Summations Only

What kind of "lesson about God" could one get from a mythicized story? That's absurd. If it isn't all historically true, inspired by God Himself, then it is corrupted by human error and why should anyone take it seriously? All those who argue that the Bible contains human error are promoting a lie. Either the Bible is God's accurate inerrant word or it's just another fable to be ignored.

Worst. Theology. Ever.

What a loaded question!I wouldn't call it allegorical... allegory is an intentional literary device. I'd bet that ancient Hebrews thought they were talking about actual events when passing on their oral history.Even when it finally got written down, the authors may have thought they were actual historical events. That would make it not allegory.But to answer your question: There is no "point" in the Bible where the myths become factual descriptions of actual events.But we do know for a fact that the entire planet has not been covered in water since humans have existed, so it'd definitely have to be after The Flood. Honestly, I doubt the exodus even happened for real - but that doesn't mean that everything before it is completely untrue.There is no dichotomy of either 100% true or 100% false that we have to apply to the Bible.

Then why did you try to claim to have worked with the original? Proper scholarship requires that you cite your actual source, which in this case was Johnson.And how did Johnson present his quote? Did he cite the Raup article or did he cite his actual creationist quote-mine source? I'll bet that he also lied and cited the Raup article.Read my page, MOON DUST. At a debate I attended, Henry Morris countered the complaint that creationists use outdated sources that have since been superceded by more recent discoveries by citing a NASA document from 1976, "well into the space age" (a proclamation required of all creationists repeating this claim), which used direct measurements to predict that an old moon would have a layer of dust a couple hundred feet thick. I requested further information from the ICR and got it, a letter written by creationist Harold Slusher who cited that "1976" NASA document for values to plug into a formula of his own making. Then I found that "1976" NASA document in the university library and found that it was papers from a conference held in August 1965 and printed in 1967, both dates predating the Apollo 11 landing. On top of that, Slusher misquoted his own actual source, some unnamed creationist, and committed the error of including a factor in his formula, both of which inflated the figures for the moon a factor of 10,000 -- instead of being 280 feet thick,that dust layer turns out to be about a third of an inch thick.Morris cited that NASA document as his source even though he had never ever seen it ... well, until I mailed him a photocopy of the front cover which he and Gish subbornly ignored. He lied about what his source was. And even though the ICR tried to distance itself and forget about that claim, decades later their books are still being sold with Morris continuing his lie by citing that NASA document as his source, thus deceiving each new generation of creationist newbies.Object lesson for you: always go back to the original source to verify that your secondary and tertiary sources had not misquoted it and misrepresented it.ABE:IOW, your creationist handlers are lying to you. They have always been lying to you. You cannot and must not automatically trust anything that they tell you. You must test and verify everything they say. When they quote somebody, then go straight to what they are quoting to read what was actually said. When they cite a scientific source, then go straight to that source to see what it really said. When they tell you something about how science works, then go directly to the science and learn for yourself how it really works.Your creationist handlers are not the Trinity. They are men. Dishonest men. Dishonest men whose goal is to deceive you. They are not gods, despite how much they want to deceive you into thinking that they are. They are men and they are liars and deceivers.Do not be fooled.1 Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast all that is good."
Other versions say "test everything". Edited by dwise1, : Added By Edit (ABE)

Myths are used in many cultures to teach about the society and its values and its relation to the outside world (including whatever God(s) they worship).

I know, right? Surely no one would ever use stories or parables to teach about God, right? Jesus never did that, did he?

Hint: Talking snakes are not literal.According to the first part of Genesis, humans acquired the ability to discern good from evil - i.e. the ability to use their brains. Apparently, people who call that a "Fall" think it was a bad thing.

From Ayn Rand:

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledgehe acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evilhe became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his laborhe became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desirehe acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joyall the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he wasthat robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without lovehe was not man.

​

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

—Ayn Rand Lexicon

Because everything is subject to human error - including and especially your view of the Bible.The primary use of intelligence is for correcting errors.

quote:

---

Honestly, I doubt the exodus even happened for real - but that doesn't mean that everything before it is completely untrue.

---

There is a big gap between "not literal history" and "completely untrue".And of course you are right to doubt the Exodus. The Book of Exodus was obviously written at a time when the story had become legend - whatever it's origins. Its implausibilities (and I don't mean the miracles!) give more cause to doubt, as dies the fact that archaeology finds no trace of it.Even other parts of the Bible call the Exodus into question. 1 Chronicles 7 indicates that Ephraim and his descendants were living in Canaan (verses 20-29) with no indication of ever having gone to Egypt, even though Joshua is listed as a descendant.

Damn your miserable innumerate hide! You're making me use an emoticon:Assuming Windows:

1. Run calc. Easiest way is WindowsKey-R, type in calc, click on OK.
   ​
2. In calc, click on the clear-all button ("C") just to be sure that it is clear of all pending operations.
   ​
3. In this message, highlight the expression 99,990,000 / 10,000. Copy it to the clipboard.
   ​
4. In calc, paste. The display will contain the last value entered, 10000.
   ​
5. In calc, click on the "=" button to complete the calculation.
   ​
6. calc will display the result of that division: 9999
   ​
7. QEF.

IOW, extremely simple, basic arithmetic. I completely fail to understand how it could possibly be beyond your ken.

---

Kill Clippie!

Except writings inspired by God Himself.

Prove it.

It is humans claiming that the Bible was inspired by God.

Or is your problem algebraic?Multiplication (and hence division, which is simply multiplying by the reciprocal) is associative. That means that:
(a × b) × c = a × (b × c)Therefore, we can associate the factors in question thus:% error = 100 (99,990,000 / 10,000)yielding% error = 100 9999QEFYet again, extremely simple math.