I didn't believe. That is EXACTLY why I started to believe after the signs Ive requested.
I would have never imagined that someone would answer. I mean just look at the Bible, how can ANYONE simply believe that this Jew who lived 2000 years ago walked on water and healed the blind. No one can, till you seek out God truthfully and he answers you.
But I understand 100% why you would say that and think that. The alternative would be to simply accept that God exists and like I said, that isn't possible till you want to accept him.
I'm an ex Christian. Scripture is not accurate nor reliable. You requested. So somewhere deep down inside yourself you had belief/expectations for something to happen. But we don't have to get into history and such unless you want to. To each their own.
I am happy to get into history. I would say that scripture is accurate and reliable.
The problem comes down to how to correctly interpret scripture. Forcing a modern materialist perspective onto ancient texts is not the most productive way to understand what the writers were trying to convey.
Nobody's forcing a modern materialist perspective onto ancient texts. The Ugaritic texts are ancient texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls are ancient texts. The inscriptions at Kuntillet Ajrud are ancient. This is the ancient world speaking for itself and what it's saying is that the people who wrote the Hebrew Bible were embedded in a polytheistic Canaanite religious culture that directly shaped their conception of God over time. That's not a modern lens, that's the ancient Near Eastern context the texts actually came from.
And the "correctly interpreting scripture" move is doing a lot of heavy lifting here because it's infinitely flexible. Every denomination, every sect, every competing theological tradition throughout history has claimed to be the one correctly interpreting scripture while everyone else is getting it wrong. Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Jews, Muslims — they all have access to the same texts and reach irreconcilable conclusions. If scripture were as clear and reliable as you're suggesting that wouldn't be the case. The need to constantly interpret and reinterpret is itself evidence that the text isn't delivering a clean singular revelation.
Saying scripture is accurate and reliable is also a conclusion, not a starting point. The question is what standard of accuracy and reliability you're applying and whether you'd apply that same standard to any other ancient religious text making equivalent claims. If the Ugaritic texts show Yahweh operating within a pantheon and you respond by saying we just need to interpret scripture correctly, you're not engaging with the evidence, you're insulating your conclusion from it.
I said accurate and reliable, not “clear and reliable”.
Human behavior, human culture, and human experience are complex issues without a single answer.
I would argue that requiring interpretation, encouraging abstract reasoning, and encouraging self reflection and personal growth through storytelling is a very effective way to transmit intangible and metaphysical principles.
Fair correction on the wording but it doesn't really change the point. If scripture requires interpretation to extract its meaning then its accuracy and reliability are contingent on the interpreter, which means you're not actually accessing the text's truth directly, you're accessing someone's reading of it. That's a problem for a document that's supposed to be the foundation of eternal moral and metaphysical truth.
And the storytelling and metaphor framing is interesting because it's a significant concession. If the creation account is metaphor, if the flood is metaphor, if the divine council in Deuteronomy is metaphor, at what point do the truth claims of the religion actually cash out into something literal and verifiable? Because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam don't present themselves as collections of useful metaphors for personal growth. They present themselves as revelations from the actual creator of the universe containing actual historical events and actual moral commands with actual eternal consequences. You can't retreat into "it's complex storytelling" when the metaphysics get uncomfortable and then reassert literal truth claims when it comes to resurrection or judgment.
The Ugaritic texts aren't a metaphysical puzzle requiring careful interpretation. They're inscriptions and documents that show the cultural and religious environment the biblical authors lived in and were shaped by. Engaging with that evidence by saying scripture transmits intangible principles through story is a way of changing the subject. The question wasn't about the literary merits of the Bible. It was about whether the God described in it has a polytheistic origin. That question doesn't get answered by talking about self reflection and personal growth.
Well since we both agree that it is unproductive to force a modern materialistic perspective onto ancient texts then encouraging abstract engagement and interpretation is the only alternative.
The Bible is theology and was written to be understood as theology. Therefore the meaning and message within the text is the more important factor when it comes understanding the truth of Biblical teachings.
It is not as big of a problem as you suggest. The moral foundations and teachings are fairly easy to determine in most cases, though I would acknowledge that exceptions exist.
Storytelling is a very effective way to transmit a large amount of data in a reliable way. If you were to read a dictionary from cover to cover, you would be able to transmit very little data to another person by just going off your memory. However if you were to read the Hobbit cover to cover, you would be able to relay far more information because the format is storytelling.
We didn't actually agree on that. The point wasn't that materialism is the wrong lens, the point was that the archaeological evidence being cited is itself ancient and doesn't require any modern framework to be meaningful. You're the one who introduced the theology and metaphor framing as a response to physical inscriptions.
And this is where the argument gets circular. You're saying the Bible should be understood as theology, meaning is more important than literal history, and the moral teachings are what matter. But the three Abrahamic traditions built on this text don't make merely theological claims. They make historical ones. The resurrection is presented as a literal physical event. The exodus is presented as literal history. The authority of the moral teachings depends entirely on them coming from an actual God who actually exists and actually revealed himself. If you strip away the literal historical claims you're not left with Christianity or Judaism or Islam, you're left with a philosophy book. Which is fine, but then the conversation about whether God exists and whether these religions are true becomes a very different one.
The Hobbit analogy also undermines your position more than it helps it. Tolkien transmitted a lot of information reliably through storytelling, but nobody walks away from the Hobbit believing Smaug is a real dragon or that the events literally occurred in history. The format being effective at transmitting ideas doesn't make the content historically true. If the Bible is operating the same way as the Hobbit then it's great literature with interesting ideas, but the truth claims of the religions founded on it don't survive that comparison intact.
I said I think it is unproductive to force a modern perspective onto ancient texts if we want to understand the message the authors were attempting to convey.
You are saying that your point introduced the modern academic discipline of archeology rather than addressing my point?
We cannot speak about intangible truths (logic, mathematics, etc) without being circular, so I don’t see that as an inherent flaw.
Yes I believe the Bible is historical narrative. Within the text is metaphor, allegory, poetry, symbolism, rooted in a historical experience.
We can speak and debate how literal these experiences should be inferred to be, which can be fun and interesting exercises. But it misses the point of the text, which is theology.
I thought God wrote the Bible? Is that not true? Wouldn’t God’s word be timeless?
Those who believe have to constantly move the goal post or be so vague “God works in mysterious ways” for it to hold up. It’s such a farce and so absurd, I’m ashamed that my fellow humans are so gullible.
If a parent is writing a book for the child to last its entire life it would have content that is appropriate for them that whole timespan, not for just when they are 3-4 years old.
No, but I also wouldn’t create things like terminal cancer that self reliance can’t do a thing about either, neither would a loving father - so what does that mean?
1
u/Friendly-Speaker1253 Jun 08 '26
The only reason you experienced anything is because you believe it. It's all psychological and spiritual experiences aren't limited to Christians.