Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not!

[Into the Night]

Literacy rates in the Roman Empire, at that time, are believed to be about 10% and those who were literate were the wealthy and the people who taught the wealthy. Fisherman and other day-laborers were not literate. They started working as soon as they were old enough to do so. They were not being schooled on how to read and write.

Also, people who understand Greek vs Aramaic writing are able to look at the writings and see that they were originally written in Greek. So, even if Jesus' followers were literate, there is about 0.0001% chance it was in Greek.

Pivot fallacy. You are not trying to change the Greek or Aramaic version, Sock. You are trying to change the English version. You cannot get away with changing the Bible, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

You haven't.

 

[Into the Night]

For Jews, A day begins in the evening and ends he next afternoon. So, the day of preparation would be in the morning/afternoon with Passover starting that evening - it would all be the same day based on how we do things today.

So, it would be impossible for Jesus to die at noon on the Day of Preparation and have still eaten the Passover meal with the disciples.

You cannot get away with changing the Bible, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

As promised, I'll ask the question again.

Theories of science may come from anywhere. They may be inspired by noting a pattern of observations, by re-arranging or combining other theories of science, in one's dreams, or even by watching an episode of Sponge Bob.


Which word(s) answer the question of who? Is "anywhere" a who? Is Sponge Bob theorizing???

RQAA.

 

[IBDaMann]

And, as it relates to science topics, who are generally the theorists?

Humans, both men and women, breathing, ... that's about all one can really say.

I'd like to point out that you are implementing dishonest leftist tactic #26 (I believe) whereby you create an annoying chain of cryptic questions ... asked one at a time ... just to create a GOTCHA! that will never work. You are doing this to get out of stating your point up front ... because you know that it will be blown out of the water in short order.

Can I get you to just abandon tactic #26 and just state your point? You really are just wasting time and bandwidth.

For example, in the late 1700's, were farmers likely theorizing about the subatomic particles that make up all matter?

Let's unpack:

1. What does likelihood of thought have to do with anything?
2. Are you under the impression that "subatomic particles" represents all of science ("science topics" in your words)? Neither you nor Cypress nor goat have shown that it represents any science whatsoever, just artwork.
3. Do you acknowledge that a farmer/scientist named Jethro Tull existed during the 1700s?
4. Wouldn't it have been much easier to have just stated a valid point?

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes, Acts states that Peter was uneducated.

Let's unpack:

1. Uneducated does not mean illiterate. Leftists are a prime example.
2. Acts does not say anything about Peter's education.

It's a reasonably good assumption that Peter was fairly typical of other fishermen and peasants in Galilee.

Why is your speculation a good assumption? Peter is not depicted as a "peasant" in Acts or in any other books of the New Testament.

Yes, Peter liked fishing. I know many who like to fish. I don't see why he couldn't be anything else.

Remember, Peter was the other guy who walked on water.

 

[IBDaMann]

Literacy rates in the Roman Empire, at that time, are believed to be about 10% and those who were literate were the wealthy and the people who taught the wealthy.

There were poor yet literate people in the Roman empire. Beliefs about probabilities do not impart knowledge.

Fisherman and other day-laborers were not literate.

Some literate people could fish.

They were not being schooled on how to read and write.

Many who were schooled on how to read and write were also taught how to fish, especially those who had boats.

Also, people who understand Greek vs Aramaic writing are able to look at the writings and see that they were originally written in Greek.

Irrelevant. I'm trying to figure out how you know the apostles were illiterate. Are there any historical documents that specify any of the apostles as having been illiterate?

 

[ZenMode]

Pivot fallacy. You are not trying to change the Greek or Aramaic version, Sock. You are trying to change the English version. You cannot get away with changing the Bible, Sock.

You are soooo far behind.

 

[ZenMode]

Humans, both men and women, breathing, ... that's about all one can really say.

I'd like to point out that you are implementing dishonest leftist tactic #26 (I believe) whereby you create an annoying chain of cryptic questions ... asked one at a time ... just to create a GOTCHA! that will never work. You are doing this to get out of stating your point up front ... because you know that it will be blown out of the water in short order.

Can I get you to just abandon tactic #26 and just state your point? You really are just wasting time and bandwidth.

