Recent content by Czernobog

Now you're conflating two different things. The book of genesis is not a parable being told by anyone. it is a straight up narrative. Your argument was that things that are non-phyiscal make sounds. There is not a single example of this being true anywhere. When Jesus was "telling his...

You get that physiology isn't a thing; it's a study, right?

Sure. everyone, eventually, decomposes, and there is nothing left of them. Somehow, I don't think that applies to this God of yours.

Okay. However, that makes the bible no different than the Bhagavad Gita, the writings of Sun Tsu, or any of a thousand other self help books. And it remains useless as a source for "proving" the existence of God.

All of which is physical. All you're doing is confirming that, if he exists, the bible confirms that God is a physical being. If he is physical, then it should be possible to discover objective evidence of his existence.

Basically, they are teaching obedience to the theocratic government of the time.

Exactly. I hear nothing. Unless I'm read aloud. Which I rarely do if I am reading to myself. Interpreting words read is not the same as hearing them said. In fact, two very different parts of the brain are used to interpret visual cues (reading) and auditory cues (hearing). That's kinda...

Only if his presence was physical...

You really need to quit using fables, and fairy tales as your analogies. Because that is rather the whole point of us atheists - that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fables, and fairy tales written by men, and is no more reliable as evidence of anything than any other work of...

No. The Hebrew indicates that it was the sound of God moving. Trying to discount that part changers the entire passage. However, even ignoring that part. How does one "hear" something that is not physical?

Gee. More non -sequiturs. And she wonders why I dismissed her.

Yeah...think about that. It makes no sense. This is why the other, more accurate versions of the bible, translate the original Hebrew as sound not voice. Now, if we're going to spend all of our time arguing the proper translations, then we're going to get nowhere.

My "sticking point' is that translating the original Hebrew to "voice" makes no logical sense as it is found in that particular verse. "Sound" is the only translation of the word that works in the context.

Yeah...you've got a very interesting definition of "modern". No one has talked the way the King James is written in...about 400 years. Regardless it is, inarguably, the least accurate translation of the original text available. And what is that you think I am doing?

I would refer you to post #15. I already addressed the inaccurate translation of the King James.