/lit/ - Literature

>>13522026
>assuming you have a triple digit IQ
this would make you smarter than the authors, so yes

>>13522026
Shit-tier bait.

>>13522026
You know most people put effort into their bait. Let's see if your bold stylistic choice to make a terribly shit thread for fun pays off.

>>13522026
I don't need to read any books to eschew Christcuckery. I just need to look at the few ridiculous passages in the Bible (creationism, global flood, 900-year-old people) and I dismiss it on that basis. People act like this is such a big debate when all you need to know to disprove Christianity is those trivial things.

>>13522026
Just actually reading the bible will make you an atheist. Christcucks don't read, that's why they're christcucks in the first place.

>>13522053
tfw 2000 years of western lit. is all by Christians
>christcucks don't read!
lol

>>13522070
This might come as a surprise to a sub-90 IQ Christcuck, but people in the Middle Ages weren't particularly well-informed scientifically or historically, and the few clever folk around didn't have a lot of freedom to protest the religious situation.

>>13522070
shit-tier argument
Literally everyone before the 20th century was a christian

>>13522026
Belief in God is Dunning-Kruger. Idiots and geniuses believe; Midwits don’t.

>>13522053
>>13522049
>thinking that proving the bible wrong is the same as proving religion wrong

religion doesn't live in books anon, it lives in your heart.

>>13522026
yea
>>13522037
you're dumb tho

>>13522128
1. Christianity claims that the Bible was divinely inspired and is as a result inerrant
2. There are errors in the Bible
3. Therefore Christianity is wrong

Another argument:
1. Christianity asks us to believe in the ridiculous things in the Bible, as Jesus did.
2. The Bible has shown itself to be unreliable.
3. Therefore Christianity is dubious (ie. not something that should be accepted on faith)
4. Christianity claims it is something that should be accepted on faith
5. Therefore Christianity is wrong

>>13522115
>>13522097
>All smart people were atheists but didn't protest the religious.
>Literally everyone before the 20th century was a christian.
Would you brainlets make up your mind please?

>"I’ve forgotten the details, but I once piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong."
This is an actual quote from the God Delusion. He's attempting to engage in modal logic while trying to prove that pigs fly but he derides others for using it to refute him. This certainly isn't the only thing wrong with that quote but nothing more needs to be said. I don't pay attention to any of them because they're bad thinkers and they make other people bad thinkers too.

>>13522026
What's the Christian analog of this trilogy?

>>13522142
This poor lad has never heard of exegesis.

>>13522142
>1. Christianity claims that the Bible was divinely inspired and is as a result inerrant
>2. There are errors in the Bible
>3. Therefore Christianity is wrong

Atheist "logic", lol. Aren't you supposed to be paragons of reason?

Why tf has no one arranged an extended group debate between Dawkins/Harris/Dennett and 3 Christians with similar credentials?

>>13522097
Please go to school. The Middle Ages was thriving both theologically and scientifically, unless your knowledge of the medieval period comes from pop-history books, it's very evident that those 1000 years produced a great many 'clever folk'. They didn't have to protest the religious situation because they were able to reason that it was the Truth. Their opponents were only other religious/philosophical falsehoods: who today knows of Averroes? But you will certainly have heard of St. Aquinas. This is why RC orders remain and Arianism/Averroism/Manichaeism are all gone.

The only real area it was lacking was medicine, but it has always been so, even today.

>>13522123
>Dunning-Kruger
That's not how it works

>>13522115
It's impossible to understand Western art and literature without being Christian. Simple as.

Why do nu-atheists keep hitting a Protestant strawman of Christianity?

>>13522026
>all books ignore the underlying need for the myths of religions
>they chuck it all to ignorance and fear without any deeper inspection
>they sidestep every major philosopher on the subject of religion (because they're brainlets compared to them)
>completely sidestep the profound influence religion has had on civilization, Christianity on Western Civilization in particular
> lololo skydaddy
To answer OP - yes.

>>13522162
>exegesis
You mean reinterpretation and crying "i-it's metaphorical bro!"

Tell me, which is the more godly way of going about things: a) creating the world with a spiritual message imbued in your creation and writing your book with an accurate description of how you made it (and since your creation itself holds a spiritual message your book describing the creation will also hold a spiritual message), stunning scientists in the future with your accuracy and leaving no doubt as to whether you are god or b) writing a bunch of bullshit that is obviously wrong and has to be reinterpreted to be salvaged?

