. Your asking for something that is logically impossible, and have therefore reduced your argument to the nonsense argument of "can God make a rock so big that he can't move it".

Hmmmmm......am I the only one seeing a logical problem with this argument?

Logically impossible...logical problem?

Two words: Talking snake.

The purpose of the Bible isn't to offer medical advice or advance medical knowledge of human DNA. The purpose of the bible is to declare that God exists and how we may know him.

The problem with your argument, Josh, is that the Bible doesn't simply stop at declaring that God exists. It does give medical advice, as well as many other factual claims relating to different areas of human life. And the problem is that many of the factual claims which the Bible makes are demonstrably wrong - and not just wrong, but unmistakably derived from superstitions common in the societies in which it was written.

In short, not only does the Bible lack any content which would give us reason to believe it was written by someone who knew more than the human beings of the time, but its similarity to common, erroneous beliefs of the past give us a positive reason to believe it was written by those ignorant human beings. If you think it's unfair to criticize the Bible for making erroneous claims, your quarrel is not with us, but with the authors of the Bible for putting those claims in it in the first place.

Josh Gelatt, your fellow Xian apologists often brag about all the fulfilled prophecies the Bible contains, and sometimes about its supposedly-great scientific knowledge. But now you are turning around and saying that the Bible has been dumbed down for its audience. Seems to me a case of heads I win, tails you lose.

The mere fact that it is written in a time and culture based language means it must be a product of its time.

Why do you assume that a timeless, omni-max being can't create a book that will magically adapt to the time and language of the viewer? It is NOT logically impossible for an omni-max god to do something along these lines.

You are, in fact, saying that God (who by definition is where logic is derived from)...

I wonder, can we co-opt Euthyphro's dilemma for logic? Is it logical because god says it is, or is there some absolute logic that god just tells us about? Either way, I have a problem with saying that an illogical idea such as god is by definition where logic is derived from.

As to the charge, "why didn't God tell man about science?". I have my own question, why does he have to?

Because he has a moral obligation to do so. Science and medicine have saved lives. Telling us to put oil on ourselves to "heal" ourselves obviously doesn't work, and cost some people their lives due to their ignorance of medicine. If god had that knowledge and withheld it from us on purpose, then he is guilty of homicide, which even you should agree is immoral.

So, by your definition the only way it can be God's Word is if it hands us, all at once, the full and final book of medical knowledge, the final stage of scientific research, and the sum total of all that can be known on any subject.

That is absolutely correct. What's the problem with that?

As to the charge, "why didn't God tell man about science?". I have my own question, why does he have to? What requires God to have HAD to given medical advice acceptable by today's standards? He did, in fact, give medical advice that was acceptable to the standards of thousands upon thousands of years of human history. So he did give good medical advice that was applicable and helpful to the overwhelming majority of human history. But, he didn't even have to do that. The purpose of the Bible isn't to offer medical advice or advance medical knowledge of human DNA. The purpose of the bible is to declare that God exists and how we may know him.

Then why did god go into such detail in the old testament to explain how the priest was to cure leprosy? Is that not medical advice? What about the intricate details of food preparation; clean, unclean animals; social interaction, including how to take care of your slaves; etc...?
Let's look at god's knowledge: OT: cure for leprosy, animal sacrifice. NT: cure for everything else, annointing with oil.
What do you think?

OK, what would a "timeless" document look like? Have you ever seen one? Even our US Constitution isn't considered timeless and--just 200 years later--has to be reinterpreted to fit our contemporary context. The mere fact that it is written in a time and culture based language means it must be a product of its time. Your asking for something that is logically impossible, and have therefore reduced your argument to the nonsense argument of "can God make a rock so big that he can't move it". I find it interesting that no philosopher uses the argument against scripture that you are using. Why? Because it doesn't make logical sense. You are, in fact, saying that God (who by definition is where logic is derived from) must do something illogical (produce a timeless document that somehow 'transcends' language & culture for all time) before you will believe it.

As to the charge, "why didn't God tell man about science?". I have my own question, why does he have to? What requires God to have HAD to given medical advice acceptable by today's standards? He did, in fact, give medical advice that was acceptable to the standards of thousands upon thousands of years of human history. So he did give good medical advice that was applicable and helpful to the overwhelming majority of human history. But, he didn't even have to do that. The purpose of the Bible isn't to offer medical advice or advance medical knowledge of human DNA. The purpose of the bible is to declare that God exists and how we may know him.

If I write a book about flowers, I would be surprised to find people angry because I didn't talk about rocks. Or if I did briefly refer to a rock, would be surprised to find people angry because I did not use the precise language of a geologist.

Getting made because Jesus didn't tell people about penicillin seems silly. In 2,000 years penicillin will probably be seen as simplistic as we now see oil.

So, by your definition the only way it can be God's Word is if it hands us, all at once, the full and final book of medical knowledge, the final stage of scientific research, and the sum total of all that can be known on any subject.

Hmmmmm......am I the only one seeing a logical problem with this argument?

Yes, the Bible tells us that jesus Christ had practiced magical spit therapy: Mark 7:32-35, Mark 8:22-25, John 9:1-7.

And why is a supposedly perfect and universal textbook like the Bible written in the obscure fashion that Josh Gelatt claims it is? Why should it take such an enormous amount of detective work?

Your wrote: "Odd that god would tell them to do something that doesn't work."

But this is where you are wrong. Oil was a medicinal remedy. There are medical treatises written from Greek and Roman physicians on the subject. It DID work, to a limited degree. All medicine is limited in its application. Even our modern day "wonder-drugs" have very narrow and specific uses. Whether or not we wish to believe the passage is correct in its supernatural assumptions, we cannot intelligently deny that it was good medical advice for the 1st century period.

I agreed with OMGF about this. Again, you have to answer the question:
Why didn't god tell man about science(medicine)?
WHY NOT? You're refusing to answer the question. Forget about the time period...god could have told man how to make medicines that would be much better than oil. That was simply what their medicine was at the time, which makes the bible no better than any other writing at the time.

How is this contradictory? Interpretation necessarily must take into account authorial intent. Thus, since the document was written in the first century for first century hearers, our interpretation must seek to understand this first-century situation. Yet, since we are moderns seeking continued application and relevancy for the document, application seeks to make the bridge from ancient to modern.

So yes, we need to understand the ancient mindset to interpret, while simultaneously knowing our own modern context to apply.

Again, this begs the question, who wrote the bible? If it was man, then it indeed seems appropriate for it to be incorrect. If it was god, then it should have been a book that would have been totally appropriate for the ages. That includes not having to be re-interpreted today in the 21st century, but still being relevant.

Oil was a medicinal remedy. There are medical treatises written from Greek and Roman physicians on the subject. It DID work, to a limited degree.

So do sugar-pills. Got any evidence that oil is a better remedy than a placebo? I'm wracking my brain and can't seem to come up with a single illness oil cures. Would you ever advise annointed with oil in a hospital?

Whether or not we wish to believe the passage is correct in its supernatural assumptions, we cannot intelligently deny that it was good medical advice for the 1st century period.

If it's not good now, why would it be good then? What's changed?
Likewise, why would god suggest it? Didn't he know anything about the world he created in terms of illnesses, viruses, bacteria and the like?

Interpretation necessarily must take into account authorial intent.

It's claimed to be the world of god; why should it have to be interpretted, or have a non-existant rate of being right?

Thus, since the document was written in the first century for first century hearers, our interpretation must seek to understand this first-century situation.

Compare the first century to medical advances now, would you say our medicial knowledge and ability is better or worse? Also, please remind me which advances came from science, evidence, and experimention, and how many came from the bible.