Freethought & Rationalism Archive

schriverja · 06-24-2011, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

You did not write the Bible, this much is true. But if you are presupposing its truth to justify its use in an argument, you are responsible for defending its trustworthiness.

Otherwise you are just preaching.

Wrong.

I examine internal contradictions within the texts themselves.
That does not require a presumption of the Bible's truth.
That requires only internal examination of its language for consistency.

The same can be done for Harry Potter, to see if the books are consistent.
Whether the books are true or not is irrelevant to the examination.

There is a whole thread for this specific subject.
If addressing internal contradictions within the Bible itself is "preaching," then the thread itself presumes "preaching."

If I were basing an entire line of argument on the premise that the Harry Potter series was literally true, I would be expected to provide adequate justification for that belief, would I not? In other words, the onus would be on me to make the case for why I thought Harry Potter was true. Until I made that case, any quoting or interpretation of a Harry Potter passage would be premature. If I hand-waved that requirement away with a statement such as "It's up to J.K. Rowling to demonstrate the truth of the Harry Potter series, not me" it would be a sham, especially since J.K. Rowling has made no direct claim of its truth. Likewise, if you want to assume that God is the author of all of the books in the canon (whichever canon you prefer), then you have to provide some sort of argument to back up this claim.

edit: It occurs to me that the Harry Potter series really isn't an appropriate comparison, as it was written by a single author over a fairly short time frame. A better comparison would be something like the Action Comics series that has been running off-and-on since 1938, utilizing several authors. If I was making the claim of its canonical truth, across those several authors, I would need to make the case that there was actually a "master" author at work behind all of them.

Imnotspecial · 06-24-2011, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

You did not write the Bible, this much is true. But if you are presupposing its truth to justify its use in an argument, you are responsible for defending its trustworthiness.

Otherwise you are just preaching.

Wrong.

I examine internal contradictions within the texts themselves.
That does not require a presumption of the Bible's truth.
That requires only internal examination of its language for consistency.

The same can be done for Harry Potter, to see if the books are consistent.
Whether the books are true or not is irrelevant to the examination.

There is a whole thread for this specific subject.
If addressing internal contradictions within the Bible itself is "preaching," then the thread itself presumes "preaching."

Okay, you find a consistency with the text; I too. I find it consistently wrong. If a mistake is made and later on repeated what does that prove?

Jaybees · 06-24-2011, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

So you agree that natural laws can be violated at will by god. Is that correct?

God can act outside (above) the natural laws which he ordained.

"Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

Now explain why none of the contemporary astromomers in China, Egypt, Mesopatamia and even the New World fail to notice this violation of the natural laws?

Can you explain that, or are you giving up?

simon kole · 06-24-2011, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Therefore nothing that is said from it is any more than noise without outside observational corroboration.

But that's the whole point. The bible is true, therefore no outside corroboration is needed.

That goes to the issue of belief, which is not my purview, and is irrelevant to my purview.

My purview is any perceived internal contradictions between its texts.
External corroboration is not required to establish internal contradictions between its texts.

Quote:

As simon has said, over and over again, if you can't corroborate what's in the bible, then it's up to god--if he wants to--to corroborate it.

For example:

"Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. "

Now you and I know that the sun didn't stand still. But the bible can't be wrong. So the sun stood still. All we need is to have god corroborate that fact.

As before, Jaybees, you are mishandling my statements to confuse two separate issues.

1) The miracle reported in Joshua is related to my purview only if its text presents an internal contradiction to some other text within the Bible.

2) The miracle is not related to my purview in terms of its external (to the Bible) corroboration.

Ergo: when asked to explain why there is no external corroboration of the miracle, which explanation is outside my purview, I direct you back to the Biblical explanation that it is a miracle.

Jaybees · 06-24-2011, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

The Bible's truth is not my purview. Its truth can neither be conclusively proven, nor disproven.

Even though it clearly makes a false statement as in:

"Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

As you put it, this is a deliberate "untruth". It can be and has been proven to be an "untruth". So I agree with you, you can't prove the bible's truth, for the simple reason that you can't explain away this "untruth."

simon kole · 06-24-2011, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Therefore nothing that is said from it is any more than noise without outside observational corroboration.

But that's the whole point. The bible is true, therefore no outside corroboration is needed.

As simon has said, over and over again, if you can't corroborate what's in the bible, then it's up to god--if he wants to--to corroborate it.

For example:

"Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. "

Now you and I know that the sun didn't stand still. But the bible can't be wrong. So the sun stood still. All we need is to have god corroborate that fact.