Not to mention that the Bible has no sign of being metaphorical when it talks about Noah or Adam, etc., in fact by its use of genealogies one would expect that it is giving an accurate account of man. So as a Christcuck you have to accept that people lived till 900 years old and that the human race has only been around for 6000 years.

>>13522026
Cringe

>>13522155
Jesus Christ Dawkins is such a fucking insufferable cunt. "Fucking Christcucks, feeling the need to use the tools available to them to prove me wrong, instead of just rolling over and giving up! The absolute nerve of theists!"

>>13522190
Because Dawkins refuses to debate with anyone he might actually lose to.

>>13522216
>>13522210
>>13522205
>>13522169
>>13522162
>>13522147
>>13522146
>>13522139
>>13522128
>>13522123
>>13522048
>>13522045
>>13522037
>being a christcuck in the 21st century

>>13522231
>not embracing beauty and Truth

>>13522244
Do you believe the human race is 6000 years old and that Adam lived past 900 years?

>>13522213
First of all, I'm agnostic, but I acknowledge there's plenty of useful stuff to be learned from the Bible, my personal favorite being the Sermon on the Mount. You don't have to believe in capital G God to think that having more people like Jeebus in this world would. be an objectively good thing. Just striving to behave like him is good, regardless of whether everything that's in the Bible is true. Hell, even if nothing is, that doesn't diminish the Bible's teachings contained within. You frequent a literature board, you should know this as well as I.
Literally nobody but weird Yank Evangelicals take everything in the Bible at face value.

>>13522244
It's a damn shame that all that creative energy got diverted from ancestral myth to semitic myth. Stop your kike worship, please. You're perpetuating the taming of Europe.

>>13522254
Sure I don't disagree with you about the fact that there are some morsels of truth and wisdom to glean from the Bible. That's not what Christians are asking though. They're asking us to believe that god wrote this book and that it is inerrant.

>>13522248
>trying to refute the stereotype of atheists arguing against Protestant strawman
>literally arguing against a Protestant strawman

>>13522254
But anything that's wrong about it calls the entire work into question. I'm inspired by the story of some Jrpgs, but I still know that they're for-profit products designed to take my shekels.

>>13522270
Tell me in simple terms why you don't believe that the human race is 6000 years old and that Adam lived past 900 years when this is exactly what the Bible claims.

>>13522212
>a kike on a stick

The christcuck has to go

Read all three and am a practicing Catholic. I can respect Hitchens (and pray that God, against the odds, has been merciful to his soul) but Dawkins and Harris are assclowns.

>>13522026
not one christian has proved the books in op wrong. not one. that tells you something about christians intelligence. of course, most christians on 4chan are larping

>>13522292
God is infinitely merciful, isn't He?

>>13522292
larper

>>13522282
>a kike on a stick
I'm not talking about a specific religion in particular - since none of those cucks truly attack Buddhism or Hinduism because it goes over their heads.
Nor do they truly attack Islam except calling it barbaric here and there.
Their rhetoric is comfortable and simplistic, delving no deeper than the usual "kek, sky daddy. kek bible has so many contradictions". Like I said, they never tackle for instance St. Augustine who said not to take the Bible literally, or other high IQ bastards who wrestled with the question of divinity/the soul/afterlife/consciousness etc.

>>13522266
Are they though? Frst of all, there are plenty of Christian splinter groups that differ on some very substantial points, second of all, E X E G E S I S has been a thing for a very long time now. So no, they don't, usually. Except if you're American.
>>13522275
Tolstoi brand Christian Anarchism has you covered then. I'm not a fan of the Catholic Church past the Constantinian Shift either.

>>13522312
Just fucking stop, you're embarrassing yourself

>>13522312
Been meaning to read St. Augustine. Where would you start with him?

>>13522322
>The "doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture"[7] held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."[8]

>>13522328
>stahp, u dumb
You sure showed me, buddy.

I'm Christian simply because I think the beauty of some choral Christian music can have nothing but divinely inspired origins

>>13522347
based retard

What other books are in the Christian trilogy?

>>13522330
City of God is too much for a first read but Confessions is a great start. I'd recommend De Doctrine Christiana after that, his apologetic works, De libero arbitrio, and then City of God. That being said they're all huge volumes of work so going back and forth with other Church Doctors' works is a great idea to tie it all together.

