Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?

[Haven]

One of the most prominent claims Christians make about the Bible is that it is the word of their god, and is ultimately of divine origin (either through God controlling the human authors, dictating words to them, or 'inspiring' them to write).

If this purported authorship by an omniscient being were true, one would expect the Bible to be more scientifically and ethically advanced than the average person of the time and place (1000 BCE-100 CE, Middle East & Mediterranean -- the Ancient Near East [ANE]).

One would expect to find, for example, scientifically accurate insights about the origin of the Universe and Earth, the animals that inhabit the planet, the origin of humanity, the nature of earthquakes, floods, and climate, and so on. One would expect useful insights on how to cure diseases, make childbirth safer, develop technologies to improve lives and help those with disabilities, et cetera.

Finally, one would expect an advanced moral vision, one that explicitly condemns slavery and sexual exploitation, affirms the equality of all nations, stands against war and genocide, declares the equality and inclusion of women and LGBTQIA people, and implores us to care for the Earth, avoiding disasters like famines, pandemics, climate change, pollution, and so on.

________________

The problem, for Christianity, is that no such advanced wisdom is found in the Bible. Instead, we have a collection of writings that by and large affirm the common knowledges, beliefs, and prejudices of the human inhabitants of the ANE.

One finds, for example, numerous scientifically inaccurate passages about the Earth being flat and resting on pillars, life being created in six days, the sky being made of water above a "firmament" and so on. It contains a statement that showing striped sticks to goats will cause their offspring to be striped. It says that a menstrual cycle made a woman "unclean."

The Bible contains numerous passages on planting crops, slaughtering animals, and reaping grain, but no accurate information on how to cure diseases or make childbirth safer. It contains no mention of mental illness, but talks endlessly about demons and devils causing illness, deafness, and insanity. It is about as scientifically accurate as an average ANE peasant.

__________

The Bible's moral vision also reflects a viewpoint that cannot be called advanced in any way. It calls homosexuality an abomination, but condones slavery, pedophilia (old men 'marrying' young girls), concubinage (sex slavery), and polygyny (many women / young girls 'marrying' one man, often for political reasons). It prevaricates on rape, calling for the death penalty when the victim is a "virgin," but also says a woman must marry her rapist. It says that a woman who doesn't scream loud enough is lying about being raped, and should be stoned to death for "adultery."

The Bible is extremely sexist in general, saying that women are subservient, influenced by evil, weak-minded, weak-bodied, created as men's "helpers" (not equals), not fit to speak in church, should be "silent" with "all subjection," and generally made to be vessels for birth, homemakers and little more. Christian scripture is also racist, explicitly affirming the Jews as God's "chosen people," and giving them favorable treatment compared to the rest of humanity.

It is violent and warlike, containing commands to wipe out entire ethnicities (Amalekites, Merathaimites), kill civilians (including children), take young girls as sex slaves / spoils of war, execute people for religious disagreements, and take/trade slaves. The Bible condemns gender non-conforming people, but commands slaves to serve their masters with subjugation, and never once says slavery is in any way immoral or not the "natural state of things." It says non-human animals are mere objects for human exploitation.

_________

I can go on and on and on, but the point should be obvious--the scientific and moral content of the Bible is more backward than even the most reactionary fundamentalist today. Far from advancing a more enlightened, wise viewpoint, its content is very human and very dated to the time and place in which it was written. It appears clear that the Biblical record contains human wisdom and foolishness, rather than any kind of divine communication.

Debate question: Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom? Is there any evidence of divine authorship?

[Athetotheist]

Manipulation involves controlling or influencing someone in an unfair or devious way.

Taking an innocent bystander captive is controlling and unfair.

That's debatable, especially when we're dealing with warfare. Being a bystander doesn't make you innocent. You may not participate in wrong at one point in time (by resisting the Jews during warfare), but that doesn't mean that you didn't do wrong prior to the war or that you won't do wrong after the war. According to the Bible, these nations were judged to be guilty or immoral for things they did BEFORE the Jews invaded them. Those left alive AFTER the war may very well try to take revenge or still engage in immoral behavior, so that's a reason to take the remaining population into custody. Yes, that can involve force, but it's not unfair given the reasons I brought up.

