Bible is on no account an objective book !!!

[The Nice Centurion]

If bible was written / inspired by a god, it cant be more objective than a book Doctor Doom would write about his achievements.
And bibles references to Satan can be no more objective than Doc Dooms references to Reed Richards would be.

If bible is written by Jewish humans, it can be no more objective than a book about Doctor Doom written by Latverian people would be.

Lets talk about that. Am I right, or am I wrong?

If the latter, why?

[The Nice Centurion]

Believers claim an aware, interested and involved Deity!
So they should be able to debate if the deity is oblective.

True, but they may also tell you that the bible includes scores of books written by many authors, and to take the whole bible and suggest that it is totally subjective is a mistake, I think.

Show me evidence please.

I was referring to books about or supposedly from jewish deitys.
But objectivity is hard to find in general.
If you think otherwise, please show me an objective jewish book!

Hang on.... I asked if you might show me examples and you ignored my request.
I think you've answered your challenge yourself when you write 'objectivity is hard to find in general'..... sorted. So generally you think that the bible is mostly subjective, maybe like the legislation in Leviticus and Deuteronomy....yes, that's subjective, but some descriptions of historical accounts are probably just objective reports.

Show me evidence please.

Perhaps Josephus "Jewish War", where an orthodox Jew "objectively" calls Jesus "the Christ"?
(According to Bart Ehrman/Errorman.)

You think that Josephus's books are in the bible?
Since you mention his books, I don't think that Josephus wrote what can be seen in his historical works, although I do think that he wrote about Jesus and in that particular place. It just got fiddled with.
Why do you quote Ehrman? You don't actually think I ever wasted time and money on his books do you..... (nor his films)

Josephus is not in the bible. You asked about books from Jewish people.

Lets talk about that. Am I right, or am I wrong?

If the latter, why?

No, please. I insist, you show me your favourite objective book from the bible and explain to us why its all objective!

All objective? All of it?
I think we can see that you do know that many books in the bible just report histories of people, and your 'all objective' shows that nicely.
Look, of course the books contain subjective material, some of them are completely subjective, but we can easily see that you are readying yourself in case I show some objective material whilst you didn't want to name a subjective book. Well, legislation is subjective so I helped you there.

But how can an account of a Jewish leader placing a close friend so that he almost certainly will die in battle, thus allowing him access to the woman (and widow) that he fancies....be blooming subjective?!! It's just telling us what somebody did.

So, please, I insist, think again about all this because the bible has numerous (multiple!) authors writing so many different books.

No, I wanted to see if that one objeczive bible book you would show me is all objective.

David was no close friend of Uriah. He might have him killed for political reasons rather and later the story was romanticized like the Trojan war, for better propaganda.
It makes a convenient moral story. Peasants get fed with sincerity that even their King gets punished, even if they do not see it.

[oldbadger]

Show me evidence please.
Show me evidence please.

Already did! You have repeatedly asked for proof that any book in the bible was 'all' objective. You've already shown us that you accept that there is some objective content. Just read your own writing, NC.

Josephus is not in the bible. You asked about books from Jewish people.

I asked because you wrote in another post:-

If bible is written by Jewish humans, it can be no more objective than a book about Doctor Doom written by Latverian people would be.

...any then you made mention of Josephus.......

And you also asked in previous post:-

No, please. I insist, you show me your favourite objective book from the bible and explain to us why its all objective!

And so there you were, readying yourself for mention of obvious objective verses.......... your own writing challenges you, NC.

No, I wanted to see if that one objeczive bible book you would show me is all objective.

I know! Read your own sentence! Again you demand a book which is 'all objective'. By the way, you don't write objectively yourself, much of the time.

David was no close friend of Uriah. He might have.....................

When a bloke puts his 'friend' in the front line in hopes of his death...... he isn't much of a close friend, so we can agree on that....
And then you tell me what 'might have' been..........

You don't see it, but your requests to be shown a bible book that is ALL objective simply busts up your whole thread.
While we talk of subjective and objective writings, books etc, nearly everything that our children are taught is subjective, that's probably why their teaching plans are filled full of 'subjects'. So the subjective content in the bible can be perfectly honest and true, and objective accounts can be false, mistaken....down right wicked! Why are you so fussed about all this?

I've already shown how books full to brimming with subjective material are/were honest and good in their day (Leviticus etc).

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #32]
You dance around Davids alleged close relationship/friendship with Uriah to prove the bibles alleged (partly) objectivity.
But you even fail in the first premise and are showing that you not even kmow much of your "objective" bible!
The verses indicate that David even knew of Uriah only because he saw his wife Bathseba and imquired about her familaritys.
Then he invites Uriah only to manipulate him and later gets him killed.

Yeah, I added that it is very common in legend to give a romantic touch to aristocratic white collar murder which if it occured had rather profane political reasons.