>>13522388
De Doctrina* my mistake

>>13522336
Yup, and the Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic Canons all encompass a different amount of books. Plus, Catholics keep holding all of those weird coucils, one of'em having the goal to, and I quote:
> [...] Encourage the scriptural reading of the Bible rather than relying solely on devotional writings, booklets and the lives of the Catholic saints.

The council sought to revive the central role of Scripture in the theological and devotional life of the Church, building upon the work of earlier popes in crafting a modern approach to Scriptural analysis and interpretation."
Keyword obviously being interpretation.

>>13522397
Whoops, my lurking ass fucked the formatting.

>>13522388
Based, thanks.

It's hard to be a Christcuck if you have any ability to think critically.

>>13522097
>all the Christian intellectuals were faking it bro!
Not even a believer but this is an extremely weak cop out

>>13522397
Not sure how this is relevant.

>>13522281
It doesn't claim that.

>>13522281
Only YECs believe that you stupid fuck. Maybe actually learn a thing or two about Christians and you'll find that not everyone is a fundamentalist.

>>13522231
why did you post your picture

>>13522363
the bible, city of god, summa theologiae is the definite christian trilogy.

>>13522469
>adam 900 years
Pic related
>human race 6000 years
If you trace the genealogy from Adam (the first man) to Jesus you will get 4000 years. Adding 2000 onto that since we are 2000 years separated from Jesus we get 6000 years. About 194,000 years off the actual time humans have been around.

>>13522439
this

>>13522489
I wasn't asking you what you believe. I was asking why you don't believe it given the fact that the Bible clearly, categorically, veritably, decidedly, positively, indubitably, states it.

>>13522507
>think critically
>posts anime

>>13522142
The second argument hinges on the first. The first is incorrect because the "errors" in the Bible can easily be reconciled through actual study and are only brought up by atheists who are not schooled in Christian thought. Atheists pointing out "errors" in the Bible are like children watching workers inside a factory and remarking amongst themselves that the "workers are doing everything wrong." Reading the Bible doesn't mean you are an official on the Bible. Reading the Bible just to point out "errors" is even worse because it shows bias from the start. For shame, fedora-friend.

>>13522213
Reinterpretation is what atheists and pagans are wont to do. The interpretations of the church fathers and theologists mean far more than the interpretations of some fat, atheistic, self-professed "intellectual."

God does not have to stun scientists with his "accuracy" and "leave no doubt." If he did so, faith would not be required, and even then it would still be doubted.

>a bunch of bullshit that is obviously wrong and has to be reinterpreted to be salvaged
How generous of you to summarize atheism

>Bible has no sign of being metaphorical
Because you would be a professional on this matter, right?

>that people lived till 900 years old
Anything is possible with God, who is not bound by the laws of his creation.

>>13522510
Because it is not up to individual man to decide what the Bible actually means. The reason we have a canon of leaned doctors of the Church is precisely because people have been mulling over, refining, studying, etc. the meaning of the Bible over a thousand years. It is their learned opinion, the opinion of the Vicar of Christ, for hundreds and hundreds of years, that parts of the Bible are metaphorical, allegorical, etc. i.e. not to be taken literally. The Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura, which is why you're arguing with a retarded Protestant strawman, and further why no one of any intellect takes the arguments of ignorant atheists such as yourself seriously.

>>13522520
>Bible categorically states that Adam lived 900 years (>>13522503)
>Christcucks manage to reinterpret this into Adam not living 900 years

>The Bible categorically states that the world was flooded in the times of Noah
>Christcucks manage to reinterpret this into meaning the exact opposite

>The Bible categorically claims Adam was the first man, and following his succession laid out in the Bible we find that the human race, according to the Bible, is 6000 years old
>Christcucks manage to reinterpret this to mean the exact opposite

>The Bible categorically states that god created animals as they are, i.e. they didn't evolve
>Christcucks manage to reinterpret this to mean the exact opposite

>The Bible categorically states that two of each kind of animal were brought onto Noah's Ark
>Christcucks manage to reinterpret this to mean the exact opposite

>The Bible categorically states that the sun was stopped for a full day
>Christcucks manage to reinterpret this to mean the Earth was stopped for a full day
etc.

