It seems to me that the idea of the bible being divinely inspired is suspect. Why would God express the world to be different than the world we actually inhabit? I mean all the ways empiricism conflicts with what is said by him.
>>963672
The idea that God could express anything is suspect.
Who among us can claim to know God's motivations?
>>963711
Why would God have motivations?
The world is under the sway of Satan, the great deceiver and liar.
This makes sense since the Freemasons/Illuminati occult societies control the world.
>>963716
this.
evolutionism and heliocentrism is the "great delusion" spoken of in the Bible regarding end times
the devil will do anything to make people not believe in God's word
>>963711
>Who among us can claim to know God's motivations?
Everyone who is part of a religion that has a holy book of some kind, to name a few.
>>963730
Nevermind, the OP isn't counted in the IP count.
>>963711
Many historical figures have heard God's will directly.
>>963751
Why would God have a will?
>>963672
Doesn't matter. There is only one god and Allah is his name.
>>965472
From the looks of your post weak b8 is more like it
>god is an unknowable mystery, here's a book about him
>>965472
Not even Christians or Jews claim God dictated the bible directly to the writers
>>963751
*Many historical figures have said to have heard God's will directly
>>965568
Jews believe the Torah was
>>963672
No problem with Devine inspiration, that just the perfect method of communication. Taking a fully formed concept and putting it in your mind.
The problem comes when you try to communicate that idea to others. Language and literature are flawed and living means of communication.
>>963672
Second point. You know the world you live in, you don't know the world I live in, you just think you do.
Not everything can be measured and expressed empirically.
Reality can only be experienced not proven.
>>963672
>empiricism
Nice meme!
>>963711
Thats the problem. If there is anyone claiming God's motivation, they would be a suspect. Why not suspect the creators of Bible? Aka the Jewish conspiracy.
>>963672
What's stopping god from lying? I don't think you need to be all powerful to bullshit some goat fuckers
>>963672
I find it suspect that the book is divinely inspired if they couldn't figure out that first and second Peter are both written by different people, neither of whom were actually Peter.
>>963672
Because God chose that people at certain times believing certain things would be what is best for them. This is why the bible has so much metaphor in it - so that different people could interpret it in the different ways suited to them. If it was all literal then the Bible would have had to be ridiculously long to cover all the material we can get through metaphor and interpretation.
>>963672
>Why would God express the world to be different than the world we actually inhabit?
This sentence is grammatically non-nonsensical.
>>965568
>r-right guys????
>>965613
They believe the first 5 books were. Written by Moses who got the word from God. Well the more conservative ones do.
>963672
>I mean all the ways empiricism conflicts with what is said by him.
lolwut?
>>963725
Not you again.
Evolution was accepted in religious circles. So was heliocentrism.
If anything, the reason why teligion and science hate each other is because of the various dickheads who stir up shit against either side?
GALILEO WAS A DICKHEAD. HE WROTE A WHOLE BOOK THAT WAS BASICALLY INSULTING THE POPE JUST BECAUSE THE POPE COULD NOT SEE HELIOCENTRISM LIKE HE DID. THAT SAME BOOK PORTRAYED THE POPE AS A BLITHERING IDIOT TO STROKE GALILEO'S EGO.
>>966639
>HE WROTE A WHOLE BOOK THAT WAS BASICALLY INSULTING THE POPE JUST BECAUSE THE POPE COULD NOT SEE HELIOCENTRISM LIKE HE DID
and how exactly does this justify him being imprisoned?
>>966649
It doesn't.
Besides, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
>>965988
I like this answer, but isn't non heliocentric view pretty straight forward? There's not much to interpret there. And it conflicts with our perception of the world.
>>968157
fuck i saged my post and it failed, then forgot to sage and now it bumped this shitty thread to page 1 I AM SO SORRY
>>965988
>whatever is considered ridiculous and contrary to modern science and historical research is metaphor, especially the OT
>but Jesus' words are literal
Why are Christcucks so stupid.
>>963672
Because the bible is written by satan
>>963672
>See this thread
>Read what people have said
Nope
>>965534
How do you know that he said anything at all?
>>968871
*demiurge
>>963672
He doesn't. Where your worldview and viewpoint conflict with His, He's right, and you're wrong.
