Freethought & Rationalism Archive

purple_kathryn · 01-07-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

These numbers are made up for this illustration:

1. 1000 artifacts have been found that completely corroborate the Bible

2. 1 artifact that the Bible mentions has never been found

3. Conclusion you draw---the Bible is a scrap heap

1000? No kidding it's made up

Sauron · 01-07-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Sauron,
Your statements such as "rescue the bible history from the scrap heap" still reveal your bias.

No, it reflects the bankruptcy of the claims for bible infallibility.

Quote:

So to does your treatment of the hordes of archaeological finds that DO support the Bible, incredibly so in a great many details. Here is how I see your reaction:

Instead of doing a make-believe scenario, why not just refer to my previous post on the topic? I've already told you how I view the affirmative evidence. Why is it so hard to read what people write in response, hmm?

Quote:

False? No. The bible gets many things correct. And it is a source of historical information; sometimes it is the *only* source for particular items.

The bible also has a lot of good things in it - I especially like the laws that deal with proper treatment of the poor, the fatherless, strangers and livestock; I think it shows an advanced state of moral thinking that wouldn't appear for centuries in Europe or elsewhere. Edited to add example:

DEU 24:19 When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.
DEU 24:20 When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
DEU 24:21 When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.

But the bible also gets a lot of history, science and archaeology dead wrong. And it contains some pretty unbelievable stories of cruelty.

No one here is wholesale rejection of the bible, or questioning its importance in shaping western civilization. But the claim of infallibility and divine inspiration flies in the face of historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence.

Quote:

Too many variables exist for you to determine, based on absence of evidence, that the Bible is erroneous.

Incorrect. Since the claim of infallibility is an absolute, all it takes is one counter-example to shoot the claim down. I don't just have one; I have dozens.

Quote:

That, and the fact that you are ignoring wealths of information that HAVE been found and DO support the Bible. I don't guess I'll call it manipulating the evidence for your own purposes, but I think it is close.

No, it's just another example of how thoroughly brainwashed you are. I am not ignoring those examples. However, all the positive examples in the world cannot erase the negative examples - and I only need one negative example to shoot down the claim of biblical inerrancy. You don't seem to realize that.

Quote:

I at least say that if no evidence has been found where Israel wandered for 40 years in circles that I cannot say 'yea' or 'nay' about it.

Yes, and the procedural and logical errors in taking such a position have already been pointed out to you. Continued repetition of your broken claim will not make it come true, you know.

Quote:

If you wanted to be truly objective you would say something like this:

I am truly objective - or as close as humanly possible. I give credit to the bible where credit is due, but I do not flinch from pointing out the areas that are incorrect.

You, on the other hand, have already admitted that you start from the position that the bible is correct. Even before viewing the evidence, and even AFTER viewing the contradictory evidence.

So I ask you: which one of the two of us is closer to being objective?

Quote:

A consistent consequence of your position--i.e. arguing because something isn't yet found that is thousands of years old means it doesn't exist and the Bible is flatly wrong--merely reaffirms to me that your preconceived notions are affecting your ability to reason correctly.

And as usual, you are wrong about that. Instead of repeating your previous assertion, why don't you go back and read the citations that have been provided to you on "argument from silence", and what role it plays in historical analysis?

Oh, that's right -- that would be intellectual *work*, and you're clearly not capable of doing anything like that.

Sauron · 01-07-2007, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

No, no, this guy has to write a book first which contains the claim that it's from god!

Funny you should say that. One of mdd344's "quotable experts", Clifford Wilson, wrote a book called "Crash Go the Chariots". It was a response to Erich von Daniken's 1970s-era book, "Chariots of the Gods."

In that book, Wilson tries to shoot down von Daniken's theory about extraterrestrials being responsible for building pyramids, sand lines at Nazca, etc. Instead, Wilson's argument is that UFOs are actually demons. :devil1:

Yeah. A real improvement in predictive explanatory power *that* turned out to be.