Are the reasons you brought up objective, or are they just rationalizing and guessing?

Now let's just say that the Jews could've left the remaining population behind and not take them into custody. The population left alive after the wars were done were some times the women. How would leaving the girls around after everyone around them is dead, be a good thing? How would they support themselves, given the fact that there was little to no support system for women back then? That alone would be a reason to put these women into marriages if you wanted to support them.

Look up the word "chutzpah".

Usually if you don't kill someone during a war, you take them into custody. I assume, you can agree there since even Western nations practice that. So I fail to see where the manipulation comes in.

Her whole life is changed [manipulated] when she's taken captive.

Sure it is changed, but is it unfair? If I kill a bank robber, his daughter's life will also be changed, but are my actions immoral because of that? It also doesn't take "manipulating" someone to take them captive. Just be upfront with them and let them know you're taking them into custody.

You're falling back on the false bank robber analogy again. And you keep using the word "custody". Are you trying to re-paint aggressive warfare as "police action"? That's certainly been done before.....

Why did you change the scenario and not answer the two specific points I posed to you?

You're the one who changed the scenario----or "modified" it, as you said, by turning the ancient pagan girl's hapless father into a nefarious modern bank robber.

When someone makes an argument by analogy, which is all I was doing, the response shouldn't be to change up their analogy. You could've at least answered my analogy and I would have gladly explained how your answer to it would apply to the scenario in the Bible.

Your analogy itself doesn't apply to the Bible, because it leaves out a crucial element: captivity.

You also bring up fantasies which reminds me of another point. In my modern scenario, I would have to get a woman, who's dad I killed , to accept me romantically and sexually. That's what people look for in relationships nowadays, but back then all the girl would look for is support. Arranged marriages were like a business and each person simply played their part.

After marauding soldiers did their part.

And apart from what such a girl would "look for", what would she want? What would she deserve? Are those questions not "objective" enough to consider?

I would expect them to. There's usually a reason for wiping out an entire civilization. Doesn't mean they're wrong.

You're not providing any logic or evidence that they're right.

I never claimed anyone was right or wrong. My point was that providing a reason for attacking a civilization does not prove that you are right or wrong.

Then how can your defense of such attack up to this point be objective?

I'm using the Bible. That's not to say that it's proven, but then again I can't prove anyone's standard is "objective".

Then why apply the Bible standard specifically, unless it's the subjective one you prefer?

There is a difference between saying that the Jews killed for a justified (legal?) reason vs. Saying their justification is objective.

Are you equating legality with justification?

Jesus allowed remarriage when adultery was involved.

Technically, adultery carried a death sentence (Deut. 22:22). Jesus allows divorce for fornication in Matthew, but not in Mark or Luke.

Is that a contradiction or just one source offering more detail than the others? But my point is still valid because Jesus said the no divorce standard was in place from the beginning. So that's just another example of the OT rules applying to the NT. While you used divorce as an example for your point, I assume you agree that the vast majority of the moral laws from the OT apply to the NT.

Jesus said that Moses allowed them to divorce their wives "for the hardness of your hearts". Moses said that every part of the law, including the law allowing divorce (Dt. 24:1), was to be kept "to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord your God" (Dt. 13:18). That's Jesus contradicting Moses.

Unless someone can prove to me an objective standard, I wouldn't argue any side as being right. I would offer my opinion and side with the Allies.

After all the high-minded talk about "objective standards", isn't this a cop-out? Opinions are subjective.

If there was an objective standard, then share it. I'll gladly be on the side of anything that can be proven to be objectively good.

Is the aggressive war and captivity you've been defending "objectively good"?

[AgnosticBoy]

That's debatable, especially when we're dealing with warfare. Being a bystander doesn't make you innocent. You may not participate in wrong at one point in time (by resisting the Jews during warfare), but that doesn't mean that you didn't do wrong prior to the war or that you won't do wrong after the war. According to the Bible, these nations were judged to be guilty or immoral for things they did BEFORE the Jews invaded them. Those left alive AFTER the war may very well try to take revenge or still engage in immoral behavior, so that's a reason to take the remaining population into custody. Yes, that can involve force, but it's not unfair given the reasons I brought up.