Agreeing with God is a great way to stop being wrong.
>>963711
Anyone in His family who's read His book and knows what He's doing.
>>969181
This is why I hate dogma.
>>968433
Modern science and historical research are considered ridiculous by God.
If that's not obvious to you, you haven't considered the nature of God very well.
>>969173
Because there is light.
>>969184
Yes, you hate the truth, and hate God.
Keep doing that, see how it works out for you.
>>968157
The bible does not support heliocentrism.
>>963725
That's silly, and doesn't fit in with the narrative.
The Great Delusion is that the Antichrist is the Christ.
>>969202
Dogma = truth, or it's a false teaching.
>>969207
Dogma = Something teached AS IF it's the truth, which should never be questioned, and if anything contradicts it, you don't edit the dogma. Come on now, anon.
>>969214
I already said that. What's your real problem with God?
>>963672
>I mean all the ways empiricism conflicts with what is said by him.
Imagine for a moment that is true. I can't think of a single instance you would bring up, but let's imagine that is true.
That God said one thing, and that men said another.
What would you say the odds of God being wrong were, as opposed to men being wrong?
>>969216
You said just said truth, not what I said, come on now, anon.
>What's your real problem with God?
What do you mean?
>>969224
You're in the throne room of God, and He's listening to your complaint.
What is it?
>>969227
Nice poetic language anon, but I'd prefer to discuss things in literal terms
>>969230
You're talking to one of His adopted sons, a priest in the Order of Melchizedek, who speaks to you for God.
What is your complaint?
>>969234
Okay, here's my question. How does the priest know what God wants, or that he even wants to be spoken on behalf on? Moreover, how can it be determined that God could want anything at all?
>>969244
By divine revelation only.
>>969250
How does divine revelation occur? New information is being acquired in this process, right? So how is the information conveyed?
>>969252
God spoke with men directly, and they begged Moses to ask God to stop talking to them, for fear of dying.
That piece of furniture and its cover were measured in cubits; that you think cubits were listed with sufficient scientific accuracy to derive pi is attempting to have the bible do something it did not even set out to do. Nevertheless, if you decide to look into such matters, you will find that the furniture in question was not a full and faithful 21 cubits; that there was indeed an offset for the cover.
The bible said that any six legged flying insects that walk on 4 legs, like moths and butterflies, are not kosher to eat.
Anything else? Bats being winged creatures? Iron chariots stopping God? Anything?
>>969253
It has to be transmitted via the Holy Spirit of God. God speaks to His prophets, the Holy Spirit indwells them, brings all things to their remembrance, they speak and write what God instructed them to speak or write, and the hearers react to the word of God as they see fit.
It cannot rely on mankind alone. It is the work of the Holy Spirit.
>>969280
>God speaks
Do you mean he literally speaks, as in makes sound?
>It cannot rely on mankind alone. It is the work of the Holy Spirit.
Funny how you mention mankind, that was my next inquiry. Is mankind the only lifeform that imbibes the Holy Spirit? Are animals able to receive new information this way? Or is the holy spirit only concerned with mankind?
>>969297
Yes.
Genesis 8:15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying,
Genesis 16:13 Then she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, You-Are-the-God-Who-Sees; for she said, “Have I also here seen Him who sees me?”
Genesis 21:2 For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
Yes. We were created to house the Holy Spirit from the beginning; Adam and Eve sinned, that sin drove out the Holy Spirit, and being born again restores it.
No animal has the Holy Spirit in it; nevertheless, God speaks to them, and they hear His voice. He summoned them for Adam to name, and He summoned them to enter the ark, for two examples.
The work of the Holy Spirit is to take consenting spiritually dead human beings and resurrect them unto eternal life, and transforming them into the image of Jesus.
>>969323
Mankind seems like the central group in the universe. Isn't that a massive coincidence?
>He summoned them for Adam to name, and He summoned them to enter the ark, for two examples
Aren't thoses accounts allegorical?
>>969267
The only source for this being religious works written by man. An omnipotent god would be able to talk to people without this happening a well.
