Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[Rahul]

But Rahul, since you are persistent I do want to help you. First I want you to clarify for me what your worldview is. Are you a naturalist? What I mean is this: does your view of reality allow for the existence of the transcendant or do you rule that out a priori?

I'm an agnostic or weak atheist. So I'm open to the possibility. I just haven't found any conclusive proof for it yet. I do believe that there are a lot of things going on that science can't seem to explain. But the truth of what that is, is beyond my ability to say.

[pocaracas]

What would qualify as evidence?
I've written that somewhere around here, but I'll present a slightly altered version for the sakes of this thread.
Take the book that Christians follow. At first, it is the god of Abraham... why? Because this god had a real chat with Abraham.
If only the guy could do the same with every human being...
You see, when something like that happens to just one person, it's very likely that that person either hallucinated, or dreamt it, or made it up... when it happens to everyone, it's a whole different story.
It amazes me that believers fail to require the same treatment that the originator of the religion allegedly got.

[catman]

Amazingly China was populated within a few thousand years.

How is this pertinent?

Because it is impossible and flies in the face of all scientific and archaeological evidence.

The account in Genesis is that the nations of the world were populated by the descendants of Noah's sons. How is this not an account of a growing world population?

It is just another creation myth amongst many found in different regions throughout the world. Like other regional myths it is always a local who is the father of everyone on the planet.

The "fathers" of the nations were the three sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. They knew God because they were delivered alive through the flood by God's providence and were eyewitnesses of the works of God. Their father, Noah, was referred to as a "righteous" man, and "blameless" in the sight of God, and as one who walked with God. It is not unreasonable to say that his sons knew God therefore. These were as I stated earlier, the "fathers" of the nations.

So your only evidence is because "the Bible says so". Of course as already mentioned numerous times the Bible does not say anything about what nations these men founded and how they progressed.

You are mistaken. For the account I have given you is the account of the very first people to populate the earth after the flood. We are speaking of a time that predates any of the world's religions and or mythologies. At this time the only people that existed on the face of the earth were those who were delivered alive through the flood by God.

According to the Bible. Not according to science, archaeology, nor any of the other mythologies/religions on the face of the Earth.

God revealed Himself to Moses as YHWH. This does not mean that there were two gods, but rather One God who revealed Himself as God Almighty from the time of Adam and Eve up until the time of Moses. The same God that created Adam and Eve was the same God who revealed Himself to Moses on Mt. Sinai. For does not the Shema which encapsulates the monotheistic essence of Judaism read?: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one"

Once again this is all according to the Bible.

The reason the Aztecs or the Chinese never heard of YHWH is because God never revealed Himself to those people by that name, but rather, He revealed Himself to them as God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth.

How do you know that? Seriously, what evidence do you have that the Iron Age God of the Jewish people revealed himself to the Chinese or Aztecs?

[discipulus]

It is just another creation myth amongst many found in different regions throughout the world. Like other regional myths it is always a local who is the father of everyone on the planet.

So your only evidence is because "the Bible says so". Of course as already mentioned numerous times the Bible does not say anything about what nations these men founded and how they progressed.

According to the Bible. Not according to science, archaeology, nor any of the other mythologies/religions on the face of the Earth.

Once again this is all according to the Bible.

Good morning catman. I hope all is well with you and yours this day.

I have quoted you here and I now am clear on what the underlying issue is with regards to your post.

The real issue here is simply this:

Is the Bible what it claims to be?

There are only two possibilities. It either is or it is not.

I am under the impression that your view is that it is not. One reason why you think it is not is because the Biblical narrative focuses on the Isrealites and does not mention in detail the other major people groups of the world.

I also believe that you have other reasons for believing that the Bible is not the inspired word of God, but since this thread specifically is dealing with the aforementioned subject, what I will do is formulate your argument into a syllogism so that we can all better understand it:

1. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, then it would not focus on only one specific region of the entire planet.

2. The Bible focuses on only one specific region of the entire planet.

3. Therefore, the Bible is no the inspired word of God.

Looking at your argument this way, it is clear that in order for the argument to be a good argument, the first two premises must be more plausibly true than their denials.

But what arguments, what supporting evidence have you given to show that premise one is even true? You have an enormously huge burden to bear in showing that to be more plausibly true than its denial. What argument do you have that can demonstrate that in order for the Bible to be the Word of God it MUST focus on the entire planet? It seems to me in order for you to answer this you would have to reason that it is inconsistent with the nature of God to not mention other nations or other people groups. But how is this inconsistent with God's nature? Not only that but this assumes that He ignores everyone else except the Israelites, and we know this simply is not true if one has actually read the entire bible.

So I think in proving your point you have a long way to go my friend.

---

But Rahul, since you are persistent I do want to help you. First I want you to clarify for me what your worldview is. Are you a naturalist? What I mean is this: does your view of reality allow for the existence of the transcendant or do you rule that out a priori?

I'm an agnostic or weak atheist. So I'm open to the possibility. I just haven't found any conclusive proof for it yet. I do believe that there are a lot of things going on that science can't seem to explain. But the truth of what that is, is beyond my ability to say.

You ask for concrete, conclusive, tangible, empirical proof of a transcendant being.

In asking this, you are making what is termed a "category mistake". God by definition is the greatest conceivable being and thus would be transcendant over and above the material physical universe.

To begin with, empiricism or scientism, which is simply a proposition which states that a proposition is true only if it can be scientifically proven is self-refuting, for the proposition itself cannot be scientifically proven.