Are the reasons you brought up objective, or are they just rationalizing and guessing?

The reasons I mentioned were stated in the Bible so I didn't have to guess.

Now let's just say that the Jews could've left the remaining population behind and not take them into custody. The population left alive after the wars were done were some times the women. How would leaving the girls around after everyone around them is dead, be a good thing? How would they support themselves, given the fact that there was little to no support system for women back then? That alone would be a reason to put these women into marriages if you wanted to support them.

Look up the word "chutzpah".

Why? Does it address my argument?

A girl is left in a position for a justified reason (i.e. her parents got the death penalty), and she has no means of support. If a guy is attracted to this girl, then why shouldn't he take her to be his wife? Back then, marriages did not have to involve mutual attraction, love, nor even having consent, girls were just given into marriage (typically by their fathers) - i.e. arranged marriages. You keep bringing up "forced" marriages, but I question what reasons would a girl have to resist when she has no other options or means of support?

You seem to be relying on modern-day sensibilities, but when I bring up a modern-day scenario where I show that I can hook up with a girl even after killing her father, and have all that be inline with modern-day sensibilities, then you say it's irrelevant. Your standards are inconsistent.

Sure it is changed, but is it unfair? If I kill a bank robber, his daughter's life will also be changed, but are my actions immoral because of that? It also doesn't take "manipulating" someone to take them captive. Just be upfront with them and let them know you're taking them into custody.

And you keep using the word "custody". Are you trying to re-paint aggressive warfare as "police action"? That's certainly been done before.....

That's just semantics as both "captive" and "custody" mean the same. During Moses's time, the Jews did not even have prisons; the closest to that was probably slavery. But as I mentioned before, a captive can turn into a wife or a prospective wife, and at that point she is no longer a "captive". The guy arranges the marriage himself, but I don't count an arrange marriage as force unless the girl didn't want it or resisted. Your modern-day sensibilities to resist marrying someone would not apply back then. Either way, the former captive turned wife has the option of separating from her husband or even trying to get him to divorce her.

Why did you change the scenario and not answer the two specific points I When someone makes an argument by analogy, which is all I was doing, the response shouldn't be to change up their analogy. You could've at least answered my analogy and I would have gladly explained how your answer to it would apply to the scenario in the Bible.

Your analogy itself doesn't apply to the Bible, because it leaves out a crucial element: captivity.

So now you're not bringing up age anymore, which was one of those modern-day sensibilities some here were applying. You're also not bringing up her parents being killed, which was another reason you brought up to show why a girl would not marry those who killed her parents. Now you're left with one reason, which I presume you see as a logical reason, i.e. "captivity".

Taking someone captive does involve force, but as I mentioned before that is to be expected given that they are prisoners of war and not simply "innocent bystanders". I addressed that issue in my last post. But now when it comes to taking them to also be your wives, then I'm still not seeing "force" nor "manipulation" here. Even if there was manipulation, then you can have that without force. For instance, I could use charming behavior to get a woman to like me. She might even know what I'm doing and still give into it eventually. I'm sure most guys are guilty of that, but the main point is that there is no force involved. I'd even go as far as saying that the ancient Jews would not have needed to rely on manipulation nor force since marriages were arranged anyways. IN such cases, there is no dating, no premarital feeling out of each other, no need for mutual attraction, just business for the most part.

You also bring up fantasies which reminds me of another point. In my modern scenario, I would have to get a woman, who's dad I killed , to accept me romantically and sexually. That's what people look for in relationships nowadays, but back then all the girl would look for is support. Arranged marriages were like a business and each person simply played their part.

After marauding soldiers did their part.

You're focused on what they did but you should also factor in why they did it (e.g. was there a justified reason?)

And apart from what such a girl would "look for", what would she want? What would she deserve? Are those questions not "objective" enough to consider?

