Cito di Pense wrote:

Passer wrote:You have to interpret what the text is saying.

No, I fucking don't. You do. Try using the first person pronoun if you just want to talk about yourself.

Ok

Passer wrote:God being omnipotent might have revealed to the ancients what others took many years to figure out.

No, really, you should have declared your bona fides right at the outset. This is really the only thing you've said which is not made of your silly roundabout mush about interpretation. But see, if it really was revealed to them, they didn't leave any clear evidence that scientific knowledge was in their possession, so they weren't writing down any revelations. They were writing down their ignorant goat-roaster guesses, and if you have to interpret their guesswork to find scientific revelations, that's your guesswork. Your hypothesis about 'the ancients' is full of shit and involves sending bad guesses after worse ones.

I accept the fact that you believe in a Magic Man in the sky (or wherever) but what obligation does that place on me? To entertain your silly conjecturing with a good humor? Har har har. There ya go.

Shrunk wrote:You're not quite considering all the options here.

I honestly do not see what it is you are saying.

Hydrological Cycle Ecclesiastes 1:7 All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again.

Upon reading this some more, I am persuaded that the ancients did not know about any Hydrological Cycle. The verse, those immediately before it and immediately after it, do not say that anyone taught them. They just observe the sea level does not rise (even though rivers flow into them) - and that's it.

Passer wrote:For what it is worth, I find the English Standard Version to be a good translation

You are fluent in the ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek languages? I'm impressed.

Passer wrote:

Shrunk wrote:You're not quite considering all the options here.

I honestly do not see what it is you are saying.

Hydrological Cycle Ecclesiastes 1:7 All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again.

Upon reading this some more, I am persuaded that the ancients did not know about any Hydrological Cycle. The verse, those immediately before it and immediately after it, do not say that anyone taught them. They just observe the sea level does not rise (even though rivers flow into them) - and that's it.

OK, my mistake.

Passer wrote:

Alan B wrote:

Passer wrote:I read that as what is being described is hearkening back to the time of the dinosaurs

Then you should read and think about it instead of blindly accepting the printed word.

Consider this note from my previous post: here

It should also be noted that Bronze and Iron are both mentioned, indicating a transition period where both were worked. See Late Bronze Age Collapse in the Ancient Near East Wiki_Bronze and Wiki_Iron.

This would appear to indicate that this text could have originated between 1200 BCE and 500 BCE (depending upon the region). A little late for dinosaurs, don't you think?

Unless God is telling Job that He created the behemoth millions of years ago. It doesn't say it is a creature that was currently walking the earth. Sure it doesn't say it was a creature that walked the earth millions of years ago either, but I'm just pointing out a possibility.

You're making numerous mistakes in your interpretation of plain English and calling that pointing out a possibility. God can't be telling Job that he created the behemoth millions of years ago. It says 'Behold, Behemoth', and asks Job to 'Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly...Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened'. Behold means 'see or observe'. How can Job observe it or its behaviour if it's not walking around at the same time? Think, Passer, FFS.

Passer wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Passer wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Concerning the above verses, I have not tried pushing my Christian point of view on anyone. I think I have been open to correction. Actually, not so much correction, because as I have said, I have no strong views on these verses.

This is demonstrably false.
When I explained to you why and how, not just your interpetation, but your reading of the animal quote is incorrect, you kept sticking to it.

I'm not sure it is a dinosaur so I can't stick to that. It may be that I don't believe it is a crocodile, but that is not the same as me saying therefore it IS a dinosaur.

Passer wrote:For example, I think it does sound like a Sauropod in Job but you don't.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/science-and-the-bible-t54008-20.html#p2540126

Tell us another tall tale, Passer.

Fallible wrote:

Passer wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Passer wrote:
Concerning the above verses, I have not tried pushing my Christian point of view on anyone. I think I have been open to correction. Actually, not so much correction, because as I have said, I have no strong views on these verses.

This is demonstrably false.
When I explained to you why and how, not just your interpetation, but your reading of the animal quote is incorrect, you kept sticking to it.