Smullyan-esque · 01-07-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Sauron,
Your statements such as "rescue the bible history from the scrap heap" still reveal your bias.

Pot. Kettle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

So to does your treatment of the hordes of archaeological finds that DO support the Bible, incredibly so in a great many details. Here is how I see your reaction:

These numbers are made up for this illustration:

1. 1000 artifacts have been found that completely corroborate the Bible

2. 1 artifact that the Bible mentions has never been found

3. Conclusion you draw---the Bible is a scrap heap

Too many variables exist for you to determine, based on absence of evidence, that the Bible is erroneous. That, and the fact that you are ignoring wealths of information that HAVE been found and DO support the Bible. I don't guess I'll call it manipulating the evidence for your own purposes, but I think it is close.

I at least say that if no evidence has been found where Israel wandered for 40 years in circles that I cannot say 'yea' or 'nay' about it. You determine that since you haven't seen anyone else find any that it is absolutely 'nay.'

If you wanted to be truly objective you would say something like this:

1. The archaeological evidence that has been found really supports a great deal of the Bible record. But there is not yet evidence that has been found to support the account the Bible gives of the Exodus. Yet, discoveries are often made unexpectedly and so in the future evidence may or may not be found that supports the Exodus.

Now in that, I would agree. But you are not (yet) doing that. What you are doing is declaring the Bible erroneous because of something that doesn't exist, and in truth, you cannot know whether it exists or not till it is found.

A consistent consequence of your position--i.e. arguing because something isn't yet found that is thousands of years old means it doesn't exist and the Bible is flatly wrong--merely reaffirms to me that your preconceived notions are affecting your ability to reason correctly.

mdd344, you posted this just recently. Four hours earlier, Asha'man posted some very important points. How is it that you didn't read Asha'man's post? Do you really think you are only arguing against individual people? You are also arguing against the whole body of knowledge! To ignore the data from one poster in your rebuttal to another poster is not honest. You might be able to get away with it in your daily life, because no one around you does their homework, but, rest assured, when you do it here, it is utterly transparent. You cannot pretend the data doesn't exist. Just because Sauron didn't mention it himself, do not assume that means he doesn't know about it! If nothing else, HE will read Asha'man's post, even if YOU do not.

There is a lot of evidence, both positive and negative, that most of the early Old Testament is fantasy. There is essentially no evidence that the story is based on truth. So your argument about 1000 to 1 ratios actually goes the other way, and your suggestion that the archeological record supports a great deal of the Bible record is based on either deliberate ignorance or simple dishonesty.

EthnAlln · 01-07-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

David B,
I am aware of the quibbles, yes. The book's date is very firmly fixed by history, the book itself, the Bible writers. Thanks for the link.

Amazing. How do you reach this marvelous conclusion, considering that Daniel knows a huge amount about the second century BCE, but frequently gets it wrong when describing the sixth century BCE?

Sauron · 01-07-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smullyan-esque

There is a lot of evidence, both positive and negative, that most of the early Old Testament is fantasy. There is essentially no evidence that the story is based on truth. So your argument about 1000 to 1 ratios actually goes the other way, and your suggestion that the archeological record supports a great deal of the Bible record is based on either deliberate ignorance or simple dishonesty.

mdd344 is engaged in special pleading. He knows the bible can't stand up to the normal historical and archaeological scrutiny that other ancient documents have to undergo. So he essentially wants to have the bible treated as a special case, because he happens to believe in it.

I think the question of the day is: why should the bible be treated any differently? And if it can't withstand the normal scrutiny we give other ancient documents, then whose fault is that?

Let's use a practical example to show how historians would deal with another ancient document. Most of us here are familiar with the Greek historian, Herodotus. We get a lot of our information about the ancient world from Herodotus. Britannica has this to say about him:

Quote:

Herodotus was a wide traveler. His longer wandering covered a large part of the Persian Empire: he went to Egypt, at least as far south as Elephantine (Aswān), and he also visited Libya, Syria, Babylonia, Susa in Elam, Lydia, and Phrygia. He journeyed up the Hellespont to Byzantium, went to Thrace and Macedonia, and traveled northward to beyond the Danube and to Scythia eastward along the northern shores of the Black Sea as far as the Don River and some way inland. These travels would have taken many years.