What is more the point though is that the bible says things things about history, and the universe has direct evidence about history, and according to the bible both are the work of god. Any such discrepancy would require god to have produced a lie in the universe, which the bible says god cannot and does not do. It leads to a direct logical contradiction in the bible. A lie is a lie regardless of if it was told using miracles or otherwise.

It does not lead to an internal contradiction between the texts, which is my purview.

Other perceived contradictions are outside my purview.

Quote:

It's not addressing Joshua's miracle at all, either, it's addressing genesis 1.

Jaybees · 06-24-2011, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

As before, Jaybees, you are mishandling my statements to confuse two separate issues.

1) The miracle reported in Joshua is related to my purview only if its text presents an internal contradiction to some other text within the Bible.

2) The miracle is not related to my purview in terms of its external (to the Bible) corroboration.

Ergo: when asked to explain why there is no external corroboration of the miracle, which explanation is outside my purview, I direct you back to the Biblical explanation that it is a miracle.

Got it. According to you, it really doesn't matter whether the bible is true or false, how many false statements it makes about the nature of the world, or how it falsifies supposedly historical happenings. What matters is "interrnal" consistency which was not even mentioned in the OP.

Well, at least you aren't in any sense whatever defending the truth of the bible. For good reason, as your numerous posts on this issue have demonstrated. YOU CAN'T.

simon kole · 06-24-2011, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Please refer to my post directly above your own. Apparently you missed the post where I proved conclusively that it is NOT true as a unit.

The Bible's truth is not my purview. Its truth can neither be conclusively proven, nor disproven.
So I don't engage to do it.

I simply address perceived internal contradtictions within its texts.
I do not address any perceived contradictions between its texts and anything external to it.

Where you are going wrong is the fact that the claim of divine authorship of the Bible can be disproven. If the account of creation doesn't line up with the evidence available it is disproven. If the Bible makes geocentric or flat-earth claims it is disproven. If there are failed prophecies (like Mark 13:30) it is disproven. If there are internal inconsistencies*, the Bible is disproven. If it is evident that the stories were cobbled together and respun from earlier, pagan sources, the Bible is disproven.

*I realize that creative mental gymnastics can be made, including speculating text between the lines, to reconcile most inconsistencies but then the onus is on the gymnast to explain why a divine author would create such a muddled text, requiring such gymnastics in the first place.

The Bible claims divine authorship.

The truth of the Bible is not my purview.

My purview is limited to internal contradictions between the texts.

Failte · 06-24-2011, 08:05 AM

Quote:

My purview is limited to internal contradictions between the texts.

Ok. How did Judas die? How do you explain away the contradictory verses without having to add something to them to make it work?

simon kole · 06-24-2011, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

You did not write the Bible, this much is true. But if you are presupposing its truth to justify its use in an argument, you are responsible for defending its trustworthiness.

Otherwise you are just preaching.

Wrong.

I examine internal contradictions within the texts themselves.
That does not require a presumption of the Bible's truth.
That requires only internal examination of its language for consistency.

The same can be done for Harry Potter, to see if the books are consistent.
Whether the books are true or not is irrelevant to the examination.

There is a whole thread for this specific subject.
If addressing internal contradictions within the Bible itself is "preaching," then the thread itself presumes "preaching."

If I were basing an entire line of argument on the premise that the Harry Potter series was literally true,

I am not basing, on the Bible's truth, my entire line of argument againt internal inconsistencies within the Bible.
Only its internal textual inconsistencies are my purview, and are the limit of what I will defend here.

Do not confuse my purview with responses regarding my personal belief, which is irrelevant to my purview
of addressing contradictions between the texts themselves.
Because it is irrelevant to the issue, my belief does not need to be justified.

Quote:

I would be expected to provide adequate justification for that belief, would I not? In other words, the onus would be on me to make the case for why I thought Harry Potter was true. Until I made that case, any quoting or interpretation of a Harry Potter passage would be premature. If I hand-waved that requirement away with a statement such as "It's up to J.K. Rowling to demonstrate the truth of the Harry Potter series, not me" it would be a sham, especially since J.K. Rowling has made no direct claim of its truth. Likewise, if you want to assume that God is the author of all of the books in the canon (whichever canon you prefer), then you have to provide some sort of argument to back up this claim.

edit: It occurs to me that the Harry Potter series really isn't an appropriate comparison, as it was written by a single author over a fairly short time frame. A better comparison would be something like the Action Comics series that has been running off-and-on since 1938, utilizing several authors. If I was making the claim of its canonical truth, across those several authors, I would need to make the case that there was actually a "master" author at work behind all of them.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.