This is why I don't respect your """"""exegesis"""""". At least this anon (>>13522536), though undoubtedly a retard, has the courage to admit that he believes that people lived past 900 years.

>>13522492
>n-no u
why are you such a pussy? kek

>>13522503
Pretty good guess for civilization in the area, especially considering the lack of history available to them. Those numbers do get a little goofy in the translation, which you'd know if you googled anything intelligently, and the entire opening of genesis leaves a remarkable amount of room for interpretation. You're confusing fundamentalist christians with the whole of christianity. I know it's a difficult concept for you, but Christ is patient and loving, so I imagine you'll be alright.

>>13522026
Why dont you read something that isn’t from fedora tippers and form your own conclusions? You might even come up with something clever.
Ah who am I kidding. You won’t.

>>13522536
Literally all logically thinking people don't believe in god. Go to any university and talk to all the math professors and I guarantee that they're all atheists. Christcucks have to assume that atheists are some high school dropouts and fat incels, while the chad banging your crush that earns 2 times as much as you is an atheist. But what I am to argue with you, if you were even a little bit smart you would already see holes in the existence of a god, but even with basic arguments you still can't wrap your head around the fact that god doesn't exist

>>13522609
yeah, right, aristotle, pascal, st. thomas, descartes, none of those thinked logically.

>>13522609
>appeal to authority
>baseless assumptions
So much for being the logical one.

>>13522568
>Pretty good guess for civilization in the area, especially considering the lack of history available to them.
Whatever, that isn't interesting to me. I'm happy to look at the Bible through a secular lens. However, and this is important, Christians and Catholics alike hold that the Bible is divine truth from god. Thus when we find such simple mistakes in the Bible we know that it can not be from god.
>Those numbers do get a little goofy in the translation, which you'd know if you googled anything intelligently
This move is not open to you. You can do this about obscure religious texts which have only one translation but for the Bible we literally have HUNDREDS of translations into English done by thousands of scholars, catholic, jewish, and protestant alike, who all agree on the translation here. Talk about going against a consensus.

>>13522503
Have you ever considered the fact that there could be gaps in the genealogies and in Hebrew the word for son (ben) also means son, grandson, great grandson and descendant and the same goes for father (ab) which means father, grandfather, great father and ancestor.

>>13522673
Have you considered the fact that you're a layman with no understanding of hebrew and every single Bible translator (there are a lot), all of whom are more informed on ancient Hebrew than you, takes these to be normal father-son genealogies?

Best thread on /lit/ right now, tbqh.

>>13522687
why are the religious shit threads the spiciest

>>13522231
i'm an atheist. >>13522139 was me

>>13522037
kek

>>13522680
Clearly not.
Genesis 28:13
> “I am the LORD, the God of your father (ab) Abraham and the God of Isaac."
God tells Jacob that his father is Abraham when Abraham is actually his grandfather.

>>13522748
t. retard

>"Abraham is our father," they answered. "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do what Abraham did."
John 8:39

I mean how do sciencefags interpret the longevity of the humans that lived? That’s an oddly specific thing to just make up.

It brings more credence to the view that human’s have degraded into what they are now. A shell of their former perfect state.

We are starting to also notice sharp contrasts between this idea and some basic notions of Marxism and Darwinism, which always states we are necessarily the best we’ve ever been at any time. :3

>>13522748
Again my friend, you're trying to drag us both into a conversation neither of us are qualified to have. All I can do is show to you that the translators who are qualified all translate the passage in the same way.

NIV
>Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died. When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters.

NLT
>Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. When Seth was 105 years old, he became the father of Enosh. After the birth of Enosh, Seth lived another 807 years, and he had other sons and daughters.

ESV
>Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died. When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh. Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters.

NASB
>So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh. Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters.

KJV
>And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:

You get the point.

>>13522698
90% of the lurkers are theists

>>13522809
that is sad

>>13522773
That's the New Testament which was written in Greek. Secondly, God is talking directly Jacob in Genesis 28:13 and depending on the translation says thy or your father. It's not the only time it happens in the Bible either.
1 Kings 19:4
>Take my life, I am no better than my ancestors (ab)
http://www.godrules.net/library/strongs2a/heb1.htm

>>13522026
To be high IQ you must reject the Enlightenment and embrace religion out of principle. Ever higher IQ are hindu

>>13522632
What can I say about this subject rationally? I can't make a fucking mathematical theorem that totally disproves the existence of a god the same as I can't prove by integral calculus that some god could be a fucking spaghetti monster. You just have to use your fucking brain and realize how stupid the thought is. There's nothing else to be said.