Let's unpack:

1. What does likelihood of thought have to do with anything?
2. Are you under the impression that "subatomic particles" represents all of science ("science topics" in your words)? Neither you nor Cypress nor goat have shown that it represents any science whatsoever, just artwork.
3. Do you acknowledge that a farmer/scientist named Jethro Tull existed during the 1700s?
4. Wouldn't it have been much easier to have just stated a valid point?

You and Into the Night are very good at not answering questions. The reason for that is obvious.

At least gfm is willing to defend his position.

 

[Into the Night]

You are soooo far behind.

No, you are lying again.

 

[Into the Night]

You and Into the Night are very good at not answering questions. The reason for that is obvious.

At least gfm is willing to defend his position.

RQAA.

Mindlessly asking the same question that has been already answered over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over gets you nowhere, Sock.

 

[ZenMode]

There were poor yet literate people in the Roman empire. Beliefs about probabilities do not impart knowledge.

No they don't. Probabilities combined with the other factors mention, makes it highly unlikely that one of the Disciples was literate in Aramaic, much less Greek. And it's even more unlikely that multiple disciples were literate.

Some literate people could fish.

Fisherman was one example of a job. Not fishing for fun...but you already knew that.

Many who were schooled on how to read and write were also taught how to fish, especially those who had boats.

Yes and they were almost exclusively the wealthy, not day laborers.

Irrelevant. I'm trying to figure out how you know the apostles were illiterate. Are there any historical documents that specify any of the apostles as having been illiterate?

I don't KNOW they were all illiterate. The odds are very, very good that they were not literate in Aramaic, much less Greek, based on the factors already mentioned, though ACTS does say Peter and John were unlettered/unschooled (depending on which translation you use), aka illiterate:

New International Version
Acts 4:13.When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.

unschooled,
ἀγράμματοί (agrammatoi)
Adjective - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's 62: Unlettered, i.e. Illiterate.

https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_62.htm

 

[Cypress]

Incorrect, per usual for you.


No, that's not what the book of Acts states. I assume that you're referring to Acts 4:13 (correct me if my assumption is wrong). In that passage, it is noted that Peter and John were both perceived to be unlearned/ignorant men (not in terms of general knowledge, but specifically regarding rabbinical teachings). IOW, this passage is stating that both Peter and John were perceived as "commoners", having no formal education in Old Testament theology.

Think of it as being taught by your farmer father about how to be a farmer instead of receiving a formal education from a school about how to be a farmer. IOW, learning how to be a farmer from hands-on experience rather than from a formal education.

Also think of it as a Christian pastor vs myself. A pastor has received formal education from a school of Christian ministry (e.g. Martin Luther College), meanwhile I am just a "commoner". I haven't received any such formal ministerial education. However, that doesn't mean that I am "uneducated" in general, and that also doesn't mean that I haven't received any relevant education from elsewhere (such as from prayerful study of The Bible).

It's the same old "derrrrrr you're sooooooo stupid because you didn't go to college".

I don't think it matters, because I don't agree with the atheist position that the discrepancies and authorship of the Gospels is massively consequential, Earth-shattering, and vitally meaningful. Nor do I agree with fundamentalists that the Bible is completely inerrant and the authorship cannot be questioned.

 

[BidenPresident]

I don't think it matters, because I don't agree with the atheist position that the discrepancies and authorship of the Gospels is massively consequential, Earth-shattering, and vitally meaningful. Nor do I agree with fundamentalists that the Bible is completely inerrant and the authorship cannot be questioned.

The Bible is a book.

 

[IBDaMann]

You and Into the Night are very good at not answering questions.

I answer all questions, but sometimes I have to ask for clarification. You, on the other hand, are steadfast in your refusal to answer questions.

The reason for that is obvious.

 

[gfm7175]

For Jews, A day begins in the evening and ends he next afternoon.

Yes, that's the proper way to timeline a day in this context (from sunset to sunset). Now apply this knowledge to the Bible passages that you keep quoting but yet keep changing instead of accepting them for what they actually say.

So, the day of preparation would be in the morning/afternoon with Passover starting that evening - it would all be the same day based on how we do things today.

Sort of, but you're still getting it wrong below because you didn't quite word it properly here. The day of preparation starts on the 14th of Nisan at 6pm and ends at 5:59pm (technically, from sunset to sunset). What you are calling the "Passover meal" (the Last Supper) happened a while after 6pm on the 14th of Nisan, BEFORE Jesus died at about 3pm on the same 14th of Nisan. There is also a "Passover meal" (as referenced in Exodus 12) which happens AFTER the day of preparation (after 6pm on the 15th of Nisan).

