God of the Bible as Flawed Human

But no assumptions were presented, rather what was presented was the result of the evidence, a conclusion. The only assumption that should ever be made going in is that you will learn from the evidence and the evidence will determine the conclusions. Those who make some assumption about what will be learned have turned off learning before they have even begun.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

you really think education is based on assumptions?the only assumption i have is that the people who wrote the bible meant what they wrote. and even then, i'm quite willing to turn over that assumption in light of better evidence. for instance, if someone can demonstrate, with good reason, that revelation is meant as metaphor, or meant as a coded a message, then i would be quite happy saying that the author did not mean what he wrote. purpledawn makes a very good case for matthew being satire -- possibly another instance.just because creationists/fundamentalists are absolutely incapable of seeing past their own assumptions doesn't mean that others can not either. us science-minded folk are often quite happy to overturn our assumptions. and the math minded folk among us are probably very familiar with starting their argument with an assumption they do not agree with, and then logically prove it to be an absurdity. it's actually a common method of proof. i arrived at my conclusion by looking at the source critically, for what it was, (something you no doubt see as an assumption, but is actually based on analyzing the text), and by logically demonstrating how such phrases were used. in fact, you were part of my demonstration. did you fail to notice that?(study shows me that) the book of proverbs is a book containing proverbs, and that proverbs are common sayings in a culture. usage of these sayings has been demonstrated, in that one replies to the other. they need not agree, just as when one records both sides of an argument, the two opponents need not agree.i know this seems like "magic" to you. in that particular post i was ignoring you, so no. again, because we can read. it really is that simple. one verse points out con of one side, one verse points out the con of the other. there is a point in favor of each.i really, really, can't be bothered to try to teach you to read anymore. it's annoying, and pointless. again, i can't be bothered to teach you to read.

---

We should remember that the book is called the book of Proverbs It might help to focus the direction of any analysis, ie: it is not unreasonable to suppose that an analysis of a proverb might reveal the wisdom contained within.

actually, my education was developed contrary to my assumptions otherwise. i began reading the bible is a certain picture of how he would be portrayed therein, and my assumptions proved invalid.

---

you need to quit it with the dictionary. you evidently don't know how to use one. try to get a little more context. you seem to like to take a certain limited kind of definition, one that can be read a few different ways, and try to fit things together.do you not know what a proverb is?

quote:

---

A proverb (from the Latin proverbium) is a saying popularly known and repeated, usually expressing simply and concretely, though often metaphorically, a truth based on common sense or the practical experience of mankind. Ex: 'A stitch in time saves nine.' A proverb which describes a basic rule of conduct may also be known as a maxim. If a proverb is distinguished by particularly good style, it may be known as an aphorism.

​

Proverb - Wikipedia

---

wikipedia has a few examples, which i promise you have heard before:

quote:

---

“A proverb is a short, generally known sentence of the folk which contains wisdom, truth, morals, and traditional views in a metaphorical, fixed and memorizable form and which is handed down from generation to generation.” (Mieder 1985:119; also in Mieder 1993:24)

​

Subgenres include proverbial expressions (“to bite the dust”), proverbial comparisons (“as busy as a bee”), proverbial interrogatives (“Does a chicken have lips?”) and twin formulas (“give and take”).

---

quote:

---

Typical stylistic features of proverbs (as Shirley Arora points out in The Perception of Proverbiality (1984)) are:

​

- alliteration (Forgive and forget)
- parallelism (Nothing ventured, nothing gained)
- rhyme (When the cat is away, the mice will play)
- ellipsis (Once bitten, twice shy)

​

Internal features that can be found quite frequently include :

​

- hyperbole (All is fair in love and war)
- paradox (The longest way around is the shortest way home)
- personification (Hunger is the best cook)

---

you've heard them before because that's what a proverb is they are the common sayings of a culture. they do not have any real source, because they are what we could call "public domain."Edited by arachnophilia, : title, typo

---

You'd be amazed at how often engineers turn their assumptions over too. But I doubt you science-minded folk turn them over unless you have good reason to. Assumptions serve well unless they are shown to be incorrect ones. So far so stalemate. Why is whenever I hear that I instantly know its not? Oh yeah, now I remember I think I've got you. Is it that your analysis leaves you with two pieces of wisdom - not so much contradicting but each applicable in its own time and place. You might not discuss with this fool today and you might discuss with that fool tomorrow. But the wisdom doesn't offer you anything on how you should discern which fool to talk to and which not to. It simply gives you the pros and cons of answering fools?