So as you can see, an ancient source with that kind of exposure would be very useful to historians and archaeologists. Sometimes he is our only source of information. A lot of what he wrote has been confirmed by archaeology, or from other outside sources.

Other sections of what he wrote cannot be confirmed either way. And still other sections have been rejected, because of zero evidence where we *ought* to find such evidence. Here is a section of Herodotus' writings that has been rejected:

Quote:

[2.75] I went once to a certain place in Arabia, almost exactly opposite the city of Buto, to make inquiries concerning the winged serpents. On my arrival I saw the back-bones and ribs of serpents in such numbers as it is impossible to describe: of the ribs there were a multitude of heaps, some great, some small, some middle-sized. The place where the bones lie is at the entrance of a narrow gorge between steep mountains, which there open upon a spacious plain communicating with the great plain of Egypt. The story goes that with the spring the winged snakes come flying from Arabia towards Egypt, but are met in this gorge by the birds called ibises, who forbid their entrance and destroy them all. The Arabians assert, and the Egyptians also admit, that it is on account of the service thus rendered that the Egyptians hold the ibis in so much reverence.

[2.76] The ibis is a bird of a deep-black colour, with legs like a crane; its beak is strongly hooked, and its size is about that of the land-rail. This is a description of the black ibis which contends with the serpents. The commoner sort, for there are two quite distinct species, has the head and the whole throat bare of feathers; its general plumage is white, but the head and neck are jet black, as also are the tips of the wings and the extremity of the tail; in its beak and legs it resembles the other species. The winged serpent is shaped like the water-snake. Its wings are not feathered, but resemble very closely those of the bat. And thus I conclude the subject of the sacred animals.

Consider for the moment that winged serpents do not exist. We still have the fact that nobody has ever found any skeletons of winged serpents in the canyon opposite the city of Buto (i..e, by definition, you can't find the skeleton of a non-existent animal). So this excerpt from Herodotus is rejected - and rightly so.

So we treat the bible the same way we treat Herodotus - there is no anti-bible bias here.

EthnAlln · 01-07-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

funinspace,
There will be always in existence people who disagree.

Can you possibly imagine how many proponents of astrology, dowsing, esp, alien abductions, etc., etc., use exactly this know-nothing argument to avoid answering their critics? The people who have disagreed with you have given good arguments for their disagreement. You have done nothing except dogmatically assert that you are right.

Quote:

That proves nothing except that there will be always in existence people who disagree. Once again, God Himself could come to earth and tell some that 'x' was true and they would not agree. That is not far fetched, as some here have said God could appear to them and they still would not believe.

What does the evidence show? That is the question. What is the rational response to the evidence? That is the key.

My, wasn't that lucky!! God revealed the truth to you, not to the Mormons, the Christian Scientists, the Presbyterians, the Catholics, the Episcopalians, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Muslims, the Jews,.... They all ought to give up their obstinacy and look at things in your reasonable way. But, alas, so many of them seem to be just as stubbornly convinced that they are right as you (who actually are right).

diana · 01-07-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

So to does your treatment of the hordes of archaeological finds that DO support the Bible, incredibly so in a great many details.

Um, mdd. No one has said everything the Bible claims is false. Why would you attack this straw man? (You do understand about straw men, don't you?)

Quote:

Here is how I see your reaction:

These numbers are made up for this illustration:

1. 1000 artifacts have been found that completely corroborate the Bible

But absolutely none--zilch, zippo, nada--where the Israelites, 3.5M strong, supposedly lived for 38 years.

Quote:

2. 1 artifact that the Bible mentions has never been found

Close.

Not a single artifact from this giant mass of people sojourning in a land for 38 years in the same spot has been found. Right. Not a scrap.

