Talking Snakes and Donkeys? Really?

[Nihilist Virus]

Yeah I don't get why he/she quoted just that verse only, instead of the entire passage or complete part of scripture that would actually address what he/she is saying, when that single verse has nothing to do with what he/she seems to be saying... But I checked it in it's context and I don't see where he/she is coming from...?

I specifically suggested that you read it in context. Verbatim, I said,

"Numbers 31:40. Read it in context."

Don't worry I am already done here... Your wrong on most of these things BTW, but I'm not gonna address every single issue you have with God and the Bible, sorry... Find another huckleberry... (If I'm bored and not busy and have nothing better to do later on, I might address some of thoughts, but no guarantees, K) (I've got things to do right now, but may get back to you later, maybe, K)...

God Bless!

Sounds good. We're done. No progress will be made, you've made that clear.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Do you think this verse is talking about sacrificing people to God? It isn't.

Num 31:40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of whom Jehovah's tribute was thirty and two persons.

OK let's look at it.

36 And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and thirty thousand and seven thousand and five hundred sheep: 37 and Jehovah's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.

Jehovah's tribute of the sheep was 675. What happened to the sheep?

38 And the oxen were thirty and six thousand; of which Jehovah's tribute was threescore and twelve.

Jehovah's tribute of the oxen was 72. What happened to the oxen?

39 And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which Jehovah's tribute was threescore and one.

Jehovah's tribute of the donkeys was 61. What happened to the donkeys?

40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of whom Jehovah's tribute was thirty and two persons.

Jehovah's tribute of the virgins was 32. What happened to the virgins?

41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was Jehovah's heave-offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as Jehovah commanded Moses.

So the tribute was a heave-offering.

What is a heave offering?

 

[Neogaia777]

...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

not entirely true

if we can't confine God in heaven into our science laboratory...

then we can't control all variables, and can't apply scientific method

yes?

the claim is we are in God's cosmic laboratory, and God is in ultimate control of all variables

which occasionally God manipulates in a so called miracle

-----

one prediction is that Revelation 20:9 will eventually occur

of course, that would be an extremely high standard of evidence to require...

Could you explain, then, why the idea of God merits serious consideration?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Could you explain, then, why the idea of God merits serious consideration?

Revelation 20:9

 

[Hank77]

Jehovah's tribute of the donkeys was 61. What happened to the donkeys?

Well that should tell you right there that they weren't sacrificed. Only clean animals were Ever sacrificed. You do realize that sacrificial animals were eaten right?

So the tribute was a heave-offering.

A heave offering, I quoted in my post what a heave offering was/is and posted a link to a complete description.

 

[Neogaia777]

...

 

[Neogaia777]

...

 

[Neogaia777]

...

 

[Neogaia777]

...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Revelation 20:9

I don't see how that is a serious answer.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well that should tell you right there that they weren't sacrificed. Only clean animals were Ever sacrificed.

These were virgin girls. How is that not considered clean?

You do realize that sacrificial animals were eaten right?

That is a perk, not an imperative.

A heave offering, I quoted in my post what a heave offering was/is and posted a link to a complete description.

Not that I saw. I don't go around reading what you say to other people. Also I gave a Christian reference for what a heave-offering is. It was a post directed at you, but for some reason you seem to have snipped it out of your response. Frankly you seem like yet another Christian who's just too scared to look at the facts. Yawn.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Your assuming that, but it may not be correct, and I don't think it is, but "whatever"...

Look... Is there "any small part of you" at all that "wants to believe" but maybe finds themselves unable to because of certain things or this or that (Like challenging parts of scripture maybe)... Anyway, unless there is some small part of you that actually "want's to believe" then, yeah, I think were done here...

So, Is there or isn't there...?

God Bless!

So I have to be biased toward your position for you to entertain a conversation? Man, apologists are lazy these days. I'm as objective as possible. If I become convinced that Christianity is true then I'll accept that, and I'd share the relevant information with the other atheists I know. But I will never bow before any deity.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I don't see how that is a serious answer.

when you do see it, lighting up earth's skies, it will seem quite serious indeed

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...tem-TFA.png/revision/latest?cb=20160415231856

 

[Yekcidmij]

Absurd in the extreme. But, hey the Bible says so...........

Regarding the talking donkey, I don't think the the story is supposed to be taken literally, though many people take it that way. I think it's intended by the author to be a humorous tale about the futility of going up against Yahweh and Israel. Balaam is unable to curse Israel though he keeps trying. Even a something as stubborn as a jackass realizes he's opposed by Yahweh and so should stop.

So, I dunno. Some people think it's literal, but I see it as probably being Israelite humor to make a point about the futility of opposing Yahweh and Israel. I know humor is supposed to be beyond the scope of the Hebrew Bible, but I think we're looking at an instance of it here...

 

[~Zao~]

Or it could be placed in scripture to say that even animals can be witnesses against you?

 

[xianghua]

Absurd in the extreme. But, hey the Bible says so...........

a talking parrot? realy?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Usually men "taking a woman or any women for themselves", implies that they were to marry them... Cause "take them for themselves" usually means as wives or part of their concubines, and doesn't mean "rape" (although I am not saying that didn't happen sometimes after they brought them home)...

Sure, they were taken as "wives." But think it through a little.