I'm not sure it is a dinosaur so I can't stick to that. It may be that I don't believe it is a crocodile, but that is not the same as me saying therefore it IS a dinosaur.

Passer wrote:For example, I think it does sound like a Sauropod in Job but you don't.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/science-and-the-bible-t54008-20.html#p2540126

Tell us another tall tale, Passer.

I was saying I think it sounds like a Sauropod. I didn't say IT IS, a Sauropod or that I was convinced it was.

So why bring it up then? The bible is written by men when it suits, using allegory and metaphor, it's literal when it suits, then it isn't. This is all typical apologetic shit on display here, being called out as such in the typical way. We've seen it all before.
If it's god inspired then he did a thoroughly shit job of explaining the world he is alleged to have created to his chosen scribes wouldn't you say. Even something as simple as the rain cycle which my 8yr old understands in a rudimentary fashion seems beyond their understanding.

I believe the Bible is a deep book that promotes deep thought. It's not something I can just skim and 'get it'. I have to study it and it takes me a long time. I find that when I have to really think about something, it stays longer with me.

Some parts of the Bible are more thought provoking than others, but ultimately I find it has many layers to it.

Why should any of us care what you think or believe? All you're doing with what we say, including the sauropod bollocks, is playing silly word games. For someone who just wants a different interpretation, you sure are doing a lot of squirming.

I'm bored now.

Passer wrote:I believe the Bible is a deep book that promotes deep thought. It's not something I can just skim and 'get it'. I have to study it and it takes me a long time. I find that when I have to really think about something, it stays longer with me.

Some parts of the Bible are more thought provoking than others, but ultimately I find it has many layers to it.

That's as may be, but the book itself contains no passages and/or themes that one might find inspirational or otherwise thought-provoking that can't be found in countless other bits of literature. Without the 'oomph' of believing that the world was created with a purpose by an omni-something deity, it's of no significance except insofar as people depend on it as an instrument of tradition. This is empty to anyone who gave it up, or even more fortunately, has been spared that sort of tradition in the first place. What are you left with? Tradition for its own sake? Literature you find significant because you're somehow part of that tradition? So what?

What were you thinking, to peddle your apologetics and bibilolatry in an anonymous internet forum that ostensibly values critical thinking? Do you think what you're up to here comes up to any level of literary criticism? Your subjective impressions belong to you, and you're welcome to them, but you're just giving the same display any bible-thumper could provide. Really pretty perfunctory, bordering on inferior in the apologetics department. The only thing to get excited about is the earnest mediocrity of your approach.

Passer wrote:

Sendraks wrote:Stuff is not to be taken literally, but other stuff is. Depending on whether the text supports your presuppositions or not.

That the fundamental dishonesty of this approach appears to escape you, would be saddening if we hadn't see it countless times before.

I'm not being dishonest. It's all about the context. For example, The Book of Revelation is highly symbolic, so we have to keep that in mind when reading it. Each book was written at a different time by a different author using a different style. That's what gives the context. We also have to look back at what scripture we have read, in an attempt to interpret the current scripture we are reading. Sometimes the language is literal and sometimes it is not. I might be wrong but I am not trying to be dishonest.

I probably didn't do a good job of explaining what I mean but there you go.

You continually fail to provide a rigourous, objective method to determine which lines in the bibles are poetic and which are literal.
Ergo any argument you offered that is based on 'that bit is just poetic' is nothing but a disingenuous assertion.

Passer wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Passer wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
This is demonstrably false.
When I explained to you why and how, not just your interpetation, but your reading of the animal quote is incorrect, you kept sticking to it.

I'm not sure it is a dinosaur so I can't stick to that. It may be that I don't believe it is a crocodile, but that is not the same as me saying therefore it IS a dinosaur.

Passer wrote:For example, I think it does sound like a Sauropod in Job but you don't.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/science-and-the-bible-t54008-20.html#p2540126

Tell us another tall tale, Passer.

I was saying I think it sounds like a Sauropod. I didn't say IT IS, a Sauropod or that I was convinced it was.