So, it would be impossible for Jesus to die at noon on the Day of Preparation and have still eaten the Passover meal with the disciples.

You're still making the same mistakes over and over again. You still refuse to learn. However, I continue these responses for the sake of other onlookers who actually wish to learn about the subject matter.

Jesus did NOT die at noon on that day (the 14th of Nisan). He died at about 3pm that day. You also continue to conflate "the Passover meal" (the lamb and bitter herbs and etc., eaten on the 15th of Nisan) with the "Last Supper meal" that Jesus ate with his disciples on the 14th of Nisan. These are SEPARATE meals.

Please read through Exodus 12 before responding to me again. Exodus 12 specifically outlines the details (the law) regarding the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread (aka what Mark and John are referring to in the Bible verses that you are quoting but trying to change). To understand the day references that are made in Mark and John, you must FIRST read through and understand the history that is recorded in Exodus 12.

In Exodus 12, the "first month of the year" is the month of Nisan (originally called Abib, as is referenced in Exodus 13). You will discover that the 14th of Nisan is the "day of preparation" before the high sabbath Passover meal at the beginning of the 15th of Nisan. IOW, the lamb is slaughtered towards the end of the 14th of Nisan, and the lamb is eaten (along with bitter herbs, etc) towards the beginning of the 15th of Nisan. IOW, this is all happening at "twilight" (the bit of light remaining at the end of the 14th, before sunset, and at the beginning of the 15th, after sunset).

Also, please read through John 1 (specifically John 1:29 for the "lamb of God" reference) to familiarize yourself as to who Jesus is. After reading through both Exodus 12 and John 1, you will be able to put together the Biblical truth that Jesus is the ultimate "lamb of God" that is being sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan, in accordance with the Exodus 12 account's timing of the sacrificing of the unblemished lambs. The Bible, as a whole, connects together like that.

 

[IBDaMann]

Probabilities combined with the other factors mention, makes it highly unlikely that one of the Disciples was literate in Aramaic, much less Greek.

Look, I'd prefer to omit the reminder of your lack of mathematical aptitude if you'll just take me on my word that probabilities mean nothing within the context of an "after the fact" analysis. The probability that you will roll (i.e. in the future) triple sixes on three six-sided dice is 1-in-216. Once you have rolled triple sixes (i.e. past tense) it would be stupid for you to try to convince yourself, after the fact, that it would have been highly unlikely for you to have rolled what you did.

Peter seemed to have enough wealth that he could travel around without worrying about how things would be going with a day job. Also, Peter was selected to go talk to people, seemingly as though he were more educated than your average day worker. Given that, why would you believe that he was necessarily illiterate?

And it's even more unlikely that multiple disciples were literate.

Unless Jesus' message resonated with wealthy people. Do you know of any wealthy Christians?

I don't KNOW they were all illiterate.

You don't know the composition of Jesus' aposltes/disciples, just like probabilities go out the window when I ask you what poker hand I am presently holding, i.e. my hand is exclusively 100% certain.

though ACTS does say Peter and John were unlettered/unschooled

Nope. Acts recounts that the people of the temple, and the Sadducees, had perceived them to be ignorant men, but were amazed at their boldness, and couldn't get around the miracle they had just performed in God's name.

KJV. Enjoy!

 

[IBDaMann]

The Bible is a book.

Not when the Word of God is online, i.e. there's no book.
Not when the Word of God is on someone's mind, i.e. there's no book.
Not when the Word of God is being heard, i.e. there's no book.

 

[IBDaMann]

I don't agree with the atheist position that the discrepancies and authorship of the Gospels is massively consequential, Earth-shattering, and vitally meaningful.

That's not my position. Why are you assigning to me a bogus position that I do not hold?

Nor do I agree with fundamentalists that the Bible is completely inerrant and the authorship cannot be questioned.

Wouldn't it be absolutely miraculous if you were to express the point that you actually are saying?

 

[BidenPresident]

Not when the Word of God is online, i.e. there's no book.
Not when the Word of God is on someone's mind, i.e. there's no book.
Not when the Word of God is being heard, i.e. there's no book.

You are extremely stupid.