Most improbable Bible story?

[Difflugia]

In the Samson thread, it's noted that the story includes a number of improbable elements: he killed a lion with his bare hands, single-handedly killed thirty men of Ashkelon, found three hundred foxes and tied them together, and killed a thousand men with a donkey bone. Since each of these must be true individually for the story to be true as a whole (at least in a literalist sense), the probability of the whole story being true is the individual probabilities multiplied together.

Taken in a literal way, which Bible story requires the most outrageous set of contingent probabilities? Is Samson the worst?

[Difflugia]

Without is just presupposing the truth of naturalism, I dont see anything improbable in the Samson account.

There's so much wrong with this. The "presupposition" of naturalism is based on the probabilities rather than the other way around. "Naturalism" is the observation that something that happens infrequently or never, will continue to happen infrequently or never.

Even if we disregard "naturalism," the probability is the number of people to whom those things have happened, divided by the total number of people. Estimates are sometimes pretty rough, back-of-the-envelope affairs, but a reasonable one is somewhere between zero and a number that rounds to zero out to the ninth or tenth decimal place.

Indeed if there is an omnipotent God and it was His will they remain unharmed, its most improbable a lion could ever overpower one of Gods approved servants.

Is the corollary also true? If approved servants of gods can't defeat lions in unarmed combat, then there are no omnipotent gods?

[Difflugia]

Multiplication of probabilities applies only when each item is independent. In your example that's not necessarily so.

I suppose you're right. If someone had the super strength to defeat thirty men or a lion in combat, then that would have at least some influence on the probability of defeating a thousand men with a bone.

[1213]

In the Samson thread, it's noted that the story includes a number of improbable elements: he killed a lion with his bare hands, single-handedly killed thirty men of Ashkelon, found three hundred foxes and tied them together, and killed a thousand men with a donkey bone. Since each of these must be true individually for the story to be true as a whole (at least in a literalist sense), the probability of the whole story being true is the individual probabilities multiplied together....

Please explain how do you calculate the probabilities? Are they based on how many foxes you have captured, or is there some other method?

[SallyF]

It doesn't get any more improbable than this.


"God" in this human fabrication refers to the ancient Canaanite Elohim gods. Jews were Canaanites.

But Christians tend to think that the "God" of Genesis 1:1 means the Charlie Russell look-alike, the Genocidal Jehovah, of Genesis 2 …



But the Heaven and the Earth had already been created by numerous gods from numerous cultures, thousands of years before anyone imagined the imaginary Elohim or the imaginary Jehovah …

Neither of which are "God" with a capital G.


"In the beginning, the biblical versions of "God" created the Heaven and the Earth" is not only improbable, it's impossible.

The biblical versions of "God" …

Just like all other versions of "God" …

Are just human make-believe.


The smallest whiff of evidence that any god existed outside the human imagination/personal experience would disprove this assertion.

[Difflugia]

Please explain how do you calculate the probabilities? Are they based on how many foxes you have captured, or is there some other method?

In the thread, it was noted that population densities of foxes are such that 300 foxes would be roughly the population of a ten-mile by ten-mile area. I think the probability's pretty low. Do you disagree?

If you think the Samson story isn't the most improbable one in the Bible, which one do you think is more improbable?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 15 by Difflugia]

In the thread, it was noted that population densities of foxes are such that 300 foxes would be roughly the population of a ten-mile by ten-mile area.

It's also one thing to have 300 foxes available, it's another thing to actually catch them all. I guess we might have to call on some more miracles to prop up the story. God may have sent a plague of foxes to the region. The Bible doesn't say he did, but that doesn't mean he didn't. That's all a part of biblical reportage. Any number quoted in the bible also means 'equal to or more than'. If Jesus met a man, it really means Jesus met one or more men, whatever is necessary to avoid any contradictions. Who knows, Samson may have actually caught 1000 foxes, but only 300 were necessary for the story.

[Elijah John]

Matthew 27:51-53 New International Version (NIV)

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many

Still not sure if the Evangelist called Matthew expected us to believe this tale literally, or if this is another example of why many portions of the Bible should not be taken literally.

[Elijah John]

.


