Do Fabulous Bible Stories Prove Errancy?

[JoeMama]

Do stories like the one in Numbers, about a donkey scolding his master, show that the Bible cannot be believed in its entirety?

Here is the donkey story:

Numbers 22:21-30

21 Balaam was riding on his donkey…23 When the donkey…turned off the road into a field Balaam beat it to get it back on the road. 25 When the donkey…pressed close to the wall, crushing Balaam’s foot against it…he beat the donkey again. When the donkey lay down under Balaam, he was angry and beat it with his staff. 28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam,

“What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?” 29 Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.” 30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

[boatsnguitars]

The Enuma Elish begins by describing the primal state of the universe, which is represented by the god of fresh water, Apsu, and the goddess of the saltwater, Tiamat. They give birth to the first generation of gods, who are extremely loud and disruptive. Apsu decides to kill them, but his plan is thwarted by the god Ea, who kills Apsu instead. Tiamat is furious and decides to avenge Apsu's death by creating an army of monsters to destroy the younger gods.

The younger gods, led by Marduk, decide to confront Tiamat and her army. Marduk is chosen to lead the battle because he is the most powerful god. In exchange for his leadership, the other gods promise to make Marduk the king of all the gods.

Marduk and Tiamat engage in a fierce battle, and Marduk eventually triumphs by using powerful winds to trap Tiamat and then killing her with a spear. Marduk then uses her body to create the heavens and the earth. He also creates humans to serve the gods and to be ruled over by them.

After his victory, Marduk is proclaimed the supreme god and ruler of the universe. The other gods create a temple for him in Babylon, and his supremacy is celebrated in an annual festival called the New Year festival.



Any Arguments from Incredulity?

[POI]

Do stories like the one in Numbers, about a donkey scolding his master, show that the Bible cannot be believed in its entirety?

For me, it's an easy yes. It cannot be believed in its entirety. HOWEVER, then comes the believers who then behold to the position of allegory/metaphor/other. Any story which appears absurd becomes... "allegorical/other" All the way up until the Jesus story.... Then, all of a sudden, he really did rise from a grave to save humanity

And before anyone wants to respond, sighting the "argument from incredulity" here, please note what I am responding to in the debate question. Many do not believe that all the 'fabulous' Bible stories really happened. Which is why they become 'allegorical/metaphorical". And yet, they are still believers of Jesus? Cognitive dissonance, other?

[POI]

In the absence of any physical verifiable evidence admit there is no evidence for or against the claim. And choose what you wish to believe based on logic.

By using logic, and in absence of any evidence for an extraordinary claim, would the most logical default position really ever be to believe in a given extraordinary claim? Or, instead, to reserve doubt for the claim, until demonstrated otherwise? Hmmmm?

[TRANSPONDER]

In the absence of any physical verifiable evidence admit there is no evidence for or against the claim. And choose what you wish to believe based on logic.

By using logic, and in absence of any evidence for an extraordinary claim, would the most logical default position really ever be to believe in a given extraordinary claim? Or, instead, to reserve doubt for the claim, until demonstrated otherwise? Hmmmm?

Yes .A good example of the skewed and illogical thinking that invalidates Bible apologetics right from the start. The inversion of burden of proof and denial of the materialist default. They really think that tossing away any and all evidence or logic gives them the win. Logically it means they lose as they have not made their case and the materialist default (the world works without the need for a god) remains.They THINK it is 'God is real until 100% disproven'. That is why they are beaten before they start.

[Miles]

Refer to my post 13 snakes were meant to have limbs according to science

There is no "meant" in science. Outside the make-believe worlds of myth and religion organisms are not intended (meant) to be any certain way. Intention being the product of a thinking agency. Like all living organisms snakes, serpents if you will, are the product of evolution, and from the looks of it they appear to have evolved from lizards, legged reptiles.

.

[TRANSPONDER]

Refer to my post 13 snakes were meant to have limbs according to science

There is no "meant" in science. Outside the make-believe worlds of myth and religion organisms are not intended (meant) to be any certain way. Intention being the product of a thinking agency. Like all living organisms snakes, serpents if you will, are the product of evolution, and from the looks of it they appear to have evolved from lizards, legged reptiles.

.