You're starting to apply modern-day sensibilities again. The question I'd have for you is how do you determine who or what is objective? A lot of people just default to their culture which is not objective nor reasonable.

As far as the Bible is concerned, the only moral standards for marriage is that it's a hetero arrangement. The partners must also love each other (not necessarily romantically), support each other, and procreate. Anything beyond that, like arranged marriages or age of consent being at 18 years of age, is likely a sociocultural construct (as opposed to an objective or divine moral standard). I would think that trying to show any objective morality would involve stripping away the cultural elements from the purely moral aspects.

I never claimed anyone was right or wrong. My point was that providing a reason for attacking a civilization does not prove that you are right or wrong.

Then how can your defense of such attack up to this point be objective?

I'm defending the view that force and manipulation was not involved nor even needed. That doesn't equate to saying that any actions were moral, objective or otherwise. Just because I'm critical of objective morality, doesn't mean I'm against objectivity for all other matters. I accept that science provides us with objective knowledge or something close to it.

There is a difference between saying that the Jews killed for a justified (legal?) reason vs. Saying their justification is objective.

Are you equating legality with justification?

Yes. That doesn't mean the laws are objective of course, it just means in accordance with their laws.

Is that a contradiction or just one source offering more detail than the others? But my point is still valid because Jesus said the no divorce standard was in place from the beginning. So that's just another example of the OT rules applying to the NT. While you used divorce as an example for your point, I assume you agree that the vast majority of the moral laws from the OT apply to the NT.

Jesus said that Moses allowed them to divorce their wives "for the hardness of your hearts". Moses said that every part of the law, including the law allowing divorce (Dt. 24:1), was to be kept "to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord your God" (Dt. 13:18). That's Jesus contradicting Moses.

Not quite. The "hardness of hearts" only speaks to why the divorce option exists. That doesn't open the door to divorce for any reason and that be acceptable. In other words, it doesn't speak to how or when to use the option, and Moses had terms for divorce. Keep in mind, that when Jesus was answering a question on the lawfulness of divorce, he responded with “What did Moses command you?” (Mark 10:3). That alone shows the OT rules apply, which is contrary to the picture you were trying to paint a few posts ago. Now even if divorce was a different standard in the OT, but that doesn't take away from my point, since the other 99% of the moral laws apply.

If there was an objective standard, then share it. I'll gladly be on the side of anything that can be proven to be objectively good.

Is the aggressive war and captivity you've been defending "objectively good"?

I already answered this question and others like it. I'm not interested in playing these "gotcha" games.

[Miles]

...with few exceptions the entire science community disagrees with this 1928 claim of his.

Really? It isn't hard to find the generally accepted order of events regarding the development of the planet and life on it.

Generally Accepted Order? You have the continents emerging after the archean eon and paleoproterozoic era, when, in fact, they were contemporaneous with continental existence.

From Wikipedia:

Archean eon: "During the Archean, the Earth's crust had cooled enough to allow the formation of continents and the beginning of life on Earth."

Paleoproterozoic era: "The Paleoproterozoic is also the longest era of the Earth's geological history. It was during this era that the continents first stabilized.

And, the seasons, which the chart has coming about after the continents had formed and plants began colonizing the land, were actually created 4+ billion years ago when various collisions of outer space material with earth began to tilt it. In the last of these encounters a rocky orb roughly the size of Mars, called Theia smashed into the Earth tilting it about 24.5 degrees from vertical. Please note that it's the tilt of the earth that produces its seasons. So earth's seasons were already going on long before the Archean eon appeared.

Your chart is either extremely sloppy science or a deliberate attempt to bring the Bible in line with scientific evidence by lying. Guess which one I think it is.




.

[Athetotheist]

Not quite. The "hardness of hearts" only speaks to why the divorce option exists. That doesn't open the door to divorce for any reason and that be acceptable. In other words, it doesn't speak to how or when to use the option, and Moses had terms for divorce. Keep in mind, that when Jesus was answering a question on the lawfulness of divorce, he responded with “What did Moses command you?” (Mark 10:3). That alone shows the OT rules apply, which is contrary to the picture you were trying to paint a few posts ago. Now even if divorce was a different standard in the OT, but that doesn't take away from my point, since the other 99% of the moral laws apply.