A distinction without difference in this case.

Passer wrote: For example, The Book of Revelation is highly symbolic, so we have to keep that in mind when reading it.

Anyone who's ever had cerebral malaria - or any other kind of fever high enough to cause delirium - should know exactly what the Book of Revelations is.

I did not come here with set beliefs concerning these verses and absolutely did not come here trying to convince others what those verses meant. I came here to find out if there were other interpretations to the ones I had heard of, that explained them. That's all.

I was unconvinced and unsure about the verses at the start, and I am still unconvinced now. Some of the verses I am more or less convinced are not saying what that video professes they are saying, some I still don't know about. Either way I am not going to delve any more into this because I feel it has (or I have) run its course.

Thank you all for your feedback, it's much appreciated.

Passer wrote:I did not come here with set beliefs concerning these verses and absolutely did not come here trying to convince others what those verses meant. I came here to find out if there were other interpretations to the ones I had heard of, that explained them. That's all.

I was unconvinced and unsure about the verses at the start, and I am still unconvinced now. Some of the verses I am more or less convinced are not saying what that video professes they are saying, some I still don't know about. Either way I am not going to delve any more into this because I feel it has (or I have) run its course.

Thank you all for your feedback, it's much appreciated.

There's something you're still not getting: You don't get to pick and choose. All you're doing is demanding that somebody convince you your views are wrong. Welcome to Xtian apologetics on the internet. Until you figure out that the bible is just a collection of writings applied to a religious tradition, you're going to keep trying to find reasons why the whole world should adore the bible, whether or not it believes in your personal deity.

Passer wrote:I came here to find out if there were other interpretations to the ones I had heard of, that explained them.

That's idiotic, Passer. You're asking atheists to interpret bible verses for you. Why on earth would you seek a conversation here, if not to show that you're still immune to discarding the bible as anything but traditional literature? Why would you think bible verses need to have a secular interpretation, except to preserve a relic?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Passer wrote:

Passer wrote:I came here to find out if there were other interpretations to the ones I had heard of, that explained them.

That's idiotic, Passer. You're asking atheists to interpret bible verses for you. Why on earth would you seek a conversation here, if not to show that you're still immune to discarding the bible as anything but traditional literature? Why would you think bible verses need to have a secular interpretation, except to preserve a relic?

Fair enough, I'll try to explain.

Let's assume I believe God exists. Let's say, I ask myself one day "Why do I believe?" I start to question things.

Wanting to really analyze why I believe, I could do two things (there might be more than two, but I'll stick to two)

1. Ask fellow Christians
Christians are going to tell me what I already know for the most part. I'd be prone to agree with most everything they say and apart from a few instances, I have not really learned anything new.

2. Ask Atheists
If I ask Atheists, they will give me a completely new perspective on things. They don't believe, so they will offer a point of view I may not (probably did not) consider. They would force me to look at things from another standpoint.

It is what I have always done. If I want to get down to the nitty gritty of what I believe, I challenge my beliefs by looking at things from another perspective (a 'truth is truth regardless of what I might believe' type of thing). I will be the first to admit it can be tough to see a new perspective when you've only held to one perspective for so long.

I do not expect the Atheists or Christians to make my mind up for me. I view the evidence and make up my own mind.

I hope that sheds light on why I do this.

Passer wrote:

2. Ask Atheists
If I ask Atheists, they will give me a completely new perspective on things. They don't believe, so they will offer a point of view I may not (probably did not) consider. They would force me to look at things from another standpoint.

Do you understand

a) What atheism is?
b) Do you understand why atheists do not believe?

Passer
An atheist will treat all statements by theists that a 'deity is responsible for all that surrounds us' as suspect. Until the theists can provide incontrovertible evidence that such a deity exists, then this will remain so.

The theists are constrained by the diktats of their 'Holy Books'. They cannot think for themselves outside of their religion, for to do so would be to express doubt - a 'crime' punishable by death in some religions.

Atheists have no such constraints.