FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-13-2001, 04:42 PM   #11
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah
Posts: 1,945
Smile

Quote:
Originally posted by Bill:
<STRONG>An "inerrant" and literally true Bible produces an inescapable judgment that, according to modern standards of law and morality, the God of the Old Testament is one of the greatest criminals to have ever operated on planet Earth!

== Bill</STRONG>
Ah, but then they'll say you shouldn't set your fallen humanistic standards above the divine morality which is infallible and sinless, thus justifying anything God does, no matter how cruel we think it. In which case I pop up my inverted atheist moral-absolutes argument (as I expound at the beginning of my article Pascalians against Divinity), where I claim that the theist is then robbed of all sound basis for morality!
emotional is offline  
Old 10-13-2001, 07:39 PM   #12
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 405
Question

Quote:
Originally posted by Rimstalker:
<STRONG>

Therefore, we can assume:
1) His faith is not placed in the Bible
2) His attempts to defend the infallibility of the Bible are irrational.</STRONG>
2b) Your attempts to establish the fallibility of the Bible are a waste of your time.

That was my point ...
Photocrat is offline  
Old 10-13-2001, 07:50 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
Smile

Quote:
Originally posted by Photocrat:
<STRONG>

2b) Your attempts to establish the fallibility of the Bible are a waste of your time.

That was my point ...</STRONG>
Is your believing it a waste of time?

love
Helen
HelenM is offline  
Old 10-13-2001, 09:22 PM   #14
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 405
Cool

Quote:
Originally posted by HelenSL:
<STRONG>

Is your believing it a waste of time?

love
Helen</STRONG>
Wrong perspective, Helen--that was in theirs, not mine (e.g. no, believing is not a waste of my time)

Here is, more or less, how the reasoning would work for a skeptic:

GOAL: To bring them to the truth (unbelief).

Since what they're trying to do (#1) by their own logic does not further that goal, that route is a waste of time.

Other skeptics with other goals may have other reasons, but the stated reasons do not further the given goal, ergo it is illogical.

Yes, I know quite well--humans aren't very logical ... *sigh* I've seen more questions begged here than in all the rest of my life; it makes connecting logic & atheism seem like hypocracy for me--what can I say if the "skeptics" aren't being skeptical of their sources merely because those sources reaffirm their preconceptions? Then they say the same of me after I carefully go through them to make sure that I'm not doing the same.

*sigh* Sorry, unfocused rant :] There are skeptics who are above this, but they don't seem to post very often, or I don't run into them much... or something.
Photocrat is offline  
Old 10-14-2001, 05:50 AM   #15
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want
Posts: 4,871
Post

Quote:
GOAL: To bring them to the truth (unbelief).
Actually, that's not my "Goal" by any meaning of the word. But this is a debate forum, and so I intend to debate.

Quote:
Since what they're trying to do (#1) by their own logic does not further that goal, that route is a waste of time.
Since I have no such goal, it cannot be properly called a waste of time.

My whole bru-ha-ha about Biblical inerrency came because someone posted a link to false Biblical prophesies. helix challenged the contention that one of them was, indeed a false prophesy. I rebutted his challenge. Therefore, this whole argument cannot be deemed a waste of time any wore than playing a video game or a sport is a waste of time. I enjoy debating. I enjoy it less when I'm debating a dishonest little troll who challenges my arguments without any demonstrated logic, but that's another story.

(EDITED TO ADD: This does not refer to you, 2xhelix)

So. My debate over the false prophesy was not part of some grand scheme to cause massive unbelief. It was an intellectual challenge (even though it shortly degraded into an embarassing flame war...) Even if my "Goal" were to "bring" people to "unbelief," this doesn't mean that all my undertakings would be to further this goal. I would still ahve to find some time for fun.

Quote:
Other skeptics with other goals may have other reasons, but the stated reasons do not further the given goal, ergo it is illogical.
The given goal is neither agreed upon nor stated, nor even actively pursued, and so your whole challenge is illogical.