Secondly, in asking for evidence, you should ask for evidence that would be consistent with a transcendant God. The scientific method is a system of learning that consists of observation, hypotheses, experimentation, prediction, and theory. Thus it is based upon observations made WITHIN the material world.

Thirdly, a materialistic, naturalistic worldview necessarily EXCLUDES the transcendant from the very outset. Therefore, the scientific method cannot even be used to detect or prove what is outside of the material realm!

So to ask for scientifically testable, material, concrete, "real", non-transcendant evidence for an immaterial, transcendant God is the wrong approach because it is a category mistake.

Essentially you ask me to give you something that your own worldview does not even allow to exist!

You ask for material evidence of the immaterial. You ask for concrete evidence for that which is not concrete. You ask for non-transcendant evidence for that which is transcendant. It is kind of like asking me to tell you how much my thoughts weigh! My thoughts do not weigh anything! They have no weight!

So while you are more than justified in asking for evidence for God's existence ( I demand it too ), you are not justified in asking for empirical evidence.

What you should ask for is evidence that would be consistent with a transcendant being.

[Esquilax]

But what arguments, what supporting evidence have you given to show that premise one is even true? You have an enormously huge burden to bear in showing that to be more plausibly true than its denial. What argument do you have that can demonstrate that in order for the Bible to be the Word of God it MUST focus on the entire planet? It seems to me in order for you to answer this you would have to reason that it is inconsistent with the nature of God to not mention other nations or other people groups. But how is this inconsistent with God's nature? Not only that but this assumes that He ignores everyone else except the Israelites, and we know this simply is not true if one has actually read the entire bible.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse there.

Actually, I think your weird tunnel vision on the argument this specific thread is broaching against the bible is preventing you from seeing the myriad other reasons one should not believe the bible is the word of god- of which this specific one is a bolster, not definitive. But cart/horse tomfoolery is also present; arguing about the specific traits of a god that you haven't even demonstrated to exist is a tad premature.

In answer to your actual question, does the fact that god chose to reveal himself in such detail to only one group of people seem consistent with the character of a god who supposedly loves and wants a personal relationship with all mankind? Especially when we factor in the fact that it is entirely within this god's power to cultivate his message in a much more effective way, that he had to know existed?

There's your evidence: the method by which your god is claimed to have gone about his stated objective is ineffective and borderline nonsensical. It's much more reasonable to conclude that these claims were written by humans, without divine intervention, and that all these inconsistencies are down to their own limited knowledge, and not handwavey bullshit about mysterious ways.

[Rahul]

What you should ask for is evidence that would be consistent with a transcendant being.

Which would be? And this evidence points to Yahweh existing instead of it being Allah, Thor, Zeus, etc?

Even if we could point to some type of evidence, any kind of evidence, implying the existence of a prime mover, it still doesn't do anything for any of man's religions. So we still couldn't act on that evidence by adopting any kind of scripture.

[Ryantology]

You ask for concrete, conclusive, tangible, empirical proof of a transcendant being.

In asking this, you are making what is termed a "category mistake".

Yes indeed, as empirical proof generally isn't something left behind by fictional characters.

Of course, we all understand that. We just like asking because we love making you assholes twist your dicks in knots trying to pretend that your beliefs are something anybody over the age of three should take seriously.

[Minimalist]

Yes, indeed.

So I see you desire for me to present you with evidence for the existence of God.

I am humbled that you would ask me, as well as delighted.

Tell me, why do you ask this?

Because I've been running into theists of all sorts in the years I've been here and all of them fervently want me to take their word for the fact that their particular variant of god exists without a shred of actual evidence to sustain the fact.

You seem pretty much par for the course, I'm afraid.

[discipulus]

Actually, I think your weird tunnel vision on the argument this specific thread is broaching against the bible is preventing you from seeing the myriad other reasons one should not believe the bible is the word of god- of which this specific one is a bolster, not definitive. But cart/horse tomfoolery is also present; arguing about the specific traits of a god that you haven't even demonstrated to exist is a tad premature.

My responses were directed to catman, who started this thread with a specific question. catman did not ask in his thread opener about evidence for the existence of God.

In answer to your actual question, does the fact that god chose to reveal himself in such detail to only one group of people seem consistent with the character of a god who supposedly loves and wants a personal relationship with all mankind?

Your point assumes that God specifically revealed Himself only to the Israelites and never to anyone else.

The Bible never states this and even if it did, you fail to take into account that God has never ceased revealing Himself to them that seek Him.

That is why according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, in 2010 there were 2.18 billion Christians around the world, nearly a third of the global population.

So much for Him only revealing Himself to one group of people!

Especially when we factor in the fact that it is entirely within this god's power to cultivate his message in a much more effective way, that he had to know existed?

The scriptures state that everyone that has ever existed has had knowledge of God through what has been made so that they are without excuse. Just because you are of the opinion that God could have cultivated His message more effectively in no way leads us to the conclusion that God does not exist. This is simply a non-sequitur.

Now if you have some type of argument you want to present then I am willing to interact with it. Merely stating your opinion in no way counts as a sound argument.

There's your evidence: the method by which your god is claimed to have gone about his stated objective is ineffective and borderline nonsensical. It's much more reasonable to conclude that these claims were written by humans, without divine intervention, and that all these inconsistencies are down to their own limited knowledge, and not handwavey bullshit about mysterious ways.

Once again, this is your opinion. If you have some type of argument you would like to present then I am willing to interact with it.

[Rahul]

That is why according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, in 2010 there were 2.18 billion Christians around the world, nearly a third of the global population.

Well I'm sure I'm still on the books as being one of those. I didn't contact the Southern Baptist committee to take me off their roster.