>>13522623
They lived in times when science wasn't nearly as advanced as it is now. People believed in god to explain different things like natural phenomena and shit like that. But now religion has become redundant considering basically everything can be explained by science.

>>13522907
Why did Gödel believe, then?

>>13522907
You really have no background in history, do you

i always hear reasonable arguments against christianity from a humanistic perspective, as well as reasonable doubts from a historical perspective when dealing with the old jew books. however, i have yet to hear a legitimate argument from the atheists against any of the metaphysics of christianity, or any of the major religions for that matter

also quick protip for all you empiricist sciencefrens out there: just because you can count something doesn't mean that you understand it

>>13522352
He's right retard. The ancients thought similarly.

>>13523301
the ancients were also based retards

>>13522907
Man you really don't know shit.

>>13522536
Tu quoque

There's a lot of numerology in the bible, aren't their ages numerologically significant?

>>13522809
I didn't think there were so many theists on 4chan. It seems Reddit got the edge on this regard.

>>13522026

Atheist or at least militant atheist hate religion so much that they have become one.

>Only read books about atheism by atheists.
> Have a couple "prophets" they call the Four Horsemen that they circle jerk constantly
> Consistently buy books that are just rephrasing of same old ideas
>Unironically buy merch and fucking car stickers
> Form clubs and organizations that meet weekly
> Radiate cancerous cringe

Every time I go to class in the morning there's either a fanatic reading the bible on full blast or a bunch of students holding signs asking to ask them about "being an atheist."

The fanatic is probably mentally ill or believes that his work will save him, but what's the students excuse? Wasting, not only their time, but everyone else's, for literally (self-admitingly) no fucking reason.

I guess DFW was right and that we all have to worship something. But can atheist worship something else like the environment or some other shit?

>>13524528
Atheists are more proud of their beliefs than any other group. They make atheism part of their personality.

>>13522454
It's relevant because it's...
a)... proof that even the Vatican doesn't take the Bible in a literal way and all the atheists in this thread are arguing against Murican strawmen.
b)... religious authorities using E X E G E S I S to determine which parts (read: not the entire Bible) are valid. Thus, they're not asking you to take the whole book at face value. Admittedly, they're still trying to convince you that their way is the true way, but that's not relevant to the discussion.

I'm not a fan of religious authority in any way shape or form, but the idea that all Christian denominations hold you at gunpoint to take every word in the Bible in a literal way is just patently wrong.

>>13522026

Those aren't even "atheist", they're just polemical. For true Atheism, Augustine is your man.

>>13522552

How would any of this pertain to your initial ( >>13522142 ) argument?

It's simple logic.

>>13522037
kek

>>13522244
>the catholic church literally protected pedophile priests and moved them around so they could continue preying on children
so beautiful, I'm overwhelmed

>>13524890
>God interacts with the world
How do you interpret this, you want a material God to walk out with a science lab apron confirming your thoughts on what's true or not?

>>13522520
>the "errors" in the Bible can easily be reconciled through actual study

>>13522336
> quoting Vatican II
> thinks that's what Christianity is
> yikes

>>13522552
>>The Bible categorically states that the world was flooded in the times of Noah
>>Christcucks manage to reinterpret this into meaning the exact opposite

Ever heard of the younger dryas, you halfwit?

>>13522609
>Literally all logically thinking people don't believe in god
>Go to any university

Because academia is such a bastion of truth...

>>13522907
Explain morality, using only science.

>>13524890
I know this is porbably just a troll, but in case any retard thinks this a good argument, there is no reason why [P] necessitates [Q] in this example, so modus tollens does not apply.

simble lawgic

>>13525034
literally every institution that holds any power in the modern world is infested with pedophiles, including and especially your government. I don't need to know where you live to say this confidently.

Pedophilia in the Church is due to homosexuals, and the increase in homosexual activity is due to modernity.

The Church is one of the only institutions that actually fights this. Meanwhile all secular power in the world is busy hosting Pride Parades where little boys strip for the pleasure of strange men every day.

