JTB and the agnostic

I think that while the bible might be a good source of poetry and metaphor, as a science manual it fails miserably to give an adequate explanation of creation and evolution. We really ought to make libraries keep it in the fiction section.

If it is held that Jesus is an evolution from Yahweh, it would explain while a child murdering homicidal maniac turned into a voice of pacifism.

No, it's not difficult to understand that Christians believe an invisible sky wizard used a talking snake to curse humanity with a mystical fruit of knowledge then reincarnated himself as a magic jewish zombie after "saving" them in his own blood sacrifice. What's difficult to understand is why anyone would think this nonsense is true.

Bill wrote:I think that while the bible might be a good source of poetry and metaphor, as a science manual it fails miserably to give an adequate explanation of creation and evolution.   We really ought to make libraries keep it in the fiction section.

If it is held that Jesus is an evolution from Yahweh, it would explain while a child murdering homicidal maniac turned into a voice of pacifism.

The Bible was never meant to be a science textbook. It's a book of redemption. It demonstrates the penalty for sin and the grace of God by paying the sin debt Himself. That is the intent of the Bible. However, where it mentions science, it is accurate.

Jesus was with the Father at the beginning so there was no evolution of Christ. Jesus is so full of love for every person that He died in their place as their substitute. But that same Jesus will rule with a rod of iron and dismiss those who reject Him into the Lake of Fire.

DannyChryst wrote:No, it's not difficult to understand that Christians believe an invisible sky wizard used a talking snake to curse humanity with a mystical fruit of knowledge then reincarnated himself as a magic jewish zombie after "saving" them in his own blood sacrifice. What's difficult to understand is why anyone would think this nonsense is true.

Hello Danny, nice to meet you. Welcome to the forum. I take it from your post that you are not a believer in Christ. I hope you enjoy your time here. Blessings

The Bible says that the earth rests on pillars, that there is a tree where you can see every nation of the earth, that the earth has four corners, that the earth existed before the sun, etc... The list goes on and on. This book is one of the most scientifically inaccurate texts ever created.

As Chap readily admits, his Holy Book is not a science text book.   Just that when it states something that science denies, its holiness trumps all scientific evidence to the contrary.

Even those loopy Creation Scientists now admit that evolution is an acceptable theory of why microbes mutate:  they just haven't observed it in large mammals - and everyone there knows that absence of evidence is in itself, proof of absence.

DannyChryst wrote:The Bible says that the earth rests on pillars, that there is a tree where you can see every nation of the earth, that the earth has four corners, that the earth existed before the sun, etc... The list goes on and on. This book is one of the most scientifically inaccurate texts ever created.

The Bible should be taken literally except where it is clearly figurative. The pillars you claim the Bible says the earth is on is figurative speech for the earth’s foundation. The Bible teaches that God hung the earth on nothing. The four corners of the earth is figurative speech for the four navigational directions: north, south, east and west.

Now as far as the tree you mention, please provide scriptural reference for that please.

Bill wrote:As Chap readily admits, his Holy Book is not a science text book.   Just that when it states something that science denies, its holiness trumps all scientific evidence to the contrary.

Even those loopy Creation Scientists now admit that evolution is an acceptable theory of why microbes mutate:  they just haven't observed it in large mammals - and everyone there knows that absence of evidence is in itself, proof of absence.

I don’t think mutations are the same as evolution. When a microbe mutates, it’s still a microbe. It does not evolve into a turtle. I know the COVID virus has mutated a few times, but it is still a virus. It hasn’t mutated into a tiger.

"The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth." - Daniel 4:11

Even as a metaphor this doesn't make sense because the world would have to be flat for there to be "ends of the earth."
I'm wondering how anyone deduced that four corners meant "four directions" or that pillars refers to "foundations." The Bible also says the earth cannot be moved.
The real question is: why are we supposed to take anything about Jesus literally if so much of the book is meant to be poetic or metaphorical?

