Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Minimalist · 12-19-2007, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Written accounts have priority.

Really? People have been known to lie in written accounts. They have been known to exaggerate. They have been known to invent things. In teh ancient world people had an agenda for writing things down, just like now.

This devotion to the "written word" is misplaced. Artifacts, or the lack thereof, have their own tale to tell.

Minimalist · 12-19-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Anyone offering themselves as a witness is already in good standing.

Absurd. If a cop questions a witness to an accident and is told that a red car struck a pedestrian and fled and then questions a second witness who says that a green car struck a pedestrian and fled, what can he conclude.

1- the car was red and witness #2 was wrong.

2- the car was green and witness #1 was wrong.

3- both witnesses are wrong and he has no idea what color car he is looking for.

Your bible gives differing accounts of the same event. Each, therefore, undermines the credibility of the others.

Toto · 12-19-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Greenleaf? I'm not familiar with this. Would you mind posting the title?

The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice (or via: amazon.co.uk) lurks in the footnotes of many an apologist.

It is critiqued in the II Library here by Richard Packham.

The text may be online here

Sheshonq · 12-19-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Dever's not nearly so conservative that he can be counted in the same camp as Hoffmeier seems to be in. He can quite legitimately be referring to the position more conservative than himself in his quote.

I don't think you could infer that from his words.

Why is it necessary to restrict an understanding of Dever's position to just these few words?

As opposed to viewing his entire academic and research career, and juxtaposing the comment in light of all that?

Quote:

And while he by context is referring to a more conservative position than the one he holds, it's not explicit,

So?

Again: given that the man has a long evidence trail that allows us to know the landscape of his position, why should we artificially restrict our view of his comment to just these words?

Quote:

and Dever usually does not level that sort of animosity.

What animosity? Dever is not exhibiting any.

Quote:

The burden lies with you for reading extra into the passage.

Nonsense. The burden lies with you to show that this passage is out of harmony with the rest of Dever's academic and professional evidence trail.

Sheshonq · 12-19-2007, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

No, it isn't. There are too many historical, archaeological and scientific mistakes in it.

Incorrect. The reliability of the witness must first be demonstrated by those who are putting it forth as a witness - people like you.

You have the burden of proof exactly backwards.

Also incorrect. Armies tend to use things made of bronze or iron, which doesn't decay. Instead of making stuff up off the top of your head, maybe you should spend a few hours reading a basic archaeology textbook?

A population of 2.5 million people living in a desert for 40 years - how hard do you have to think, before you can come up with "what evidence there would be"?

Also wrong.

No your wrong.

Nope.

Quote:

Anyone offering themselves as a witness is already in good standing.

No, they aren't.
If that were the case, then liars off the street would be considered "in good standing". It doesn't work that way in a court of law, nor does it work that way with history or science.

Quote:

You can disbelieve and question them but the witness does not need to prove themselves before giving their account.

Yes, they do. They need to establish that they know what they're talking about, and that they are a reliable witness.

You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about. Again.

Quote:

There have been so many armies and yet few battles or camps relatively have been found.

Says who? Show me a breakdown of iron-age battles where no evidence was found.

Quote:

Any number of reasons can be invoked for why old setlements aren't obvious.
Rob bYers

You mean kinda like your excuse about items decaying over time - you were guessing and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

"Any number of reasons"? Fine - then invoke those reasons - and watch your so-called 'reasons' get shot down like clay pigeons on an artillery range.

juergen · 12-19-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

No evidence has ever been found to persuade someone the bibles not true.
By definition all(almost) historical evidence relies on interpretation of data.
Any "evidence" brought up can be dealt with by Christians in this or that field.
Don't say there is this and that evidence. Just show your top three killer points. Let the results speak for themselves.
Rob byers

Knowing that there are better equipped people at answering that question on this board, I won't put any argument down for the moment.

Now as far as the bible as a faithful witness, let's assume the difference in understanding between Christian leaders throughout the last few hundreds of years of what the Bible says on a number of fundamental issues is due to their sinful/human limitations. Throughout history we have Christian leaders changing their minds over things they recognized to be wrong about, sometimes after years of preaching about things they later disagree with. Every honest Christian will admit he's incomplete in his understanding of God's mistery.

