-->
@zedvictor4
I'm indifferent with regards the Bible.
Gee shock horror. Tell us something we didn't know.
It's just a book, variously interpreted, variously translated and variously republished.
I agree it is just a book. Of course it is not just like any book. After all it contains lots of letters and other pieces of writing from a great variety of writers written over a 4000 year period of time. I'm sure not too many books can claim such a background. But yes, it is a book. A compilation of many books actually. And yes it has been translated in various ways - into English and many other languages. Of course - it was still written in one language - depending upon which book we are talking about - translations generally mean it is WORTH translating into another language. If it was not worth reading - it would not be worth translating. And republished. Again - totally agree. There are many publications - obviously more so - because we live in a modern world of legalities where such republishing occurs to protect government tax and publisher's investments.
It of course makes unique claims about itself. Not many books do that. It also has been a best seller worldwide for many years. It is also a book written pre-Gutenberg - so even that makes it unique as well. It means it ought to be read differently and understood differently too.
The so called word of your particular GOD, probably predates the Bible by a good few hundred years anyway.
And your evidence for this is where? Besides God is eternal - so God would predate the Bible. Even the bible records that Moses compiled the first five books. But it is obvious from reading - that there were many others who assisted in the authorship. And too be perfectly honest - your comment adds nothing to your argument and it detracts nothing from mine.
So consequently what has been arrived at today is most certainly of later human concoction, with a typical mythological format.
Hmmm - do you mean people wrote about things after the fact? Surprise Surprise. Mythological? What makes the bible mythological? Again even if it is mythological, this does not mean it is neither worth reading or understanding. Do you typically throw EVERY mythological book into the bin? In any event - your quip about human involvement is entirely consistent with the Christian understanding of the Bible. Of course - we would not use the word concoction - because that means humans made it up. You have no evidence for this. Yet we fully agree that humanity was involved in the writing of it. In fact we would be opposed to any position which took humanity out of the picture. God works through his people for the most part. He does not just throw magic and superstition and subjective airy fairy feelings into the sky and hope they land on someone. Christians as a general rule - do not rely upon feelings. Yes, some unfortunately do - although I suspect that is the influence of new age philosophy and individualism rather than Christian teaching.
Elements of human reality, juxtaposed with a naive creation hypothesis, 2000 year old social ideology and a smattering of supernatural fantasy thrown in for good measure.
I'm ok with stating the first chapter of Genesis is a poem. For me the primary point of that chapter is to communicate that God is the creator and he created everything. It is not necessarily about describing how those events occurred in any other manner save and except a picture that humans can understand and remember. God is the creator. He created the creation. This is a proper demarcation and makes sense.
You deny the reality of anything outside of the material. Again that is your prerogative. Well I suppose it is - if you believed in prerogative since that is non-material. As is love. As is philosophy. As is logic. As are the laws of nature. The denial of the immaterial denies logic. So given that you don't actually deny all things immaterial, what is the basis of such inconsistency in relation to other things you find immaterial?
There are just so many reasons why the Bible is not representative of a clever, tri-omni GOD.
I think the reasons why the Bible is God's communication tool to the world far outweigh those against. Nevertheless, given you don't actually believe in God, it is foolish to think you would consider any of these reasons valid. For me it is not the reasons why - it is the reasons why that matter.
I look at the world - and man's best explanation makes no rational sense. It really does not. All we need is a million billion years - and everything chaotic will become sensible. It's not intuitive. It is not plausible. It is not rational. It is not probable. It cannot be demonstrated. It cannot be repeated. And yet - since we are here it must be so - why? Well because the idea of God is superstition and even crazier. In fact - we stop asking why and just ask how although we will never get a satisfactory answer for the thinking person.
In my view - God is inescapable.
But if God is inescapable - then other questions arise. Is there more than one God. What is God like? Why did he make everything?
Purpose implies intentionality. What is that intention? Why?
The atheist says - why is unimportant because it just is. The believer asks the questions why and then how and who and what and when and where?
The atheist puts his head into the sand on anything immaterial. Anything he cannot see with his eyes and touch with his hands.
The believer also deals with all of the senses - and comes to a different conclusion. Different premises. And BOTH have premises. Neither start with nothing.