As far as evolution goes, the creationists always strawman the theory of evolution with the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." The reality is that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on a much longer time scale. They have never offered a counter-argument that has any valid evidence to substantiate their claims.

The tree you referenced was in a dream. The Bible certainly does not suggest it is a tree where someone could see all the nations of the earth as you claimed. You want to question the veracity of the Bible, in light of metaphors and poems, but what makes your inaccurate posts any better?

Since the bible is nothing but a collection of metaphors and poetry, I would think that there is no other basis on which to question its veracity.

Again, there are no "ends of the earth" so it does not make sense to describe the earth this way, and it does indeed state this is a tree visible across the earth. Why would they depict the earth this way even if it was just a dream? It seems that the writers had the faintest idea of how the earth was actually shaped and why this would be an impossibility. There is also the completely inaccurate order of events in Genesis where it says the earth and plant life existed before the sun.

Bill wrote:Since the bible is nothing but a collection of metaphors and poetry, I would think that there is no other basis on which to question its veracity.

The Bible is much more than a collection of metaphors and poetry. It is historically accurate. It is archaeologically accurate. It is morally accurate. It is salvationally accurate. It is scientifically accurate. Everything about the Bible is spot on.

DannyChryst wrote:Again, there are no "ends of the earth" so it does not make sense to describe the earth this way, and it does indeed state this is a tree visible across the earth. Why would they depict the earth this way even if it was just a dream? It seems that the writers had the faintest idea of how the earth was actually shaped and why this would be an impossibility. There is also the completely inaccurate order of events in Genesis where it says the earth and plant life existed before the sun.

So rather than address your false claim, you want to gloss over it. When you make a false claim about the Bible, I will call you on it.

You may not like the order of creation, but it is what it is. God created the earth and plant life prior to creating the sun.

chapabel wrote:

DannyChryst wrote:Again, there are no "ends of the earth" so it does not make sense to describe the earth this way, and it does indeed state this is a tree visible across the earth. Why would they depict the earth this way even if it was just a dream? It seems that the writers had the faintest idea of how the earth was actually shaped and why this would be an impossibility. There is also the completely inaccurate order of events in Genesis where it says the earth and plant life existed before the sun.

So rather than address your false claim, you want to gloss over it. When you make a false claim about the Bible, I will call you on it.

You may not like the order of creation, but it is what it is. God created the earth and plant life prior to creating the sun.

Nope, whether you like it or not the Bible does describe the concept of a tree that could be viewed across the earth. Which is impossible.

It is also impossible for the earth and plant life to have existed BEFORE the sun did. And all of the hard science proves this.

It was a dream Danny. King Nebuchadnezzar had a dream of a tree that reached unto Heaven. The Bible does not say there is a tree tall enough to see all the nations. Just be honest and admit you made a false claim and we’ll move on.

You have zero hard evidence that the earth and plants were created before the sun. You weren’t there; there are no videos; no pictures; no other witnesses to counter the claim. So you do not have hard evidence.

Doesn't matter if it was just a dream, it still demonstrates how wildly inaccurate the Bible's depiction of the earth is.

Have you heard of a process called photosynthesis? Most plants need sunlight to grow and survive, it is literally not possible for all plants to exist without the sun.

It's laughable that you try to write this off as if there is no "hard evidence" when the same exact logic can be applied to your creationism. If you had any knowledge of how evolution works you would understand why the creationist strawman of evolution is a cartoonish version of what really happens with natural selection.

Either you can admit that Daniel 4:11 has an incorrect description of the earth or that the dream is incoherent nonsense signifying nothing.

There is also Matthew 4:8 which makes the same kind of claim, except about a mountain this time:
"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor."

This might actually be the verse I was originally thinking of.

DannyChryst wrote:Doesn't matter if it was just a dream, it still demonstrates how wildly inaccurate the Bible's depiction of the earth is.

Have you heard of a process called photosynthesis? Most plants need sunlight to grow and survive, it is literally not possible for all plants to exist without the sun.

