The Paradox of Using Miracles to Explain the Bible Accounts

by Comatose 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • adamah
    adamah

    all things are possible with God

    Then it's about time he got off his fat lazy arse and did something useful!

    I'll say! Humans are constantly calling him, but he doesn't pick up. It must be a long Sabbath Holiday weekend in Heaven (which never made sense to me, anyway, since God rested after creating mankind on the 7th day, but if 1,000 yrs is a day to Jehovah, then where did that 1,000 yr day go? It's not recorded in the Bible, or did God get a babysitter to keep an eye on Adam and Eve?)

    But sure, God's omnipotence is the "get out of jail free" card that is used whenever they're stuck. And it's also WHY it's better to focus of what the account actually shows God doing (eg flip-flop regret, not offering any survivors on board the Ark, etc) since it means he COULD'VE done something different than killing all humans to cover up His earlier boo-boo (ooops: the account shows God forgot to tell mankind that murder and blood-shed was a sin until AFTER the Flood).

    Comatose mentioned the inexplicable shifts between supernatural and natural events, when he said this:

    Blending miracles with plausible explanations just does not mix.

    Unfortunately, those mix all too easily, since that actually INCREASES the credibility of the story in the minds of believers since it's tha apparent ease with which they are slipped into the account. For example, in Adam and Eve, modern people will read about God shaping Adam out of dust as some poetic or metaphorical allusion, when NO, that was not actually even considered as odd to ancient people, but a perfectly NATURAL claim to make in the ancient World. But by the time Eve encounters a talking snake, you'd THINK that it would be clear to even modern readers that it's not LITERAL (eg Aesop's fables had talking animals, too, and even then, Greeks UNDERSTOOD that these were parables, not talking animals), but no; instead they make elaborate conspiracies (eg Satan possessed the serpent) to make it blend. The story presents it so nonchalantly, and the characters in the story don't question it, so the reader goes along with it.

    That's similar to the point that Reza Aslan made in the video I posted a link to earlier in another thread about how writers of the Gospels NEVER INTENDED their writings to be taken as historical records of events, since that's a modern concept; instead, they had a MESSAGE they wanted to convey, as if Jesus himself were the living embodiment of a parable. Ancients just didn't think of the World the same as most modern people do.

    Oh, on the 'releasing the bird' bit in the Noah account, a modern Christian would probably excuse that as God wanting Noah to stand on his own two feet, much in the same way they excuse the lack of communication with God today by claiming He doesn't want to make it TOO easy for people to believe in Him, since He values faith (which is contradicted by the example of Exodus, with all the miracles He demonstrated in the Wilderness, eg with the parting of the Red Sea). But in spite of such claims of miracles being witnessed in the Wilderness, the Exodus account states a good many Hebrews began to worship golden calves the first chance they got! Of course, that only allows JWs for not recognizing Jesus as their messiah (although he didn't fit the prophetic criteria in if only one HUGE way, as Aslan points out in the video) to think they're smarter than the silly Hebrews depicted in the account, pointing to how Jews lost the right to be YHWH's Chosen People as punishment.

    Of course, that all plays right into the classic 'appeal to personal narcissism', which plays out all around the World when JWs talk on the platform to a roomful of JWs telling them they're the bright ones who've got it figgured (sic) out, as if in a self-congratulatory circle jerk.

    Adam

  • Ucantnome
    Ucantnome

    Comatose i don't have all the answers but it doesn't matter to me. There is very little that i have proved in life.

  • Comatose
    Comatose

    I agree with most of everything you post Adam. :) Wish I knew you and we could get together to chat.

    My problem is saying that a miracle happened by means of non-miraculous events. Seems so paradoxical. The flood in itself was a miracle, not a natural phenomenon. But, the. They go back and try to reverse engineer scientific reasons to support the flood. Silliness.

    Also, if there was a water canopy blocking out enough sunlight that a rainbow had never before been possible, the. That means they couldn't see the stars or moon I guess. But, god made the moon as a luminary for the night... Can you see the moon on a cloudy night?

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    The God described in Genesis is a bit of a prick at times, I daresay.

    Reminds me of this old thread:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/136447/1/Would-a-less-than-good-god-s-be-worthy-of-interest

  • glenster
    glenster

    I'm not recommending a literal or conservative stance but I'll take a try at
    these just regarding it as a story and theology. I don't think it creates a
    problem with fundamentalism except maybe an all-beneficent option.

    "Why didn’t a god capable of such miracles simply with a “blink of an eye”
    wipe the bad people off the face of the earth? Why would a perfect god incapable
    of petty anger kill all life on earth over the acts of some bad people?

    Why not exnihilate a perfect heaven on Earth with perfectly ethical people if
    He's all-beneficent? He's not, and people aren't, or we'd live in one. In the
    OT, He's capable of getting PO'ed at what people do with their choices, and in
    this story all but the little group became violently criminal. God would have
    the prerogative to do with it all as He wants like me with the peds in GTA III
    (welcome to the worst place in America)--why not kill them?

    "If god is capable of miracles to the extent the flood would indicate, why did
    he require a wooden boats construction that took decades to build? Why did he
    require them to gather food and supplies when he can provide food from heaven?

    Why train a dog to fetch when you can get things yourself? He wanted them to
    show effort and not just concede to Him.

    "If god spoke to Noah? – Genesis 6:13, Genesis 7:1 If god shut Noah in the
    ark? – Genesis 7:16 If god remembered Noah? – Genesis 8:1 Then why was Noah
    sending out birds to try to see if the water had receded? – Genesis 8:6"

    I'm not sure what the question is unless it's another about an all-beneficent
    God providing heaven on Earth or people showing effort with action and not just
    words, in which case see above.
    http://www.gotquestions.org/Noah-raven-dove.html

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    .