>>13525187
>The Church is one of the only institutions that actually fights this
Ratzinger, THE ACTUAL POPE, shuffled priests around to protect them from law enforcement and then those very same pedophile priests voted on the current pope

The Catholic church is definitely and entirely corrupt from the top down. If you've tricked yourself into believing otherwise you are deep into denial cope land.

>>13525223
for clarification, I'm not a Catholic. Undoubtedly, high-levels members of the Catholic church, Orthodox, Protestant denominations are corrupt - as all human institutions become. That was the point of my post.

Christianity as whole, however, is one of the only forces in the world fighting against the sort of corruption you and I despise.

>>13525240
What makes you say Christianity as a whole is fighting against it? Isn't the pope perhaps the single most symbolic representative of Christianity alive today?

>>13522026
Obviously not lol. All christcucks are fucking retards.

>>13525261
>Isn't the pope perhaps the single most symbolic representative of Christianity alive today?

I would argue that he is not. Protestants, Orthobros, and various other branches don't pay too much attention to the Pope. Criticism of the current Pope and recent Popes is extremely high and has been for a long time, justly so. Again, I'm not a Catholic, so there is probably a better person to tell you exactly what that means for the Catholic church, but I encourage you to read about it. Archbishop Vigano called for the current Pope to step down, which is the first time a senior member of the church of that level to call for the resignation of the Pope in hundreds of years.

>What makes you say Christianity as a whole is fighting against it?

Christianity is basically the only mainstream institution (at least in the west) that is actively opposed to modern sexual ethics, especially homosexuality. There are small segments of certain demoninations that are pushing pro-LGBT stuff, but you hear about it the news all the time only because the people who run the news are in on it.

>>13525127
It literally doesn't say the world is flooded. It says the "eretz" or land was flooded and this exact same word is used in other places where the authors are clearly not talking about the entire world, like when all the "eretz came to Egypt to buy grain."

>>13522520
What about the ones that can't? Such as many books in the new testament being forgeries? Or all the problems of things that Jesus didn't say that then became instrumental to doctrine? In fact its careful study that figured this stuff out

>>13522266
>God wrote this book
You fucking retard, only once opening the Bible you can see dozens of different authors AND their Books in it. How the fuck do you think christiants would think the bible was written by God himself?
Read the fucking bible first and then come here complaining instead of complaining about something you don't know anything about except from the neckbeard r/atheist shithole.

>>13524890
I'm no logician, but isn't that
>ample, credible, verifiable, relevant, publicly-accessible evidence
the bible?

>>13525353
I don't get how this refutes anything I said?

>>13525724
You said the bible categorically states that the world was flooded when it literally does not say that.

>>13525353
Do you understand the absurdity of taking one word from a lexicon and looking at its dictionary definition and then basing your whole interpretation of the passage on that? You aren't a scholar in ancient Hebrew. You don't know the grammar, the syntax, the style, the historical context, or anything related that would qualify you to go against the translator's consensus. In the case of the Bible we have 450 (literally) English translations done by scholars who are very qualified in this field and they all say the same thing.

>17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[e][f] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

>24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

If that isn't clear enough to you we can go a step further and just infer logically that the Bible is talking about a worldwide flood here. For example, God says:

>Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
Now we know that in the times of Noah people were not all clustered in one place. There were people in Africa, in the Middle East (where Noah was), in Europe, etc. If God "put an end to ALL PEOPLE", as he claims, he must have done it in a worldwide flood.

1/2

>>13525353
>>13525832
Further:

>8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
"Never again will ALL LIFE be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy THE EARTH." If this is referring to a local flood as you claim then God was wrong because there HAVE been local floods since then.

The third point is that Noah was commanded to take two of EACH KIND onto the ark.

>19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.” 22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.
Disregarding the fact that this is clearly impossible, the only way this makes sense in a narrative structure is if God wanted to flood the entire earth. Otherwise why take two of EVERY KIND OF BIRD and EVERY KIND OF CREATURE THAT MOVES ALONG THE GROUND if it was only a local flood?

The Bible claims there was a worldwide flood. It's wrong. Just accept it. There are some tidbits of wisdom to be gleaned from the Bible, but it obviously does not come down to us from an omniscient being.

