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?

[POI]

I've been addressing slavery in the How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant? thread. But there's been little responses from skeptics. Anybody here want to debate me on slavery in my thread?

I left that thread, for the most part, long ago, as there is too many subtopics which get lost in the shuffle. I have laid out a case that the Bible permits chattel slavery here, if you are interested. (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=190)

[Mae von H]

(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 question assume facts not in evidence and the clip demonstrates poor understanding of the Bible further underscored by the speaker saying the Bible is ambiguous which really means “he doesn’t get it.” Anyone who tries to attack a book he doesn’t understand just proves he’s too ignorant to even recognize that not understanding a book renders you incapable of attacking it.

[Mae von H]

I doubt that we will get one. Slavery has been argued by the best and the best they can do is try to pretend that 'Love everyone' somehow eliminates the rules for slave -owing for life and passed to the children as property. Plus the attempt to pretend that the OT invalidates slavery. It condones by saying nothing apart from accepting the institution as normal.

Congrats to PO I by the way for a double award in the 2023 nominations. Deserved

In Jeremiah’s day God was angry they had refused to release their slaves. hmmmm

[Clownboat]

The question assume facts not in evidence and the clip demonstrates poor understanding of the Bible further underscored by the speaker saying the Bible is ambiguous which really means “he doesn’t get it.”

It appears you are mistaken.

Ambiguous
a. : doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness.

Ambiguous in fact does not mean "doesn't get it". You are now free to amend your thinking.

Anyone who tries to attack a book he doesn’t understand

Now this assumes facts that are not in evidence.

just proves he’s too ignorant to even recognize that not understanding a book renders you incapable of attacking it.

Not understanding a book does not render one incapable of attacking it, but it doesn't matter because the facts you presented are not in evidence. Irony much?

[Clownboat]

In Jeremiah’s day God was angry they had refused to release their slaves. hmmmm

Nobody has argued that the Bible is trustworthy and as you have demonstrated, it is certainly not consistent.

Why do you think that a god would write a message for the entire world, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to then interpret said message (and we all can see how many denomination that ended up getting us)? Surely you agree that, that would be silly, right?

[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 question assume facts not in evidence and the clip demonstrates poor understanding of the Bible further underscored by the speaker saying the Bible is ambiguous which really means “he doesn’t get it.” Anyone who tries to attack a book he doesn’t understand just proves he’s too ignorant to even recognize that not understanding a book renders you incapable of attacking it.

Thank you for hurling out both baseless claims and opinions. Now, let us get back to the (2) OP questions. (i.e.):

1) Why would the Bible God reveal science to the ancients? (Answer) Because demonstrated advanced incongruencies would actually sway doubters. The Bible was not intended to be read only by a small populous from thousands of years ago. The Bible reads like every other book from the time, (offering no advanced thinking to demonstrate higher knowledge). Which-in-turn further demonstrates such instruction likely coming from humans alone, not from an all-knowing God.

2) Why prioritize advancing "science" over giving "moral" instruction? (Answer) If God really cared about his creation, He would want them to live better. On the contrary, humans do not need a book to tell them that murder, theft, and trespassing does not help, but instead hinders societies. Without 'science', we may still see people drilling holes into the skulls of the mentally ill to release the wickedness.

[Diogenes]

...The Bible clearly endorses slavery, except against Jews. ...

Difficult to believe you have read it all. Bible accepts slavery in certain conditions. By what I see, those who want to keep slaves, don't go by the conditions. If people would go by all the rules, I think it would be better than how modern people are basically slaves for governments, because they must pay taxes.

Your opinion on Biblical knowledge is worthless, considering you appear to have little of it.. Nor is the fact you find the easy and obvious things difficult to understand.
How one can take inspiration or moral standards from a series of tribal books designed to authorize land grabs, murder, rape and slavery is astonishing.

Deuteronomy 20:11-17:
If they open the gates and surrender, they are all to become your slaves and do forced labor for you.

But if the people of that city will not surrender, but choose to fight, surround it with your army.

Then, when the Lord your God lets you capture the city, kill every man in it.

You may, however, take for yourselves the women, the children, the livestock, and everything else in the city. You may use everything that belongs to your enemies. The Lord has given it to you.

That is how you are to deal with those cities that are far away from the land you will settle in.

"But when you capture cities in the land that the Lord your God is giving you, kill everyone.
Completely destroy all the people: the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord ordered you to do.