Quote:
it makes connecting logic & atheism seem like hypocracy for me
It should, so long as you get to dictate to me what my goals are and what steps I should take to further the goals you have assigned to me.

[ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]
GunnerJ is offline  
Old 10-14-2001, 06:10 AM   #16
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 290
Question

Quote:
Aside from the elements you undoubtably consider embellishments, I don't see enough variation in the core testamony to warrant throwing out the baby with the bath water as so many skeptics do.
Photocrat, what do you consider to be the "core testimony" of the Bible?

Just curious...

-T
Doubting Thomas is offline  
Old 10-14-2001, 07:14 AM   #17
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The milky way galaxy
Posts: 159
Post

I don't see how anyone can see the bible as inerrant, since it doesn't waste any time failing the first test of self consistency.

In Genesis 1:20, it recorded creation as the following:

Quote:
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Notice the order of events. First the earth then, a few days later, land creatures. fascinating, that is if we look at what it says in Gen. 2:4 :

Quote:
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Did you catch that? The order of events in genesis one says that man was the last creature to be created on the last day of the "creation week", but in genesis 2 It says that man was walking around before the "beasts of the field" and the "foul of the air" and he was doing so the same day the earth was created, despite the fact that gen. 1:20 say the earth and man were created on different days!

Here we run into the hypocrisy of biblical inerrancy. The bible wastes no time in failing a simple test of self-consistency. Since there can be no consistency, there can be no inerrancy.
Imhotehp is offline  
Old 10-14-2001, 10:15 PM   #18
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 405
Cool

Quote:
Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
<STRONG>

Photocrat, what do you consider to be the "core testimony" of the Bible?

Just curious...

-T</STRONG>
I don't usually call it "core testamony" but my primary concern is about Jesus, of course. I do not embrace Marcionism, though, since the OT is important for a proper understanding of Jesus' words and actions.

You may well introduce all manner of inconsistancies in their testamony, but I do not believe it is terribly relevant. Having been a witness in a murder one case, I have some idea what it is like remembering the events on the day someone important to you died. I know that I *do* remember that day--probably better than any other in my life. However, having the defense try to cast doubt on my testamony because I reversed the order of a couple things and could not remember what model of phone we own made me wonder why we are so worried about details & loose ends. I believe it is quite possible to make mountains out of mole hills, especially if you feel obligated to for any reason, like the defense attourney above. I believe that is the case, especially in various works like the "Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy" -- a large section of that book ignores the old maxim "a text without a context is a pretext." Most, if not all, of that work is a pretext.

I have actually had the opportunity to observe a hoax spread amongst a sizeable number of people. I noted how it mutated. The pattern I observed does not conform to the pattern of testamony found in the Bible. From that experience and others, I conclude that the Bible is more likely true than not, in spite of the sum total of everything you've managed to complain about.
Photocrat is offline  
Old 10-14-2001, 10:47 PM   #19
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 405
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Rimstalker:
<STRONG>

It should, so long as you get to dictate to me what my goals are and what steps I should take to further the goals you have assigned to me.

[ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</STRONG>
Debate all you want; I'm not trying to stop you. It's just better not to debate red herrings.

[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Photocrat ]
Photocrat is offline  
Old 10-14-2001, 10:59 PM   #20
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 405
Question

Quote:
Originally posted by Imhotehp:
<STRONG>

(Snipped excerpts from Genesis)

Here we run into the hypocrisy of biblical inerrancy. The bible wastes no time in failing a simple test of self-consistency. Since there can be no consistency, there can be no inerrancy.</STRONG>
Is any of that actually relevant if you take Adam, Noah & co. as parables? They're an interesting mode of communication since they're more robust than other means, given that variations destroy minimal amounts of information and accurate understandings of the meanings can be preserved for far longer & more easily (even after being preserved as oral tradition for generations) than any other form of communication I am aware of ...
Photocrat is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:49 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.