2/2

>>13525832
>>13525835
I don't have to be an expert in Hebrew, I can defer to actual biblical scholars which is what I did here. There are biblical scholars who take the position that the Genesis flood was a localized event and not a worldwide catastrophe, and this meshes well with geological evidence of a large scale flood in the near east resulting from the collapse of giant ice dams about 7000 years ago.

You quote this:

>"Never again will ALL LIFE be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy THE EARTH." If this is referring to a local flood as you claim then God was wrong because there HAVE been local floods since then.

But it doesn't contradict what I'm saying. All life in the eretz or the land was destroyed. This isn't saying that all life in the world is being destroyed unless you're saying that eretz means the entire world, but we have examples of the eretz being used to mean a localized area in the same book.

As far as this talk about waters rising above mountains or gathering every kind of creature that walks on this ground, this could be literally true in that localized area of the flood or it could be nothing more than epic narration which we also see quite a bit in Genesis. This is also not a contradiction.

>>13522213
>Not to mention that the Bible has no sign of being metaphorical when it talks about Noah or Adam
>no sign of Adam metaphorical narrative
>two obviously contradictory passages at the very beginning of the book are meant to be taken literally

The state of you. Read a book.

>>13525865
I've said all I need to say we're just going to go around in circles if we carry this on. You're clearly delusional my friend.

>>13525876
If that's all you have then I'm not changing my opinion. You gave me some quotes and acted as if they contradicted my interpretation but you were unable to defend that assertion in any way.

>>13525887
I gave you a quote describing the flood which sounds to me like it's describing a worldwide flood, but this was not my main argument. I mainly used this to show that there is no indication in the words of the translators (it should be noted that the Bible is translated by committees of scholars not individuals) that this was a local flood.

Then I gave you three arguments with scriptural backing that I believe conclusively prove that the Bible is talking about a worldwide flood. You responded to one of them by repeating the "eretz" sophistry you made in your original post. I don't believe this is an adequate response since any honest reading of the text where you see "i make a covenant with all life" "all life" "never again will all life be destroyed", which are separate statements from "never again will the earth be destroyed", will bring you to the conclusion that this is talking about all life. So basically you have turned "all life", which the Bible plainly states, into "life in this localised area", and "all humanity" into "humanity in this localised area". I don't buy it.

Anyway I've made my arguments very clearly. I don't believe your interpretations hold water ;).

>>13525924
I don't care what translators have to say. The word eretz means land, and not necessarily the entire world. The word land, meaning a localized area, fits consistently with all of the scripture you quoted and fits with the physical evidence we have a large localized flood in the area Genesis was composed. Moreso the use of eretz to mean a localized area is consistent with its use by the same author, for the same audience, in the same book. In answer to this you've only accused my of not being an expert in Hebrew.

So far the only reason you've given me to believe that eretz must mean the entire world in this passage is because you want it to mean to entire world. That is literally arguing in a circle yet you accuse me of sophistry. There's no reason to think God can't make a covenant with all life in the entire world after a large localized flood, but this isn't even what's happening in Genesis. God is making a covenant with Noah and his decadents, and not the entirety of all life. But again, this is beside the point because there's no contradiction between the flood being a localized event and God then making a covenant with all life.

>>13525924
>hold water
Savage.

>>13522026
You're more likely to after reading those lmao

>>13522244
What do the exclusively-Jewish figures of Yahweh and Jesus have to do with universally-transcendent realities like Beauty and Truth? Semitic culture holds no monopoly on the Divine, and I can worship the latter without any affiliation to the former.

>>13522347
But the Divine is an ostensibly-timeless, eternal, and universal reality which has no intrinsic relation to the historically-formed, culturally-tethered institution of Judeo-Christianity, no older than a few thousand years, and it's a marker of short-sightedness to equate them to eachother.

>>13522547
Not him, but...

>Because it is not up to individual man to decide what the Bible actually means.
Then we should not be speaking of it in the first place, let alone following it.

You also did not dispute the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, you merely noted that interpretation is always key. This has no relevance however, like that anon said, since Biblical inerrancy is a different doctrine to Biblical literalism, which he was not promoting.

>>13522609
>some smart people with not much knowledge, relation, or expertise on the subject of God don't bother involving themselves in that subject or believing in God.


Wow thanks anon! This is epic I think I just became atheist! :D

>>13522231
You don't need to be a theist or even agnostic to not like pseudophilosophical bs