Yes. While fossil snakes have vestigial legs, they could hardly have been used for walking so God cursing the serpent by supposedly taking away its' legs so it had to slither cannot have been the case - according to the fossil remains. Again, I have to wonder why it is so important that Genesis be argued to be factual by some (not all) of the believers even to the extent of controlling educational boards to push creationists teaching. It evidently doesn't bother the other faithful to shrug of genesis as 'metaphor'.

Your point about 'meant' is also important. A lot of the illogical argument done by ID is this a priori belief in an intent or planned outcome resulting in humans as the 'summit of creation'. This is why they have 'odds against' arguments like'random chance could not have produced..' Well, true, the evolutionary process was not designed to execute a pre -determined plan, but ended up where it has ended up, with is where it ended up which is even odds.

[JoeMama]

Do stories like the one in Numbers, about a donkey scolding his master, show that the Bible cannot be believed in its entirety?



"The bible is meant to be read with spiritual understanding not human wisdom ( 1 Corinthians 2:14 )

And, you are sure of this, why?

[Adonai Yahweh]

There is no "meant" in science. Outside the make-believe worlds of myth and religion organisms are not intended (meant) to be any certain way. Intention being the product of a thinking agency. Like all living organisms snakes, serpents if you will, are the product of evolution, and from the looks of it they appear to have evolved from lizards, legged reptiles.

Clearly you didn't watch the video attached to my post of the scientists saying that snakes are meant to have legs . What the original form of the snake was one that with legs . The serpent is the only reptile that originally had legs and now doesn't have legs . All of the suborder of Squamata have legs , where the rest of the suborder of the serpents has none . You will not be able to bring another example of animal that share a common ancestor where all the suborders have legs and where only one has no legs . Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor yet you don't see monkeys without legs or arms .

[TRANSPONDER]

There is no "meant" in science. Outside the make-believe worlds of myth and religion organisms are not intended (meant) to be any certain way. Intention being the product of a thinking agency. Like all living organisms snakes, serpents if you will, are the product of evolution, and from the looks of it they appear to have evolved from lizards, legged reptiles.

Clearly you didn't watch the video attached to my post of the scientists saying that snakes are meant to have legs . What the original form of the snake was one that with legs . The serpent is the only reptile that originally had legs and now doesn't have legs . All of the suborder of Squamata have legs , where the rest of the suborder of the serpents has none . You will not be able to bring another example of animal that share a common ancestor where all the suborders have legs and where only one has no legs . Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor yet you don't see monkeys without legs or arms .

Clearly you didn't see the explanations that snakes once had legs, as lizards, but by the time they were snakes with vestigial legs, they couldn;'t have used them.

It's just like the whales when they were fully sea -going but with vestigial legs turning into flippers; they were no longer any use as legs, but they did once have legs (as the skeleton shows).

Thus the vestigial legs of snakes do not and cannot validate the Eden story as a snake (serpent) even with a definite set of legs still cannot walk but only 'go on its' belly'. While it was a thought -provoker the vestigial legs of snakes do not validate the Bible, but they do validate evolution.

[Adonai Yahweh]

Yes. While fossil snakes have vestigial legs, they could hardly have been used for walking so God cursing the serpent by supposedly taking away its' legs so it had to slither cannot have been the case - according to the fossil remains. Again, I have to wonder why it is so important that Genesis be argued to be factual by some (not all) of the believers even to the extent of controlling educational boards to push creationists teaching. It evidently doesn't bother the other faithful to shrug of genesis as 'metaphor'

Your point about 'meant' is also important. A lot of the illogical argument done by ID is this a priori belief in an intent or planned outcome resulting in humans as the 'summit of creation'. This is why they have 'odds against' arguments like'random chance could not have produced..' Well, true, the evolutionary process was not designed to execute a pre -determined plan, but ended up where it has ended up, with is where it ended up which is even odds.

Watch the video of was attached my orginal post , the scientist in the video said that snakes were meant to have legs . Snakes have the capacity to have legs but have been inhibited ... like said in the video . Snakes descended from the Squamata there are the only species in the Squamata that was unable have legs yet share a common ancestor with lizards . A sense of pleasure is also gained by having a superiority complex without any information to back a statement which done by the ID because it doesn't match someones fitted conclusion on a subject matter . Provide evidence that shows what exactly is causing the inhibition of leg growth in snakes and why it only was applicable to the other suborders of the Squamata ?