It's laughable that you try to write this off as if there is no "hard evidence" when the same exact logic can be applied to your creationism. If you had any knowledge of how evolution works you would understand why the creationist strawman of evolution is a cartoonish version of what really happens with natural selection.

Have you ever had a dream that was beyond the realm of possibility?

I am familiar with photosynthesis. Are you familiar with the power of God? The Bible tells us on the first day of creation God said “Let there be light.” So there was light for the plants, but that really wasn’t necessary. Plants can live a day or two without light.

I understand the theory of evolution but I don’t see any “facts” associated with evolution.

DannyChryst wrote:Either you can admit that Daniel 4:11 has an incorrect description of the earth or that the dream is incoherent nonsense signifying nothing.

There is also Matthew 4:8 which makes the same kind of claim, except about a mountain this time:
"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor."

This might actually be the verse I was originally thinking of.

I will accept this as admission of your mistake. What you fail to understand is the supernatural power of Satan. He is not limited by the forces of nature like we are. It is not surprising he could show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. In fact, he didn’t need to be on a mountain. He could have done that from a valley.

As far as Dan.4:11, it was a dream. Have you ever had a dream that was beyond reality?

The easiest to understand evidence to support evolution is that whenever somebody digs down through a fossil layer, each lower level consists of creatures of a simpler construction. It is not unreasonable to assume the lower levels were created earlier than the higher ones. Thus, over time, living creatures became more and more complex. That they changed over time seems to fit, and evolution simply states that critters change over time.

Of course, our good buddies might be right and the Devil buried those fossils in the ground simply to confuse and appall modern man. (In the book "Good Omens", Douglas Adams has a Dark Angel apologize for burying them).

It is a fact that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of the same DNA, and that there are markers of the ape chromosome which we can observe are fused together in the human chromosome. The DNA evidence is the smoking gun Darwin had always hoped to find. There are plenty of facts to support evolution, creationists just try to invent bad arguments in a feeble attempt to dismiss the overwhelming amount of evidence for the theory of evolution.

Light has to come from a light source. So what was the light source if there was no sun? Plants will not even sprout without this. It's absurd for anyone to believe that the earth existed before the sun given what we know about cosmology and the formation of star systems. All of the apologia for the ridiculous notions of the Bible boil down to "god of the gaps" arguments because apologists know they have nothing truly credible. In the case of Matthew 4:8 it appears to be "devil of the gaps."

We should not forget that while Yahweh was unable to prevent the collateral killing of children of sinners, in all other areas he has unlimited capabilities. He just moves in very mysterious ways. Only he would come up with the idea of the Great Flood to achieve some goal, rather than a more direct and less harmful method.

DannyChryst wrote:It is a fact that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of the same DNA, and that there are markers of the ape chromosome which we can observe are fused together in the human chromosome. The DNA evidence is the smoking gun Darwin had always hoped to find. There are plenty of facts to support evolution, creationists just try to invent bad arguments in a feeble attempt to dismiss the overwhelming amount of evidence for the theory of evolution.

Light has to come from a light source. So what was the light source if there was no sun? Plants will not even sprout without this. It's absurd for anyone to believe that the earth existed before the sun given what we know about cosmology and the formation of star systems. All of the apologia for the ridiculous notions of the Bible boil down to "god of the gaps" arguments because apologists know they have nothing truly credible. In the case of Matthew 4:8 it appears to be "devil of the gaps."

Jesus is the light of the world. When God said “Let there be light.”, I believe Jesus smiled. You need to realize God as our Creator operates outside of our nature. That’s what makes Him supernatural. That you reject that is not surprising. The blind cannot comprehend the light.

Bill wrote:We should not forget that while Yahweh was unable to prevent the collateral killing of children of sinners, in all other areas he has unlimited capabilities.   He just moves in very mysterious ways.   Only he would come up with the idea of the Great Flood to achieve some goal, rather than a more direct and less harmful method.

God’s ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. If we could understand God, He wouldn’t be worth our worship. Those who have never experienced God’s grace and mercy don’t see anything in Him to worship either.