Quote:

3. Conclusion you draw---the Bible is a scrap heap

P1: If the Bible is divine, it will be inerrant.
P2: The Bible is not inerrant (we know this because archaeologists have found absolutely no evidence of the 3.5M Israelites' stay in Egypt, exactly where the Bible says they were).
C: The Bible is not divine.

The first premise is your own. The rest is a completely cogent negation of the claim. By your own rules--if you wish to be logical in your approach to Scripture--you must either accept the nondivinity of the Bible or change the first premise. A->B, therefore ~B->~A. That's how it works logically.

(Please feel free to check all the logic books/sites at your disposal to see if my reasoning is sound.)

Therefore, by your own rules, the Bible is not divine (or "scrap heap," if you prefer).

Quote:

That, and the fact that you are ignoring wealths of information that HAVE been found and DO support the Bible.

To repeat myself yet again on this point: the Bible does contain some verifiable history, just like any historical fiction does.

d

EthnAlln · 01-07-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

mdd344 is engaged in special pleading. He knows the bible can't stand up to the normal historical and archaeological scrutiny that other ancient documents have to undergo. So he essentially wants to have the bible treated as a special case, because he happens to believe in it.

I think the question of the day is: why should the bible be treated any differently? And if it can't withstand the normal scrutiny we give other ancient documents, then whose fault is that?

Let's use a practical example to show how historians would deal with another ancient document. Most of us here are familiar with the Greek historian, Herodotus. We get a lot of our information about the ancient world from Herodotus....

So we treat the bible the same way we treat Herodotus - there is no anti-bible bias here.

Very good points. We use Plutarch as a source for the lives of many ancient people, including Julius Caesar. Shakespeare used him as such a source in his play about Caesar, and he used the miraculous omens preceding the assassination that were reported by Plutarch. One needs to use old texts critically.

One of the best sources for knowledge of the ninth century was the Arab traveller al-Masudi, who describes in vivid detail many events in the Middle East and India which may be accepted because they have a high antecedent probability, that is, they are not miracles. But we don't accept his belief that crocodiles are vicious because they have no anus; we know better.

I think the principles were well stated by Thomas Huxley. To update them a bit: If a person tells me he saw an automobile in Times Square, I'll believe him, even if I know he's an inveterate liar, because the antecedent probability is high. If he tells me he saw a helicopter land there, I'd want some corroboration; the thing isn't impossible, but it's unusual. If he tells me he saw an alien spacecraft land there, I'll reject the story out of hand, as just too outlandish.

I've heard Christian apologists far too often forget these simple guides to rational thinking. If we were to use their criteria, we'd have to believe a man named Auric Goldfinger tried to destroy Fort Knox. After all, the man who wrote about this got the geography and the climate right....

Asha'man · 01-07-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diana

P2: The Bible is not inerrant (we know this because archaeologists have found absolutely no evidence of the 3.5M Israelites' stay in Egypt, exactly where the Bible says they were).

Hi diana,

Don't get distracted by mdd's blindness. Archeology has two complementary statements about the Exodus. The first statement is that there is absolutely no evidence that it happened, and such evidence should be trivially easy to find given todays techniques.

But mdd desperately wants to ignore the second, and more important statement: the evidence we do have shows that the Exodus is utterly impossible, it paints a historical picture that completely rules out the possibility of an Exodus as described in the OT.

They couldn't have left Egypt in the 13th century to settle in Canaan because we know they never arrived in Canaan (at least not in mass, or as conquerers). There can be no exodus of Hebrews in the 13th century BCE because the Hebrews didn't exist in that century, the monotheistic worship of YHWH was born from native residents of Canaan centuries later.

mdd passed over my post from earlier today, and I'll bet he will continue to ignore my point. He cannot address it, because it destroys his world view utterly. The OT is contradicted, conclusively, by reality in the form of the archaeological evidence that we do have. (Not to mention that it's utterly destroyed again and again by astronomical, biological, and geological evidence).

Given a conflict between the Bible and reality, reality always wins.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.