When Jesus asked the Pharasees, "What did Moses command you?", they answered, "Moses commanded to give a bill of divorcement and put her away." Jesus tries to defer to Moses and they point out that Moses supports their position. Jesus claims that Moses allowed them to divorce their wives only because they were too mean not to, but according to Deuteronomy Moses let them divorce because the God of Israel told him to (1:3), and that they could in a way which was acceptable to him (13:18). So Jesus is the one being inconsistent.

I'm not interested in playing these "gotcha" games.

Neither am I. This is supposed to be a discussion about whether or not the Bible contains more than human wisdom. It wasn't supposed to deteriorate into a debate about the alleged merits of expedient womanizing in the ancient world, and I'm as guilty as anyone of taking it off-track.

[Tcg]

...with few exceptions the entire science community disagrees with this 1928 claim of his.

Really? It isn't hard to find the generally accepted order of events regarding the development of the planet and life on it.

Generally Accepted Order? You have the continents emerging after the archean eon and paleoproterozoic era, when, in fact, they were contemporaneous with continental existence.

From Wikipedia:

Archean eon: "During the Archean, the Earth's crust had cooled enough to allow the formation of continents and the beginning of life on Earth."

Paleoproterozoic era: "The Paleoproterozoic is also the longest era of the Earth's geological history. It was during this era that the continents first stabilized.

And, the seasons, which the chart has coming about after the continents had formed and plants began colonizing the land, were actually created 4+ billion years ago when various collisions of outer space material with earth began to tilt it. In the last of these encounters a rocky orb roughly the size of Mars, called Theia smashed into the Earth tilting it about 24.5 degrees from vertical. Please note that it's the tilt of the earth that produces its seasons. So earth's seasons were already going on long before the Archean eon appeared.

Your chart is either extremely sloppy science or a deliberate attempt to bring the Bible in line with scientific evidence by lying. Guess which one I think it is.




.

Another problem is with step [7] which lists "luminaries... will serve as signs for seasons. Genesis 1:19" (This is a misattribution. It should refer to vs. 14). This conveniently ignores this from Genesis 1:15

and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.

We have the sun created to provide light on the earth. This occurs AFTER the creation of plants in step [6]. How did "plants begin colonizing the land" before there was light on the earth?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

Another problem is with step [7] which lists "luminaries... will serve as signs for seasons. Genesis 1:19" (This is a misattribution. It should refer to vs. 14).

Tcg

Yes yo are right , it should read verse 14, thanks for pointing that out.

My bad,



JW

[Tcg]

Another problem is with step [7] which lists "luminaries... will serve as signs for seasons. Genesis 1:19" (This is a misattribution. It should refer to vs. 14).

Tcg

Yes yo are right , it should read verse 14, thanks for pointing that out.

My bad,

JW

You should also change the heading to contain the data I pointed out from vs. 15. It is incomplete and misleading as currently listed.


Tcg

[Miles]

Another problem is with step [7] which lists "luminaries... will serve as signs for seasons. Genesis 1:19" (This is a misattribution. It should refer to vs. 14).

Tcg

Yes yo are right , it should read verse 14, thanks for pointing that out.

My bad,

Did you create the chart?


.

[JehovahsWitness]

You should also change the heading to contain the data I pointed out from vs. 15. It is incomplete and misleading as currently listed.


Tcg

I would certainly consider it if I understood what you are talking about; since I don't that is not an option. Perhaps you could explain again more clearly what your point is regarding Genesis 1:15...

[Tcg]

You should also change the heading to contain the data I pointed out from vs. 15. It is incomplete and misleading as currently listed.


Tcg

I would certainly consider it if I understood what you are talking about; since I don't that is not an option. Perhaps you could explain again more clearly what your point is regarding Genesis 1:15...

It's not complex. Your heading ignores the claims made in vs. 15 thus what it presents is incomplete.


Tcg