spin

When you call it "holy text", what do you mean exactly? Is it something that cannot be "wrong"? If that's the case why exactly do you believe that? Is it because you believe that it is God inspired? The ultimate question then in this process is what objective grounds can offer for how you know what you claim to know.

A text needs to be tested historiaclly for admittance as historical data. To do so, you first have to show when the text was written. Daniel I can show was written around 165 BCE and that can be shown and it helps further understand that period.

But how do you derive dating for any of the other texts? Internal evidence is not sufficient. How do you tell what is based on real events or not, using only internal evidence? You can't. You need external evidence for whatever it is that you want to use. This still doesn't place the text as having been written at a particular time; it may only show that the author had a good grasp of the history of the period.

History is based on a complex web of evidence. No one book can supply enough information.

What I have said doesn't make the contents of the bible necessarily wrong, just not very useful for historical purposes. (I think I could go further but that isn't necessary here. You merely wondered about a certain text as a source and yes, it is a source, but of what? You first have to be able to answer that question in scholarly detail before you can use the text.)


spin

spin

But how can you know anything beyond those senses you have, when you have no other senses? Everything we know about the world, plus a lot of erroneous data, comes from those few senses we have. If God is beyond these senses, then how can you posit God as a reality? You have no way of separating your understanding of God from a schizophrenic's understanding of the people who inhabit his/her world. (And I'm not criticising schizophrenics. I am trying to be strictly descriptive in stating the problem.)

How can you get beyond those five senses and have any hope of dealing with reality?

This usually means that the sense data can be manipulated, but that data is susceptible to re-examination or regathering to check the results. (Things get <grin>a tad</> more difficult when dealing with the past.)


spin

Amos

The best you can do with this is prove that their interpretation is wrong and that means that they can still be right in believing the scriptures. 'Fundies' arrive at this conclusion through their intimation with reality and that is the 5th sense Badfish is alluding to.

So now you are both wrong and Badfish is still right. I respect 'Fundies" for their deep faith which is a gift of God (I am not one I think/I hope), but will not mock their faith as long as it serves them in their daily life.

rlogan

Thanks for the cite, there Ipetrich. Damn!! I knew it!!

My "preacher" had what I thought he was claiming as a doctorate in religion. So the S.O.B. would be up there chirping about Bethlehem on Dec 25, the Magi, and all the rest of it - knowing it was a bunch of hooey.

It seems to me though that they are all following the same path established during OT times - the miracle of "finding" the pentateuch, all the B.S. stories in the OT books, the NT frauds and forgeries, the obscene history of the Catholic Church, etc...

So when we agonize over cross-referencing passages in the Bible, it is an exercise in futility. Forgery compared with forgery.

PTET

Facts For Fundamentalists

Badfish: Evolution or our limitations of knowledge of "creation" doesn't rule out God.

Who said it does? It seems you did no more than glance at my page. Try this section:
Most Christian & Jewish organisations accept the scientific view of evolution


Badfish: And fundamentalists never seem to provide sources? How about holy text? Thats a source if you ask me.

Try these sections:
Most Christian Scholars believe that the OT is "mythological"
Fundamentalist scholars admit that academia rejects the Bible as accurate history


Badfish: Where to begin? The whole presentation is based on assumptions and human scientific knowledge, and doesn't speak well or seem to mix well with spiritual knowledge or Gods word, IOW, it seems to favor mans philosophy (which is not inerrant either by any means) over basic holy text.

You must have missed this:
Most Christian Scholars do not believe that the Bible is inerrant


Amos: The best you can do with this is prove that their interpretation is wrong and that means that they can still be right in believing the scriptures. 'Fundies' arrive at this conclusion through their intimation with reality and that is the 5th sense Badfish is alluding to.

On that point see my section:
Fundamentalists ignore evidence which contradicts the Bible


Amos: So now you are both wrong and Badfish is still right. I respect 'Fundies" for their deep faith which is a gift of God (I am not one I think/I hope), but will not mock their faith as long as it serves them in their daily life.

I had expected better than that from you, Amos. Who is mocking their faith? I note that you have not been able to raise one objection about the actual content of my page.


To everyone else - thanks for your comments - and keep them coming in...

PTET


Facts For Fundamentalists

lpetrich

PTET:
Most Christian & Jewish organisations accept the scientific view of evolution
...
Most Christian Scholars believe that the OT is "mythological"
...
Most Christian Scholars do not believe that the Bible is inerrant

However, as I'd noted above, it's strange that they have been unwilling to spread the word to their rank-and-file. Do they view their common public posture of quasi-fundamentalism as a Plato-style Royal Lie or something?

PTET

Hi lpetrich

That's a very good question. I've seen The Sin Of Silence and various quotes from William J. Bennetta and C. Dennis McKinsey on this point. If anyone knows of any research or studies about this, please let me know. I rather think it's a simple question of "why rock the boat?"

All the best

PTET


Facts For Fundamentalists

Amos

Sorry I did no tread your references and I do'nt have to to justify my comments. All I am saying here is that if the bible message transcends human understanding it is impossible for archeology to disprove its message and therefore Fundamentalists can still be right. In fact to even look for historical facts is to accept the surface interpretation of the bible and so be wrong to even start looking. Didn't Jesus say something like "it is an evil age that looks for signs" or something like that?

No, I don't call it a 5th sense but I know what Badfish means and archeologists also have this 5th sense or they would not even begin to look. So therefore, it is unbelief that makes them look and are impoverished believers now looking for evidence so they might believe.

rlogan

If the preacher tells you the Bible is forged, don't you think we'll have a little problem with the collection plate?

PTET

I will consider your comments withdrawn. Of course the Bible may contain real religious truths - but you do your beliefs no service to insist that "religious truth" must take precedence over any evidence to the contrary.


What kind of fantasy land are you living in? Biblical archaeology began because believers wanted to verify the truth of the Bible. Scholars like Albright dominated archaeology in the 1920s and 30s with their teaching that the Bible was accurate history.

Now even moderate, mainstream archaeologists like Dever realise that the OT is largely mythological. Of course, their are still cranks like Rohl and Fundamentalists like Bryant Wood claiming the opposite - but they've made little or no impact on modern scholarship.

No, the only real controversy in Biblical archaeology is from those who claim that Dever and the "Maximalists" are too enamoured with the idea of the Bible as real history.

Facts For Fundamentalists

PTET