"Yes or No" - Lion IRC's Bible Errancy Thread

[Lion IRC]

Cosmology discussions morphing into bible errancy debate morphing into Lion IRC Q&A

This is the thread I am going to refer people to anytime I'm asked a bible-related question which I think ought to be answered in a more topical thread. IOW, responding to the question, in its stated form, would derail the topic and declining to answer the question for fear of "Off-Topic" Moderation leads to accusations of avoidance.

I am happy to answer any biblical question with a one-word, Yes or No answer as long as the question is not complex, a false dilemma, based on wording from a bible translation I dont accept eg. skepticsannotatedbible

People are obviously free to frame the question any way they like. It's just that questions such as ..."do you believe the obviously false bible story about..." arent going to be answered with a simple Yes or No.

Intead try...

Q. Do you consider the parable of the two brothers (aka - the prodigal son) literally true, factually correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you consider the parable of the two brothers (aka - the prodigal son) metaphorical?
A. Yes.

Q. Are there any errors of fact in the bible?
A. No

Q. Does the bible include any lies?
A. Yes. satan told Adam & Eve they wouldnt die if they ate the apple. They did.


I wont evade questions. Heres another example

aban57 wrote:
Do you think Noah's ark story is true ?
Do you think Jonah's 3 days in a fish story is true ?
Do you think the jews stayed in the desert for 40 years, only fed by mana falling from the sky ?
Do you think the "army of zombies" that raised in jesus times really happened ?
Remember, these are yes/no questions

My answers...
Noah - yes
Jonah - yes
40 years - yes
Only manna - no
Army - no, not that many and not at war
Zombies - what's a zombie?

[Lion IRC]

Lion do you believe the stories in Judges 11

Yes. I think they are true.

[Animavore]

Do you think Balam's donkey spoke to him?

[The_Metatron]

To hell with your conditions.

[chairman bill]

When Ahaziah became king, was he 22 years old? (2 Kings 8:26)

When Ahaziah became king, was he 42 years old? (2 Chronicles 22:2)

[matt8819]

Do you believe the earth was literally created in a week?

[chairman bill]

Did Saul's daughter Michal have no children? (2 Samuel 6:23)

Did Saul's daughter Michal have five sons? (2 Samuel 21:8)

Was Joseph the son of Heli? (Luke 2:23)

Was Joseph the son of Jacob? (Matt 1:16)

[John P. M.]

Well, now at least we know where you're coming from. I had a funny quip after that, but I'll leave it.
But it does save me some time from now on.

[LucidFlight]

Q. Will the answers given in this thread be factually correct?

[Paul G]

Q: WTF?

[Ironclad]

This is going to be fun!

[Dudely]

Q. Does the bible include any lies?
A. Yes. satan told Adam & Eve they wouldnt die if they ate the apple. They did.

Actually this is a big nitpick of mine. Two things:

First, it's NOT Satan- the bible never says the serpent is Satan, it says it's a serpent. It even refers to how "crafty" serpents are.

Second, if you read closely and pay attention in actual fact God was the one that lied (or at least didn't do what he said he would). The serpent was technically telling the truth, and was not being deceptive in any way. Take a look for yourself:

Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:2-4: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.


So basically what this is saying is god told them not to eat it or he'd kill them. He never said why, and he said he'd kill them by sundown (in those days the setting of the sun was the end of the "day"). The serpent came along and said that not only would they gain the knowledge of good and evil, but God wouldn't kill them. And he was right. They gained the knowledge of good and evil and they lived for quite a while longer- Adam lived 930 years.

sometimes the argument made here is that, had Adam and Eve not eaten of the tree, they would have lived forever in the garden. . . but that's not true, or at least it's not anywhere in the bible. In actual fact there were two forbidden trees. One contained the knowledge of good and evil and the other contained eternal life. God banished them once they ate from the knowledge tree because he didn't want them to eat from the other one- implying that they were never immortal in the first place.


So no, the serpent didn't lie.

I'm pretty sure Judas lied though. Oh, and that guy God killed for using the pullout method.

[Mus Ponticus]

So basically what this is saying is god told them not to eat it or he'd kill them.

Minor nitpick, I agree with your interpretation of the story (because they obviously don't die!), but the story doesn't say that god would kill them if they would eat of the tree, only that they would die that day.

It sounds reasonable to me to interpret it as god saying that the fruit of the tree was poisonous (that would make sense of Eve's noticing that "the tree was good for food). It isn't clear in the story, and the main point of your post is true either way, in the story Yahweh's pants are on fire!

[Mus Ponticus]

double post

[Mus Ponticus]

triple post!

[BlackBart]

Why not just move the fucking tree, if it was that bleeding important?

[Dudely]

So basically what this is saying is god told them not to eat it or he'd kill them.

Minor nitpick, I agree with your interpretation of the story (because they obviously don't die!), but the story doesn't say that god would kill them if they would eat of the tree, only that they would die that day.

It sounds reasonable to me to interpret it as god saying that the fruit of the tree was poisonous (that would make sense of Eve's noticing that "the tree was good for food). It isn't clear in the story, and the main point of your post is true either way, in the story Yahweh's pants are on fire!

It does say they would die that day if they ate it, but it doesn't say that God would be the one to do it, you're right. But really he'd be just not stopping something else from killing them, so it's sort of the same thing. Those omnipotent folk really screw up the logic of things. . .

[Dudely]

Why not just move the fucking tree, if it was that bleeding important?

Because until he impregnated that Jewish girl he pretty much just liked to fuck with people. Heck, including the Jewish girl.

[Bribase]

Very commendable of you, Lion. Mine's not a yes or no but a binary question:

Which genealogy is Jesus' paternal side? Luke 3 or Matthew 1?

[LucidFlight]

Why not just move the fucking tree, if it was that bleeding important?

How does one receive knowledge from a tree anyway? That must have been some mind-bending fruit. Or maybe it's a metaphor. Are Christians meant to believe there was really fruit that gave us knowledge? Does that fruit still exist?