So why would it be so unreasonable that every one of the equally sinful humans involved in putting together the biblical text would be free of a similar experience? Where they that much better off than Christians today? There's really no chance a limited human being under the influence of their sinful nature would be wrong about certain things?

juergen

Doug Shaver · 12-19-2007, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

I don't see why I need to answer why something is not a accurate account.

Because "until proven otherwise" is meaningless until you do.

What, in your opinion, does it take to prove that a book is not a reliable witness to the events it narrates?

-Jay- · 12-20-2007, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Greenleaf? I'm not familiar with this. Would you mind posting the title?

The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice (or via: amazon.co.uk) lurks in the footnotes of many an apologist.

It is critiqued in the II Library here by Richard Packham.

The text may be online here

Thanks, Toto.

regards,

NinJay

Robert Byers · 12-20-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Your just wrong.
Of course a witness is in good standing before men until questioned by someone who strives to show their not.
To use your example. The Judge or lawyer can only dismiss the witness as NOT in good standing after cross-examination or investigation.
Until then the witness is legitamate. It is never neutral. It doesn't need a thumbs up to begin.

Until the person has been established as a witness, they cannot be held in good standing. The first thing that the introducing lawyer does is to try to establish the good standing. And this is what historians do with literary sources, ie show that the writer was in a position to know what s/he was talking about.

In my life I judge everyone by what they say and what they do. Everyone does so more or less. Mother says not to listen to strangers. We have a system of trust levels. Regarding things of little importance, we have low needs for trust.

People can claim anything. If what they claim is important to us then they have to earn our trust.

Of course any text is a witness in some way to its own time. However, with the bible we don't know what the relevant times were because there are no clear indicators. With regard to Exodus for example two Egyptian cities are mentioned, Raamses (named after Ramses II) and Pithom (built by the pharaoh Necho at the end of the 7th c. BCE). The latter is a clear indicator that the name didn't come from the time the text is dealing with, suggesting that the text was written after the construction of Pithom.

A person comes to you and says, "I haven't got any money and I need to buy breakfast." You normally don't trust them on their statement. The first thing you do is start evaluating their claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

I'm not saying you must accept it as a true witness. Yet you must accept it being used as a true witnes in any discussion

In our trial, when one validates the witness as having something to say, then you listen to their testimony. "Where were you on the night of the fifth?..." and the various bible texts usually tell you they were elsewhere, as in the case of Pithom.

(This doesn't stop someone casually analysing what they have to say anyway for whatever reasons, but that has nothing to do with their witness status.)

spin

I'll try this one point you brought up.
You are saying a witness can not be in good standing until this is established.
I say this the rub of what we disagree about.
I say the bible and anyone who tells you something is a witness in good standing because their credibility must be presumed to be intact.
Your saying a witness must first be proven to be credible before they can even be received as a witness with potential truth.
This defeats the whole purpose of a witness.
If the events described had to be first established as true before the witness is seen as credible then there would be no need for a witness to begin with.
First someone tells you something and then after you can question them before a conclusion.
However until you question them they are legitamate to listen too.
If they were not then there would be no reason to question them.
So they are a witness in good standing. Whether what they said is true or not is not yet been decided.
I'm arguing for this witnesses credibility before the trial. I;m not arguing that the witness is right. Important difference.
One must presume the bible is a good witness until shown it is not.
Whew Even these things we disagree about.
Rob Byers

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-20-2007, 04:16 PM

The Bible does not claim to be a "witness" of the Exodus events. It's not entitled to any kind of standing as a witness until it is established that it claims to have witnessed anything. Even if that were the case (which it is not), it would be moot because the assertions are provably false.

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

12-20-2007, 04:16 PM	#110
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	The Bible does not claim to be a "witness" of the Exodus events. It's not entitled to any kind of standing as a witness until it is established that it claims to have witnessed anything. Even if that were the case (which it is not), it would be moot because the assertions are provably false.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.