These practices are just as immoral and disgusting, and evil today as they were thousands of years ago.
They are "... tales
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing" except permission to kill, steal, and enslave, and unworthy of debate.

Selah

[Mae von H]

The question assume facts not in evidence and the clip demonstrates poor understanding of the Bible further underscored by the speaker saying the Bible is ambiguous which really means “he doesn’t get it.”

It appears you are mistaken.

Ambiguous
a. : doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness.

The Bible is only obscure to those who don’t understand it. Many find it quite clear on points it wishes to communicate although as in any field of knowledge, considerable background is needed for understanding. There are scientific books and articles completely obscure to those without the background. The fault is with the reader, not the book.

Ambiguous in fact does not mean "doesn't get it". You are now free to amend your thinking.

If it’s ambiguous to you, you don’t get it. I think you don’t get that point.

Anyone who tries to attack a book he doesn’t understand

Now this assumes facts that are not in evidence.

Since you admit it’s ambiguous to you, that’s the evidence.

just proves he’s too ignorant to even recognize that not understanding a book renders you incapable of attacking it.

Not understanding a book does not render one incapable of attacking it, but it doesn't matter because the facts you presented are not in evidence. Irony much?

I see you don’t understand that one cannot critique a book they don’t understand and expect to be taken seriously or have anything important to say. Ignorant people attack the Bible constantly. The educated just roll their eyes as the answers are easy. I guess it shows that ignorance of one’s ignorance doesn’t stop people from talking. It does, however, prevent them from learning.

[TRANSPONDER]

The question assume facts not in evidence and the clip demonstrates poor understanding of the Bible further underscored by the speaker saying the Bible is ambiguous which really means “he doesn’t get it.”

It appears you are mistaken.

Ambiguous
a. : doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness.

The Bible is only obscure to those who don’t understand it. Many find it quite clear on points it wishes to communicate although as in any field of knowledge, considerable background is needed for understanding. There are scientific books and articles completely obscure to those without the background. The fault is with the reader, not the book.

Ambiguous in fact does not mean "doesn't get it". You are now free to amend your thinking.

If it’s ambiguous to you, you don’t get it. I think you don’t get that point.

Anyone who tries to attack a book he doesn’t understand

Now this assumes facts that are not in evidence.

Since you admit it’s ambiguous to you, that’s the evidence.

just proves he’s too ignorant to even recognize that not understanding a book renders you incapable of attacking it.

Not understanding a book does not render one incapable of attacking it, but it doesn't matter because the facts you presented are not in evidence. Irony much?

I see you don’t understand that one cannot critique a book they don’t understand and expect to be taken seriously or have anything important to say. Ignorant people attack the Bible constantly. The educated just roll their eyes as the answers are easy. I guess it shows that ignorance of one’s ignorance doesn’t stop people from talking. It does, however, prevent them from learning.

Dear oh dear. Unfortunately I suspect that 'Understanding' the Bible does not mean being able to speak Greek, Hebrew and a smatterring of Aramaic, knowing the long latin words used in Theology or even a knowledge of the history or customs of the time, but Faith based interpretations. Or that's been my experience.

And Fortunately one does not have to be a Bible Expert or even a better than average brain to see the gaping flaws in the Bible. If I can see that that the Nativities cannot both be true, anyone can, and in my experience, the response has not been to bring better Understanding to the discussion (though there have been many who trot out the usual 2nd census excuse or variants) but to dismiss it and ignore the matter.

[1213]

...
Deuteronomy 20:11-17:
If they open the gates and surrender, they are all to become your slaves and do forced labor for you.

But if the people of that city will not surrender, but choose to fight, surround it with your army.

Then, when the Lord your God lets you capture the city, kill every man in it.

You may, however, take for yourselves the women, the children, the livestock, and everything else in the city. You may use everything that belongs to your enemies. The Lord has given it to you.

That is how you are to deal with those cities that are far away from the land you will settle in.

"But when you capture cities in the land that the Lord your God is giving you, kill everyone.
Completely destroy all the people: the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord ordered you to do.

These practices are just as immoral and disgusting, and evil today as they were thousands of years ago.
They are "... tales
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing" except permission to kill, steal, and enslave, and unworthy of debate.

Selah

So, are you saying that is the order for everyone in all times, or was it just something that was directed to Moses and the people with him at that time?