If the bible uses inaccurate measurements then it's not particularly suited to finding truth and in using the bible as a literal measure of truth "you are attempting to have the bible do something it did not even set out to do" (I can say that as well). Not sure where 21 cubits factors into your calculations since 30 cubits are used for the circumference and 10 cubits measure the width.
The bible says that any flying insects that walk on all fours are not kosher (Exception being Grasshoppers and such which are counted as walking on all fours). Six legged is not mentioned anywhere.
Bats is simply a case of differing terminology. It's not an error.
>>969340
None of this is a coincidence, or a change in plans, or God adapting to new facts. He is God, and knows the end from the beginning. Which is how He can tell John the Revelator that the Chinese are going to send a 200,000,000 man army to the holy land just prior to Armageddon.
No, they're quite literal. And in case you underestimate the former task, go ahead and try to think of a hundred good names for animals other than the ones they have. It's not easy. Adam was not some simpleton.
>>969355
Are you a biblical literalist?
>>969350
You say written by man, and you are only half right, and half lie. And of course a half-truth is a lie, and often the most effective sort of lie.
The bible was inspired by God. You can forget each and every human being, about 40 of them, who actually wrote the bible; they did so under the authority of the living God, and He is responsible for its content.
And He also maintains, compiles, and instructs people about His Word, so no. It's not up to men to get it right. It's up to men to get right with God.
You're trying to say that the bible said "pi is three" when the bible was discussing furniture and a cover for said furniture, measured in cubits. I can easily fiddle with the 21 cubits by 7 cubits and get a number approximating pi. That was not the intent of that passage. At all. lrn2significantdigits.
Again, look at youtube videos of six legged insects walking on 4 legs. Like moths and butterflies. They're not kosher to eat. Just as the bible says. Probably because they walk in and eat excrement.
None of it is an error.
>>969363
The bible speaks for itself. Where it is meant to be taken metaphorically, or parabolically, or symbolically, it will explain the metaphor, the parable, or the symbols used.
>>969381
If that's true, then why are there different interpretations of the bible?
>>969377
>None of it is an error.
Except saying pi is three is exactly an error, you schmuck.
>>969383
1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
Everything about God transcends us. But I have found that there are many translations of the bible, and very few different interpretations (unless you get to the cult stage like the JW's Clear, or the Mormons).
>>969390
>pi is 3.
Things the bible never said.
>>969383
This is that fundie idiot that's been endlessly shitposting, so he'll probably blame Satan.
>>969390
Using eighteen inches for one cubit, we have the following:
outer diameter: 10 cubits, or 180 inches
outer radius: 5 cubits, or 90 inches
inner circumference: 30 cubits, or 540 inches
To find the "Jewish" or "Bible" value for pi, we need to have the inner radius. Once we have that value, we can plug it into the formula for the circumference and compare with the given circumference value of 540 inches.
Since the thickness of the bowl is given as one handsbreadth, then the inner radius must be:
90 – 4 = 86 inches
Let's do the calculations:
inner radius: 86 inches
inner circumference: 540 inches
The inner radius and the inner circumference.
The circumference formula is C = 2(pi)r, which gives us:
540 = 2(pi)(86)
540 = 172(pi)
Solving, we get pi = 540/172 = 135/43 = 3.1395348837..., or about 3.14.
Um... Isn't "3.14" the approximation we all use for pi? Perhaps those Phoenicians were fairly accurate after all.
What was that?
>>969377
I agree that the Bible is not in error, especially regarding slavery which it explicitly promotes and establishes guidelines for. May the south rise again!
>>969427
Indeed, you just said something absolutely idiotic. As though there weren't plenty of wars relating to different interpretations of the bible (the crusades against the Cathars, the Hussite wars, and the 30 years war all spring to mind)
>>969391
Islam and Judaism are different interpretations.
>>966577
No, not all conservatives. Basically all orthodox/heterodox do though.
>>963711
>>963715
>>969421
It never gives the inner circumference.
It just gives the circumference.
>Did encompass it roundabout
Seems to imply outer circumference rather than inner circumference which also seems easier to measure.
Even so it's still off.
Also handsbreadths and cubits are only approximate measures anyway so actually calculating pi by converting them into inches is less likely to yield the measurements made by the person who wrote that passage in the bible.