Pr 26:4 prevents me from answering according to your error (arrogance and conceit if you must know )

and, examination of the evidence shows your assumptions to be incorrect. in fact, the ad-hoc and semantic nature of your arguments, to anyone reading, strongly indicate that your assumptions are incorrect.but, your assumptions are stronger than evidence. so you will never see this. because you overcomplicate things, to divert attention away from the glaringly obvious. every thought about being a magician, iano? or at least, playing three card monty on the subway? you'd make good money at it. quick, ain't ya?but also that they contradict each other, because one is meant to contradict the other. exactly how we used them in conversation.i find it amazing that you demonstrated my point, while failing to realize you had done so. you used the text in the obvious way, instinctively. that leads me to believe that you're trying to complicate things. you know how the verses are used, because you used them that way. you just don't want to admit it. feel free to tell me how to tell the difference, and whether "the word of god" is in favor answering or not answering fools, and/or which fools to answer.the coin has two sides -- and i'd like to see you make heads or tails of it.

---

proverbs 26:5 commands that you do, otherwise i'm just fooling myself.

---

Well you didn't really say anything in your post about proverbs that the dictionary didn't cover in essence. You gave some examples and categories. Interesting - but not exactly rocket science. Like, who hasn't heard of a "stitch in time where fools dare to thread"

yet, you seem to still be misunderstanding what a book of proverbs is.

Heads: arachnophilia's position
_________________________________________________________________________

quote:

---

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

---

The summation is accepted by Arach with the following modification .
.
.
.Tails: ianos position
_________________________________________________________________________

quote:

---

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

---

The wisdom of God contained within tells us that when faced with this: ...we should NOT respond to such foolishness by flinging back a series of insults. Otherwise we will end up just as foolish. Instead we should....

quote:

---

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

---

And the best answer I can give? We have arrived at a statement of both our positions as best as I think we can reasonably make them. It is not a matter for me to make head or tail of it. Each can decide for themselves. My take:God firstly warning against the pitfalls when it comes to answering fools (Pr 26:4) then with this warning in mind (EvC shows us it is necessary) instructing us to go ahead and answer fools "so that they may not wise in their own conceit" (Pr 26:5). It is not contained within the Proverb but from elsewhere I gather he means us to answer fools for their own good. Flinging insults back is not the way to go about it.Additional info:Pr 26:5 is reasonably self-explanatory in the light of this argument for the meaning of Pr 26:4. The two proverbs harmonize with each other then as argued above. No contradictionhttp://EvC Forum: God of the Bible as Flawed Human -->EvC Forum: God of the Bible as Flawed Human.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(PS Arach: I'm using your post as illustrative to make the point. That is my take on the verses. Doesn't mean I follow its advice always. Later dude.) Edited by iano, : No reason given.

this does not answer the question. should we answer fools according to their folly, or not? that's not what it says. it's not a "warning." it says "do not," a point you left out. it does not say "if you answer a fool, you will be seen as foolish." it says "DO NOT answer a fool."also, if i'm to understand you, you just made tails, because "heads isn't really heads." wonderful display of fundamentalist dishonest there, if people can weed through all of misdirection.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

It not whether we should or we shouldn't. It is that we should (Pr 26:5) but obviously not in the fashion advised against in Pr 26:4 (ie: we must not let our answer to a fool contain (accord with) the same foolishness as the fool we are answering. For obvious (stated in the proverb) reasons.I've added the link to my argument as to the meaning of Pr 26:4 to my final statement aboveNight.Edited by iano, : change prohibit to advised against

both proverbs say "according to his folly."did you miss that?

---