Freethought & Rationalism Archive

FinBak · 01-06-2010, 11:35 AM

The bible is merely a STORY book, an insight to how people thought a long time ago. It cannot be classed as fact. What did they mean by having "A" "VISION"...Surely they were "dreaming"...Good story though.

Doug Shaver · 01-07-2010, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

This is unique to the Christian religion

No, it isn't. Have you read the Quran? I have. The book itself states very plainly that its words were given to Muhammad by God himself.

Your assurance that the Bible is divinely inspired has no more foundation than a Muslim's assurance that the Quran is divinely inspired.

rhutchin · 01-08-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

This is unique to the Christian religion

No, it isn't. Have you read the Quran? I have. The book itself states very plainly that its words were given to Muhammad by God himself.

Your assurance that the Bible is divinely inspired has no more foundation than a Muslim's assurance that the Quran is divinely inspired.

You are right. I meant to say, "This is not unique to the Christian religion as Muslims and Mormons also like to claim that their books are inspired by God and also inerrant."

I take the Bible to be divinely inspired because that is what the writers of the Bible claimed. So, yes, my assurance is no different than that which the Muslim or Mormon might claim. However, since both Islam and Mormonism view the Bible as "divinely inspired" (I think), then we ought to be able to insist on consistency among them.

rhutchin · 01-08-2010, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinBak

The bible is merely a STORY book, an insight to how people thought a long time ago. It cannot be classed as fact. What did they mean by having "A" "VISION"...Surely they were "dreaming"...Good story though.

Now, if you could only prove that to be true. For now, it is just an interesting personal opinion.

rhutchin · 01-08-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The Bible only because that which we read in it is said to be inspired By God and no other writings are thought to be inspired by God and therefore are not included in the Bible.

No book is inerrant merely because it claims to be inerrant.

There is not any historical, scientific, philosphical, or logical evidence that reasonably proves that the Bible is inerrant.

Even many conservative Christian experts know that the Bible contains errors. No rational Bible scholar would claim that there are not any interpolations in the Bible.

By "inerrancy," I mean the belief that God inspired the originals, and preserved them free of errors except for copyist errors.

So, why look a gift horse in the mouth? Would not the claim of inerrancy make it easier for you to prove that its claims are false? Is that not your goal despite the difficulty you have doing so?

Doug Shaver · 01-09-2010, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Would not the claim of inerrancy make it easier for you to prove that its claims are false?

That depends on whether proving something false entails convincing somebody that it's false. For those whose minds are made up that the Bible must be inerrant, there cannot be any proof that any of its claims are false.

It isn't just the Bible. In any intellectual endeavor, people whose minds are open will be see proof where others see nothing.

rhutchin · 01-09-2010, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Would not the claim of inerrancy make it easier for you to prove that its claims are false?

That depends on whether proving something false entails convincing somebody that it's false. For those whose minds are made up that the Bible must be inerrant, there cannot be any proof that any of its claims are false.

It isn't just the Bible. In any intellectual endeavor, people whose minds are open will be see proof where others see nothing.

Proving that the Bible contains error only requires that a logical argument exist as proof where no alternative explanations exist. People do not have to believe it.

Doug Shaver · 01-10-2010, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Proving that the Bible contains error only requires that a logical argument exist as proof where no alternative explanations exist. [Emphasis added.]

That is not how I read any other book. I see no reason to make an exception for the Bible.

rhutchin · 01-10-2010, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Proving that the Bible contains error only requires that a logical argument exist as proof where no alternative explanations exist. [Emphasis added.]

That is not how I read any other book. I see no reason to make an exception for the Bible.

A logical argument that does not address all alternative explanations is not a sound argument, logical or not.

Doug Shaver · 01-11-2010, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

A logical argument that does not address all alternative explanations is not a sound argument, logical or not.

You haven't taken many logic courses, have you?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-06-2010, 11:35 AM	#11
FinBak Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Sheffield ENGLAND Posts: 102	The bible is merely a STORY book, an insight to how people thought a long time ago. It cannot be classed as fact. What did they mean by having "A" "VISION"...Surely they were "dreaming"...Good story though.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.