, or there ain't no Biblegod and what we got ourselves here is a book by men of the time, and by nobody and nothing else.

Tanager, dude, you must see that this is the better case, even if you can't (on Faith) accept it

The main thrust of my questions, which POI is asking about is the scientific element, so I’ve been staying on focus on that. Your question about slavery is a good one, but I prefer to take points one at a time. I will gladly turn to sharing my thoughts on that issue after we’ve discussed this other one adequately.

[POI]

It’s about getting people to wrestle with ideas, to seek God, to grow. For your critique to be maintained, you’ve got to show that God should rather give an encyclopedia type book versus that kind of writing to be passed down.

Yes, the video explains all of this... Getting the people to wrestle with new ideas, seek God, and grow, would involve giving them advanced knowledge. God does not do this. He instead conforms to their non-advanced ideals and existing knowledge. It's as if all the laws comport with pre-existing human laws alone.

Yes, it’s for all, but those to whom it wasn’t directly written need to learn about the culture it was written to, so that they can better apply the lessons to their own life. Why would someone talk to one generation in ways that only future generations would appreciate and understand? It wouldn’t help those when it was written and wouldn’t be passed down to even reach the future generation. While the way it is, future generations can still gain from the more ancient writings, if they understand the context correctly.

What the context reads is that the Bible God was or is okay with chattel slavery, men over women, ordering the male rapist to marry their victims, etc... Was or is he good with these pronouncements? If he was or is, then his "objective standard" changes (from then to now)? If he wasn't, then why did he sanction these actions in the first place, rather than to instead abolish them?

[TRANSPONDER]

That's at least an arguing - point. But after all, even if one argued that God decided it was too much on a strain on Faith to say the earth was tround when everyone could see it was flat, but why say the sun was madelater than daylight? Why not tell the truth - that the sun was there but obscured by cloud or something. Why lie?

You know I read the creation account as poetic and mythic (which doesn’t mean false), so I don’t think it necessarily asserts the chronology of creation, thus it isn’t lying. It’s imply a framework to talk about God’s role in creating both environments and the things that populate those environments, not a scientific treatise.

And again why not say 'Joshua, the sun will set but I will provide light until you finish the battle'. God did not have to talk nonsense about what He was going to do and - a real nailing down, lead lining and bulldozing over the Coffin of Bible validity, what God promised would happen did not as it could not. Earth stopping rotation - inertia would strip the globe in seconds. "Oh, God can do anything"? here's an unwritten apologetics rule of OT validation - no magic wands - OT miracle claims have to Work without magic.

What verse has God saying that he will stop the sun? Joshua 10 has Joshua asking this of God and saying it happened, but not God describing himself as scientifically doing that.

As to the more general point on miracles, why would a miracle have to work without “magic”? Do you mean a miracle should have a natural explanation?

And as to slavery (apologies for not editing my last better) While God didn't think twice about dishing out cleanliness laws that required some personal giving stuff up, it is not going to answer to pretend that God could not at least have said 'Let every slave go with a grubstake' for everyone, not just Hebrews, but no, Foreigners were chattel slave property that could be handed on to the kids like the grandfather clock.

God is either a dude with a view on Slavery that would have had Nathan bedford Forrest nodding approval, or there ain't no Biblegod and what we got ourselves here is a book by men of the time, and by nobody and nothing else.

Tanager, dude, you must see that this is the better case, even if you can't (on Faith) accept it

The main thrust of my questions, which POI is asking about is the scientific element, so I’ve been staying on focus on that. Your question about slavery is a good one, but I prefer to take points one at a time. I will gladly turn to sharing my thoughts on that issue after we’ve discussed this other one adequately.

That won't do. And it is merely Godfaith dressed up in poetic flummery. A thing either happened or it didn't. The sun did not and could not stop, nor the earth credibly cease rotating without global devastation. Thus (like the wrong order of creation) the Biblical account is mythical, legendary or invented, whichever term one prefers and that means False.

To spray paint that wit tinsel as metaphorically true is flummery, as I said, and is merely saying 'It's all true, even if the Book that supposedly tells us about it is false'. My dear tanager, you have to go back to the drawing -board and re - examine the validity of your case from the start. You may opt for Faith - that's your privilege, but you need better than Faith dressed up as 'Metaphorically true' before you can sell it to anyone with their minds still open.

So we have query of what the passage actually says. I'm willing to look at that. Joshua 10.12
On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on [2] its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

That looks like it to me. Either one takes it as a (claimed) actual event which could not happen (without the magic wand (1) as is also the case with the hailstones obliterating an army (the apologetics references to actual hailstorms killing people are dodgy, exaggerated or just lies). And to pass it off as poetical
is ok, but is an admission that it didn't really happen and to claim it as poetic bunting to celebrate the truth of God, who says there is any truth of God in a book full of stuff that isn't true?

(1) and as i say an unwritten law or rule of OT apologetics is that a miracle must Work, not just be done by magic or the miracle isn't even needed. Sometimes it has to be made to work even if it debunks the divine element, like the 'local Flood'. If that happened, it debunks the Biblical purpose of the Flood.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #98]

It looks to me that this is simply restating your opinion as though it is obviously true with touches of empty rhetoric. I don't see anything new to respond to there.

[The Tanager]

Yes, the video explains all of this... Getting the people to wrestle with new ideas, seek God, and grow, would involve giving them advanced knowledge. God does not do this. He instead conforms to their non-advanced ideals and existing knowledge. It's as if all the laws comport with pre-existing human laws alone.

So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying the Bible should be a (largely) completely different set of moral rules than any culture around them? If that is what you are saying, why do you think this? Christians believe that God wrote the moral law on all human hearts, God built it in, so to speak, so of course we’d expect similar laws. The Bible isn’t mainly a moral textbook just like it isn’t a science textbook.

What the context reads is that the Bible God was or is okay with chattel slavery, men over women, ordering the male rapist to marry their victims, etc... Was or is he good with these pronouncements? If he was or is, then his "objective standard" changes (from then to now)? If he wasn't, then why did he sanction these actions in the first place, rather than to instead abolish them?

It wouldn’t necessarily follow that the objective standard changes. When asked about why Moses allowed the Israelites to divorce, Jesus told his audience that it was because of their hard hearts. This seems to say God is willing to work with us, taking a slower route, because it will be better for us in the long run. I don’t see a problem with that kind of approach.