    Anyone who askes those kind of questions is obviously (TM) a mentally diseased apostate and lacks a sincere heart-condition!!

    Doc

  • adamah
    adamah

    Comatose said-

    I agree with most of everything you post Adam. :) Wish I knew you and we could get together to chat.

    Thanks for saying so! :)

    The fact is, there's very few people who are interested in engaging in a critical (i.e. non-devotional) analysis of the Bible and the stories inside, so the internet allows people to reach out to others to discuss what is really a niche topic. Of course, I don't claim to be an expert, just someone who really enjoys learning about the history of the mortal men who wrote the Bible. It's obviously effected so many people's lives, and will continue to do so for as long as I can tell. I mean, Christianity has survived 2,000 yrs and grown, DESPITE the apocalyptic claims being made as occurring in Jesus' life-time. A lie seemingly gets more resiliant with age.

    In fact, sometimes I'll ask a believer if there were ANY EVIDENCE that they could be presented with that would PROVE that God didn't exist, that Jesus wasn't the son of God, etc. If they're a firm believer, they'll honestly admit NO. The reason is its not about reason, or honesty, or a search for truth above all else; instead, people value different things in their life, and are often comfortable with what they know, but worse, are deathly afraid of the ramifications of stating to others that they ARE agnostic/atheist. It doesn't even MATTER what they believe, since they've made that decision (or in the case of born-ins with extensive family ties, it's essentially been made FOR them). So they go through the motions, and just try not to think about it to deeply, since in essence, the cost of stating that they see reality and examining the evidence is just simply too high for them.

    That's what bothers me a bit about Reza Aslan's high-minded attitude about religious beliefs: for many, YES, they understand that their religious beliefs are not really "real" and they aren't going to die for their religion. However, for a few others, they DO read Torah/Quran/Bible as literal TRUTHS, and WILL kill and/or DIE for it. For those in society who struggle with discerning fantasy from reality (eg those with schizophrenia/bipolar), it's toxic to expose them to these ideas, since no one is able to tell them it's not "really real" and it potentially induces an amazing amount of stress into their lives, and DOESN'T become a shelter when they fixate on the horrorable images depicted in the Bible.

    I dunno, maybe it's evolution in action, filtering out those who can be easily persuaded to take wooden nickels.

    My problem is saying that a miracle happened by means of non-miraculous events. Seems so paradoxical. The flood in itself was a miracle, not a natural phenomenon. But, then they go back and try to reverse engineer scientific reasons to support the flood. Silliness.

    Yeah, I assume you're referring to the 'Answers in Genesis' types, seemingly looking to act like they DON'T believe in myths and trying to use cherry-picked evidence to justify their beliefs in tall tales (Paul Bunyan). I suspect many are doing it, just to give ammunition to those in the flock who aren't familiar with science themselves, but are looking for scientists to validate their beliefs, regardless of how shaky their reputation may be (eg Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, etc). Ear ticklers, all of them.

    Many more-educated believers will just choose to compartmentalize their beliefs, relying on two sets of "facts" where they use one set on Sunday in church (for religion), and another set they use in their career (for science). They know the conflicts can't be resolved, so they don't even try.

    Also, if there was a water canopy blocking out enough sunlight that a rainbow had never before been possible, then that means they couldn't see the stars or moon I guess. But, god made the moon as a luminary for the night... Can you see the moon on a cloudy night?

    The Hebrew (Biblical) view of cosmology is well-known to us, based on Babylonian/Egyptian/Sumerian concepts of the World, and as recorded in the Torah (and confirmed by discussions by rabbis in various Midrashim, circa 200CE). They conceived of their Universe existing in this type of set-up, with the Sun, Moon and stars attached as if track lights to a solid half-dome firmament:

    And to think people who didn't believe it were killed, eg Giordano Bruno. Crazy stuff, indeed.

    Adam

  • mP
    mP

    comatose:

    I believe the god of the oT is simply a representation of the forces of nature. When stuff went bad, be it a famine, or flood, everybody said somebody must have pissed god off. The same is also true in reverse, the priests scamed the locals into the temple donation business and gave their word they would be making god happy.

    The points you highlight about the noah story can be explained by noah observing nature. perhaps one day the rainy season came in some part of the world near a river. it looked like it was going to be a bad rain so some noah character packed his belongings and a few sheep and a dog onto a boat. perhaps he saw a comet or a shooting star and figured out god was telling him to get on the boat with his family. the parts with the raven and dove are of course noah being ingenuitive. naturally noah figured the flood was becaus god was angry at the people for who knows what. if its wrong then its evil . heroes in the bible even when the y are evil by our standards are righteous because they worship jehovah.

    when god talks to noah, its simply noah "reading" nature.

  • mP
    mP

    adamah

    the gospels are historical, the problem is people dont know basic history of the time and cant accept the words were literally about the rebellion and tehd estruction of jersualem and the acceptance of rome as the new power. religion is always about politics. Kings are always using religion to scare or tell or manipulate the common people to their way of thinking.

  • sspo
    sspo

    According to the Watchtower the flood happened in 2370bce, that's 4700 years ago. The flood came and destroyed all things even millions of species of insects and would have taken hundreds of years for Noah and his kids to populate the earth and for all kinds of nations and culture to develop. Chinese culture is 8000 to 10000 years old. The watchtower forgot to explain this one. Adam was created in 4026 bce......only 6k years ago.........also a little problem there too. Human have been around a little longer than that.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit