Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 02-24-2006, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Likewise the analyst would do well at times to step back and see the scriptures as a full unit, and, as was lacking in any case, try to remember to see not just the specific written word, but also the context.

...The context is precisely what the analyst is seeing, and what the apologist is NOT seeing.

The CONTEXT is that the Bible is a collection of books written by various people, at various times, for various audiences: NOT some sort of "puzzle" that can only be "solved" when you have all the pieces.

Each piece needs to make sense ON ITS OWN.

Your explanation of Acts doesn't make sense on its own. Nobody would talk like that! Can you imagine an American politician, talking about Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma bomber, executed by lethal injection): "Now this man built and detonated a bomb, and he rotted and fell apart"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

The believer tends more to look at the text itself, seeing harmonies within the gospels and between the gospels and the rest of the NT, complementarianism is the norm, and 2 Timothy 3:16 is the foundational understanding. One section can fill in a 'gap' left by another section, a small word here and there can give the clues and the big picture. He sees the book of scripture, and the book of the New Testament, as a unit.

...Which it never was. Which is why he always gets it wrong.

And why use 2 Timothy 3:16 as "the foundational understanding"? Here's a summary of the pitfalls of doing that:

1. It is obviously circular to argue that "the Bible is true because the Bible says so" (or any variation thereof).

2. "Scripture" refers to what was already accepted as "Holy writ" when 2 Timothy was written: the Old Testament, not the New (and, hence, not 2 Timothy either).

3. The translation is disputed: while many Bibles say that "all scripure is inspired of God", this can also be interpreted as "all scripture that is inspired of God" (literally, "God-breathed"), implying that some scripture is NOT inspired of God.

4. Paul himself is a somewhat dubious source for "Holy writ": a man who never met Jesus (except "in a vision") and doesn't generally attribute his religious teachings to Jesus (he cites the Old Testament and "personal revelation"), but nevertheless invented a lot of Christian theology wholesale. Many Christians reject "Paulianity", and many people (including Christians) believe that he suffered from a mental disorder.

5. 2 Timothy is considered by scholars (on the basis of textual analysis) to be pseudigraphical: one of several "Pauline" epistles not actually written by Paul, but attributed to him to imbue them with authority.

...So, allegedly the Bible is inerrant because an anonymous author possibly says so, in an ambiguous document falsely attributed to a madman who never knew Jesus.

Steven Avery · 02-24-2006, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

in an ambiguous document falsely attributed to a madman who never knew Jesus.

You undermine any case you might be trying to make with this type of junque.

Steven Avery · 02-24-2006, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

.2. "Scripture" refers to what was already accepted as "Holy writ" when 2 Timothy was written: the Old Testament, not the New (and, hence, not 2 Timothy either).

As I have pointed out on this forum, the NT contradicts this commonly-stated view. The word for scripture/graphe is very specifically used by Peter for Paul's epistles, and by Paul in quoting Luke.

Jack the Bodiless · 02-24-2006, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

As I have pointed out on this forum, the NT contradicts this commonly-stated view. The word for scripture/graphe is very specifically used by Peter for Paul's epistles...

Yes, BY THEN Paul had become "scripture". My point is that there's no reason to believe that Paul imgined HE was writing "scripture" (even if 2 Timothy was indeed Pauline). "Canonization" takes time.

Quote:

...and by Paul in quoting Luke.

...Where?

Jack the Bodiless · 02-24-2006, 04:00 AM

In general, I think the problem is that when apologists view the Bible as some sort of complex puzzle that must be "solved" (MUST be solved: they have a great emotional investment to protect), they're immediately satified with any more-or-less logically valid solution they can find, and don't apply a final "reality check". They don't look at the solution and say "Yes, this explanation resolves all the scriptural diffculties, but unfortunately it's absolutely batshit insane!".

A good example is the census problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go

David taking a census. (To save bandwith, the three accounts of this event are at 2 Samuel 24:1-25, 1 Chronicles 21:1-28 and 1 Chronicles 27:24. Please read at your leisure)

Having read such, I have a few questions. Most are multiple choice to make it easy. (“A�?= 2 Sam., “B�?= 1 Chron. 21 and “C�?=1 Chron. 27)

1. When did God get angry?
A. Before the census
B. Never recorded that God became angry
C. Because of the census

2. Who incited David to take the Census?
A. God
B. Satan
C. Nobody.

3. What human mandated the census?
A. David
B. David
C. Joab.

4. Who protested against the census?
A. Joab and his captains.
B. Joab.
C. Nobody, Joab just did the census.

5. What was wrong with taking a census?
A. Nothing, God mandated it in Numbers 26:2
B. Nothing, God required it for taxes in Exodus 30:12
C. Nothing, They just did one in the preceding 23 verses!

6. How long did it take to do the census?
A. Nine months, 20 days.
B. Not recorded
C. Didn’t complete the census

7. Who all was counted?
A. All tribes
B. All tribes except Levi and Benjamin
C. Didn’t complete the census.

8. What was the number of the census?
A. 1.3 Million
B. 1.57 Million (with LESS tribes counted!)
C. Number was deliberately not recorded.

9. What stopped the census?
A. Done counting
B. Done counting
C. Wrath of God, census not completed.

10. Who took the blame for doing the census?
A. David
B. David
C. Not recorded, but apparently Joab. (COULDN’T be David. 1 Kings 15:5)

11. What was the first threat of punishment of God?
A. 7 years of famine
B. 3 years of famine
C. No threat, it just came!

12. What is the name of the Jebusite where the angel stopped?
A. Araunah
B. Ornan
C. Umm…What Jebusite? They should all be killed on sight. Deut. 20:17

13. What did the Jebusite do when he saw the Angel of Death?
A. Doesn’t say the Jebusite saw the Angel.
B. Just kept working, just kept working…
C. Excuse me? Jebusite? Didn’t David award Joab his position because he fought and killed the Jebusites? 1 Chron. 11:6

14. What did David buy from the Jebusite?
A. The Threshing floor and the oxen.
B. “the place�? (just the floor)
C. Are you crazy? THERE IS NO @#%%@ JEBUSITE! David would have killed him!

15. How much did David pay the Jebusite?
A. 50 shekels of silver
B. 600 shekels of gold
C. I’m telling you-- There is no Jebusite!

The test you cannot fail—all answers and no answers are correct. REGARDLESS of what you circled, you get 100% right!

...From here (where various apologetic "explanations" are also addressed).

In that discussion, the apologist's response was to claim multiple censuses with more-or-less the same cast of characters each time. The problem with this explanation is that it's absolutely batshit insane. But that didn't matter to the apologist.

Contrast this with the "vertical whale" creationist claim: that a whale fossil was found embedded vertically in multiple sediment layers that took 50 million years to form (according to conventional geology).

I found this quite disturbing. I couldn't think of a plausible explanation. In hindsight, if I hadn't limited myself to plausible explanations, I could have used the following:

Millions of years ago, there was a violent volcanic eruption. Escaping gases blasted out a whale-sized plug of sedimentary rock. Another nearby explosion blasted a passing whale high into the air, and it fell headfirst into the hole. Problem solved!

Actually, in my naivety, I had underestimated the willingness of creationists to lie about the facts. The fossil was laid down horizontally, not vertically: A Whale of a Tale. So I didn't actually need an absolutely batshit insane explanation after all.

Steven Avery · 02-24-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

The word for scripture/graphe is very specifically used by Peter for Paul's epistles, and by Paul in quoting Luke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

...Where?

Here is a recent thread
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146779
Does Paul quote Luke as Scripture?

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-24-2006, 09:22 AM

Paul was dead long before Luke was written and he didn't write the Pastorals anyway.

ExChristian8 · 02-24-2006, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Check both the meanings of headlong in English and prenes in the Greek. Your point is well taken, but does not apply.

Praxeus, I answered your response for the example I gave in this thread with definitions for headlong in case you didn't get a chance to read it.

Steven Avery · 02-24-2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExChristian8

Praxeus, I answered your response for the example I gave in this thread with definitions for headlong in case you didn't get a chance to read it.

Hi. Your limited definitions include "in a rush; with reckless haste" and www.dictionary.com and others makes it clear that the term (unlike headfirst) often has a meaning, which we commonly use ("he went headlong into danger") that is irrespective of physical position. Even in physical positioning it doesn't mean headfirst. And Notsri covered well the Greek aspects, which you didn't discuss.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-24-2006, 10:05 PM

Praxeus, who bought the potter's field?

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

02-24-2006, 09:22 AM	#37
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Paul was dead long before Luke was written and he didn't write the Pastorals anyway.

02-24-2006, 10:05 PM	#40
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Praxeus, who bought the potter's field?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.