So then it's not true that you should never praise yourself. What's true is that context matters and that the proverb doesn't always apply.

What truth would that be? And how would you conclude that from the statements?

And more importantly, you completely skipped over the concept of "the truth" vs. "truth." You need to think more about that. Your original statement (that you've walked away from) shows why wisdom is not the same as truth.

You might have missed what I wrote, Aaron. If you were talking about your skills in an interview and if that isn't the same as praising yourself then the point you raised seems to not be of concern considering the proverb you quoted.


Quoting the KJV for copyright reasons,

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

Proverbs 26:4-5 seems to be saying that you should not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be just like him, or that if you answer a fool according to his folly in certain situations you will be falling into foolishness similar to his, but you should answer a fool according to his folly in certain situations or the fool will continue being wise in his own eyes or be wise in his own conceit.

How can there be a difference between "the truth" and "truth"? Either something is true or it isn't.

Can you show me why wisdom is not truth if that wisdom leads someone to the truth or communicates the truth to them?

If I wasn't the laziest person on the planet, I'd take the time to find the source, but I remember this quote: "Wisdom is the virtuous application of knowledge."

I think that one can know something ( "a truth") without knowing or desiring how to apply that truth in a virtuous manner.

It might really be worth pointing out that Matthew 5:22 (KJV) says, "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

In media such as an online forum, all of the publishers of the major translations allow their verses to be quoted as long as the quote isn't a substantial portion of any given book in the Bible, and doesn't exceed a given verse count (usually several hundred can be quoted). Just identify the translation used with the appropriate abbreviation, e.g. NIV, NKJV, NASB, etc.

Edit: ESV allows up to 1000 verses to be quoted, the HCSB 250 verses.

This is Jesus talking, right? To the disciples and the multitudes?

Yes.

Is Ecclesiastes Greek for Captain Obvious? I mean, seriously, this is the type of deep, verifiable truths about the universe the Bible provides? This wasn’t common knowledge before Ecclesiastes?

It's praising yourself. It's speaking good for yourself instead of letting others speak good of you.

LOL?

That is an amazingly run-on sentence. It's really hard to tell what you're actually saying. But what I see is the insertion of "in certain situations" which suggests that these statements are not referencing truth. Rather, they are referencing contingencies.

Why wouldn't there be a difference between "*THE* truth" and "truth"? It is rare to call a true statement "*THE* truth." We usually just refer to it as being "true." Are you choosing not to acknowledge the role that the article is playing here?

There is *THE* truth again.

Wisdom itself is neither true nor false. The statements are not universal in nature, and hence cannot attain universal truth status. (Maybe you should contemplate what it means for a statement to be true.) Furthermore, there are false statements that lead people to true conclusions. The truth of a conclusion does not imply anything about the truth of the statement that led to he conclusion.

LOL at Mr-Move-The-Goalposts.

Please. That was a ridiculous example. Literally on par with “water is wet.”

Want to expound on the "LOL?", Aaron?

Water is wet is tautological. That people die isn't.

Besides, it met the exact standards that you defined for the situation:

Verifiable, repeatable, and predictable. It's not my fault that you set the standards where you did.

As far as "deep"? What makes a truth "deep"? That almost suggests something more philosophical about the universe.

The book of Ecclesiastes is an observation of the human experience, and to even non-religious people, they find that the observations stand on their own as being valid observations that most people can relate to. So while it will be difficult to call these experiential elements of human experience as being "true" it's still meaningful to observe that they are philosophically deep.

It's there because you seem to have absolutely no sense of what the copyright of Biblical texts is, and so you ended up inserting some weird standard that simply doesn't exist. It's funny. And perhaps in some ways, it's reflective of how your approach to the Bible is kind of wonky.

So, if I’m going to be 100% accurate, I should admit the Bible holds verifiable, predictable, repeatable truths everyone already knows.

You *should* admit it. But you seem so incredibly hesitant to do so. Why is that?

Okay, I’ll admit it: the Bible only has truths about the universe that everyone already knows. Most likely because bronze agers really didn’t know much about the universe

LOL -- It's so amusing how hard it is for you to admit something that's patently true and obvious.

Don't know if it's right to say "the Bible only has truths about the universe that everyone already knows".

What am I not admitting to?

I’m sure there are obscure historical facts that a lot of people don’t know in the Bible. But nothing significant, and nothing that demonstrates how the universe works.

I never said you didn't admit something. Are you having reading comprehension problems, too?

Most historians would agree that Jesus was a significant person in history.

Also, as you pointed out, why would anyone expect the Bible to contain information about "how the universe works"? People from the eras of the writings (which span well beyond the Bronze Age -- another sign of your ignorance) wouldn't even conceptualize that idea in the way that we do today. Would you think that the Bible should contain theories of gravity? And even if it did, would anyone at the time of the writing know or care enough to pass that information along and keep writing it down?

And suppose that it contained scientific theories that will be discovered 1000 years from now. Wouldn't you be thinking that it's full of nonsense because it contains stuff that you literally can't know?

The writings are a reflection of the times in which they were written. You seem to have trouble accepting or understanding that. This is something that everyone should know...

I agree, however, such logic immediately defeats the case for Christianity, considering how Christianity, along with every modern-day religion, is **** sapien and Earth centric, i.e. project human experiences and presence to the ever vastness of the universe and time.

I don't see how this logic follows unless you're claiming to undermine all of human perspective in a single blow.

My argument only goes as far as saying that humans should not speak to the ant-ian experience. That we understand a concept that we call suffering does not allow us to look at an ant's movement when it is under duress and conclude that it is experiencing suffering in a manner similar to us.