And no I was never readiimg miself for objective bible books I were aware and afraid of.
I was giving you the chance to show me what you think to be objective in the bible. Same as your friend Bart Errorman failed to prove a historical Jesus.

Anyway, here is everythimg about yours and Davids friendly Bart Uhriahman :

3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?

4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.

5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.

6 And David sent to Joab, saying, Send me Uriah the Hittite. And Joab sent Uriah to David.

7 And when Uriah was come unto him, David demanded of him how Joab did, and how the people did, and how the war prospered.

8 And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess of meat from the king.

9 But Uriah slept at the door of the king's house with all the servants of his lord, and went not down to his house.

10 And when they had told David, saying, Uriah went not down unto his house, David said unto Uriah, Camest thou not from thy journey? why then didst thou not go down unto thine house?

11 And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.

12 And David said to Uriah, Tarry here to day also, and to morrow I will let thee depart. So Uriah abode in Jerusalem that day, and the morrow.

13 And when David had called him, he did eat and drink before him; and he made him drunk: and at even he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but went not down to his house.

14 And it came to pass in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah.

15 And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die.

16 And it came to pass, when Joab observed the city, that he assigned Uriah unto a place where he knew that valiant men were.

17 And the men of the city went out, and fought with Joab: and there fell some of the people of the servants of David; and Uriah the Hittite died also.

[oldbadger]

You dance around Davids alleged close relationship/friendship with Uriah to prove the bibles alleged (partly) objectivity.
But you even fail in the first premise and are showing that you not even kmow much of your "objective" bible!
The verses indicate that David even knew of Uriah only because he saw his wife Bathseba and imquired about her familaritys.
Then he invites Uriah only to manipulate him and later gets him killed.

That's very subjective of you.
You make me in to a dancing poster........... subjective.....

Yeah, I added that it is very common in legend to give a romantic touch to aristocratic white collar murder which if it occured had rather profane political reasons.

Go on..... subject me to some more.......

And no I was never readiimg miself for objective bible books I were aware and afraid of.
I was giving you the chance to show me what you think to be objective in the bible. Same as your friend Bart Errorman failed to prove a historical Jesus.

My friend? You make a total stranger my friend to suit your agenda and argument?
Now guess who is subjective, NC.

Anyway, here is everythimg about yours and Davids friendly Bart Uhriahman :

.... Why do you do this? Why do you subject me to this kind of abuse, pretending that I am any kind of friend to people whom I don't follow, know or particularly agree with.....?
That's subjective.....

Now..... you've copied lots of verses, above, possibly to prove how much you know?
All I referred to was 2 Samuel 11:15 as an offhand random example of an objective report. It sells nothing, NC.

[oldbadger]

@The Nice Centurion

You didn't seem to get my earlier point.
When you asked me to show a bible book that was 'All Objective' you showed every reader here that you do in fact believe that parts of that book are likely to have some objective content within. You defeated your own proposal, all by yourself.

Since you requested this a few times, I considered whether there are any books that are wholly subjective, and there are, because they only feature legislation!

So..... Please will you tell me what is bad about the bible book Leviticus.... it's wholly subjective, but what's so bad about that?

[Tcg]

@The Nice Centurion

You didn't seem to get my earlier point.
When you asked me to show a bible book that was 'All Objective' you showed every reader here that you do in fact believe that parts of that book are likely to have some objective content within. You defeated your own proposal, all by yourself.

Since you requested this a few times, I considered whether there are any books that are wholly subjective, and there are, because they only feature legislation!

So..... Please will you tell me what is bad about the bible book Leviticus.... it's wholly subjective, but what's so bad about that?

This is rather unpleasant:

Lev. 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

It is a clear example of favoritism. Israelites are treated differently than non-Israelites. Beyond that, humans being inherited property is disgusting no matter what the situation.


Tcg

[oldbadger]

This is rather unpleasant:
Lev. 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

It is a clear example of favoritism. Israelites are treated differently than non-Israelites. Beyond that, humans being inherited property is disgusting no matter what the situation.
Tcg

Today, many of the laws of Moses are seen as unpleasant, out of date, inhumane and worse, but back then they were written to produce a strong, secure, safe, healthy, cohesive and successful people. in the KJV your verses refer to 'bond' men and women from surrounding nations, and although people from surrounding nations could become part of the Israelite people, become Jews, the law provided for bonded people and slaves taken in battle, usually virgins.

I think there's a new thread here, how the Laws of Moses were an amazing piece/s of legislation to provide for a healthy, safe, secure, strong, growing, successful and cohesive people...... All subjective as laws are, but amazing for their time.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #35]
Information request: Do I know you from Twitter?
Are you @diogenesasamadscientist from California ?

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #35]
Information request: Do I know you from Twitter?
Are you @diogenesasamadscientist from California ?

No.... never used twitter, but I'd love to be a real mad scientist!
I live in England.