"In the beginning, the biblical versions of "God" created the Heaven and the Earth" is not only improbable, it's impossible.

The biblical versions of "God" …

Just like all other versions of "God" …

Are just human make-believe.


The smallest whiff of evidence that any god existed outside the human imagination/personal experience would disprove this assertion.

Shifting the burden of proof. Most Theists here are not saying "God exists" rather we are saying "we believe that God exists" or making the case that He exists. You, by contrast, are asserting an absolute that God does not exist. Quite an assertion that God is "just human make-believe". Prove it. You make the absolute assertion without supporting evidence. Yes, we cannot prove that Creator God exists. Most of us do not try.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 17 by Elijah John]

I would say it should be taken as literal, and false. There's times when a non-literal interpretation of a passage as an allegory or fable (eg. the story of the fall, the story of Job) make a lot of sense and may well have been intended by the authors, and times when an allegorical meaning seems obviously viable even though the authors may have wanted them read literally (eg. the Moses/Jesus parallel in Matthew's nativity story, the story of Jacob mating Laban's flocks). And then there are times when the obvious theme/message of a story is clearly based on falsehoods or invented/manipulated facts (eg. Solomon's glorious kingdom, Luke's nativity story) and a search for some non-literal 'deeper meaning' is simply a contrived attempt to avoid acknowledging the authors' dishonesty or ignorant error.

I agree with TCG that the flood story is the most improbable one in the bible, it's in a "once upon a time" setting and just so obviously absurd even internally that it may well have been viewed as a fable even by its own authors and original recipients.

The story of Samson, for all its faults, we can't actually show did not miraculously occur. In terms of apparently-literal stories whose improbability can be demonstrated externally (as well as often internally) my shortlist would include
> The plagues and millions wandering in the desert of the exodus, for which we'd expect to find historical and archaeological evidence
> The sun 'standing still' for Joshua, for which we'd expect to find geological evidence (though I suppose as a purely visual phenomenon, it could have been an illusion rather than an actual halt to the earth's rotation)
> Solomon's glorious kingdom, including his sacrifices as Difflugia noted
> The darkness at Jesus' death (possibly the only event found in multiple gospels for which we'd really expect to have outside reports; perhaps conflated with the November solar eclipse of 29 CE)
> Matthew's mass resurrection, multiple earthquakes and slaughter of the innocents

[Purple Knight]

Is the corollary also true? If approved servants of gods can't defeat lions in unarmed combat, then there are no omnipotent gods?

This would be difficult to use even if admitted to be true, because they could always say, well, I guess we just found out that guy didn't love God as much as we thought.

But I can spin a decent parable myself. It's based on what I think Daniel actually did in order not to get eaten by those lions.

One day, Difflugia said to the Christians, "If your faith be true, then lions shall not eat you, therefore prove your faith by throwing yourselves to lions."
"Yes," the Christians said, "let us prove our faith."
One by one, one per day, Difflugia threw Christians to the lions, and they were all eaten up, and on the hundred-and-first day, the last was eaten, and none remained.
On the hundred-and-second day, Purple Knight said to Difflugia, "To do a proper experiment, you need a proper control group. You must now throw atheists to the lions."
"Ah, that is indeed true!" said Difflugia, and threw Purple Knight to the lions.
The lions swarmed around Purple Knight, but they did not eat him. Purple Knight rubbed their cheeks, pet their heads, and rubbed their bellies until they lied down near him.
Just as Purple Knight was about to go to sleep among the lions, God appeared in a flash of light.
"What have you done in order not to be eaten?" God demanded.
"I fed them every day for a hundred and one days." Purple Knight admitted. "I gave them what food I could. I rubbed their heads and pet their cheeks, and I made them my friends. I used the logic I now suppose you instilled in me, and I used the eyes and the brain I now suppose you gave me, and I looked at what I now suppose you created, and I saw it for what it was."

[youtube][/youtube]

"Why did you do that and not the others?" God asked.
"Each of us looked to what we could see to save us." Purple Knight replied, "I can see everything you created, while they can only see you. They are Christians, and I am an atheist."
God was very angry at this and struck Purple Knight dead with a lightning bolt.