Imagine you're a 14 year old girl 3000 years ago. Your village is invaded and utterly destroyed. Your parents and elders are slaughtered in front of you. You and your little brother are taken hostage, and your little brother is later executed. Then you're "married" to one of the men who did this. Shortly afterwards he wants to consecrate the marriage. Explain to me how this isn't rape.

God makes it pretty clear that if you defile a woman like that, and take her virginity, you are to marry her and take care of her and see that she is provided for, protect her from other much worse men, and protect her in general, ect...

Cause virginity was very, very important for a woman back then, and when it was gone, and you got divorced or separated, or the man was not and Israelite and abandoned her (or took her virginity without marrying her or being with her) then it was very hard for her to get married or be taken care of by a man back then... And God knew that... A woman's virginity was her future security, and if she lost it and wasn't or didn't get married, made it very hard and next to impossible to have "any" future security almost... Those virgins also became a part of Israel, and got to enjoy everything Israel enjoyed as a nation also, and have a sharing with Israel...

All that does is show that God established an inadequate social system. He had people killed for worshipping an idol - something that we call a first ammendment right here in America - and meanwhile God is totally ok with women being treated like garbage.

Anyway, I'm not asking you to accept my point of view/position, just to be as "objective as possible" as you so well put it... And please don't assume things that are just not there in scripture... IOW's lets not go beyond what we can't or don't or cannot know for sure, K...? (and I will try or do my best to be or be doing the same as well, K?)...

If a Nazi killed a French girl's family and then "married" her, I'm going to call that rape. Numbers 31 depicts the exact same scenario. Uh oh, wait a second... there's that Hitler guy again... let's see how you handle the comparison this time.

Do you have or know any other passages of scripture that you might be having trouble with maybe...? We can discuss those if you like...?

Sure. Right after you prove to me you're worth the time. I just need you to either admit that the 30000 virgins were rape fodder, or else explain how I'm wrong. But telling me that the passage doesn't explicitly mention rape and saying that they were "wives" isn't going to cut it.

Oh, and... Sorry about yesterday, I was in a mood yesterday, I did not mean to attack you or your position or to come across so hard... I apologize...

God Bless!

I couldn't care less if you attack my position. That's why I'm here. I don't care if you attack me either. What's unacceptable is the fact that you are dodging questions.

 

[Steve Petersen]

you don't know that



is that a rhetorical question? If you are actually serious, then you are showing a near total ignorance of the Bible



Saint Paul was one of the most educated people on planet earth 2000 years ago

(meanwhile, our ancestors at the same time were living on dirt floors, yes?)

if we can't trust highly educated people yesterday, why should we trust educated people today?

-----

the line of reasoning I'm hearing you tell me...

is that God in heaven is not visible and so can't exist...

and that you have not seen a miracle, and so nobody else has either because they can't exist...

but you can't see dark matter or dark energy, yet you believe in them

you say we can OBSERVE THEIR INFLUENCES...
and so INFER THEIR EXISTENCE like Le Verrier inferred Neptune

but Moses and the Israelites OBSERVED supernatural phenomena...
and so INFERRED the existence of a supernatural actor
(Exodus 14:31)

why are you so complacently reassured that our "pale blue dot" is so isolated from our heavenly environment and context?

if you can see stars and galaxies, then they can see you, so to speak

Show me evidence of miracles.

Eyewitnesses? You mean the people who are PURPORTED to have written biblical books? I grew up on the Bible but I wasn't told the truth about it.

I have not said anything about the existence or non-existence of God.

Eventually, things in the physical realm are measurable. Spritual entities are not. This is pretty basic.

Atomic theory was first proposed by a Greek living 2500 years ago. For all that time, it was only a hypothesis until we developed the tools to test it.

Highly educated people even 100 years ago believed that our galaxy was the entire extent of the universe. Paul doesn't get a pass for being highly educated in his era.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Show me evidence of miracles.

Eyewitnesses? You mean the people who are PURPORTED to have written biblical books? I grew up on the Bible but I wasn't told the truth about it.

I have not said anything about the existence or non-existence of God.

Eventually, things in the physical realm are measurable. Spritual entities are not. This is pretty basic.

Atomic theory was first proposed by a Greek living 2500 years ago. For all that time, it was only a hypothesis until we developed the tools to test it.

Highly educated people even 100 years ago believed that our galaxy was the entire extent of the universe. Paul doesn't get a pass for being highly educated in his era.

even Bart Ehrman acknowledges that the bible is better attested than any other book

it's far more likely that the alleged authors of the Bible actually wrote it thank that "some fabled Homer" wrote the Iliad and Odyssey

you apply a much higher standard of evidence to the bible than any other document from that era

so you aren't being fair and balanced

what would you accept as hard evidence of the blowing back of the red sea, the damming up of the Jordan river, earthquakes freeing Peter and Paul from prison?

we both do know that you would never accept any evidence archaeologists could ever find given the entire planetary GDP as funding, yes?

you place your bar conveniently out of human reach

i think if you were honest you might admit that you have ulterior motives for disbelieving...

"if we admit supra normal influences occur on earth... THEN (say) we have to give authority to the Church and THAT would be bad"

or something like that

i infer you may be resisting on this front for advantage on another

but earth being influenced by the heavens is not impossible, and if it was true, it wouldn't even be surprising or unexpected

"if you can see the stars, they can see you" (so to speak)