Jack the Bodiless

nightmeetslight:

...Or you could use the Hindu scriptures instead and get a different answer. Or the "dreamtime" legends of the Australian Aborigines. And so forth.

I get the impression you haven't really thought about this much.

Sven

Columbo, could you give your opinion on the fact that the bible gets history wrong on several occasions? Especially in places where the right history was known to its writers, but was apparently modified for political/theological reasons?

Columbo

Sven, the problem is that there isn't a problem. :banghead:

History says? Is modern history aka science? Also - who cares what science says. Science isn't the interpretor of my bible, if it attempts to understand God it will not. But science says nothing about God.

I think the problem is that you're trying to force science to asess the bible because of your atheism. A wise atheist will spot this aswell.

Do you see the problem with trying to use science or history against the bible? It's a wrongful endeavour of post-concocting a derivement of choice biases to the navigator.

Sven

Modern history says that the history of the bible is wrong. All I want to know is if this
(1) does not bother you because the bible is also not about history; it does not matter if its writers lied about history.
(2) is denied by you because modern history can not be correct because the the bible says something different.
(3) ?

I'm not using science against the bible - I use the fact that some of its writers are proven frauds against it. Granted, those proofs used scientific methods, but that's not the same.

I think the problem is that you're trying to force reality to be what the bible says regardless of the evidence because of your theism. A wise theist will spot this aswell.

Do you see the problem with trying to use the bible against reality? It's a wrongful endeavour of post-concocting a derivement of choice biases to the navigator.

Columbo

Sven;

Sorry for not taking that as Gospel, but it's what we call a claim Sven - and one which the claimant (you_, has not backed up. Just how can you prove an Exodus didn't happen? Even if there was no evidence, it might have happened. Like when someone is killed, but afterwards there is no evidence.

Who is this modern history who says the history of the bible is wrong, -- and if so, is he arguing from ignorance

Notice the "if" - that is - if you prove your claim, then is your source arguing from ignorance?

What evidence? There is no evidence against Jesus's resurrection or for his resurrection. What evidence? There is no evidence that the Gospel is true or is not.

Now since a YEC position is a post-concocted position of sorts, and the bible says nothing against an old earth etc, then present this illusive evidence of mighty weight which apparently endeavours to glance a destructive blow to my theological champion of champions. :rolling:

Sven

I see you chose option (2) - consistent with other creationists. But what did I expect?

I suggest to go to BC&H and ask there. Especially the recent (long) thread Is Lack of Evidence a form of Evidence? might be of interest.
Fact is: We have a quite good recording of the history of these times from other kingdoms nearby; fact is, these recordings as well as other archeological findings show that most of the early history of Israel was invented out of thin air to fit the need of the priests.

You behave exactly as every other creationist: If the evidence disagrees with the bible, it's the evidence which is wrong, never the bible.

:rolling:
That you even ask something like this only demonstrates your ignorance.
The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman is a good start.

I'm mainly talking about the OT.
But there's good evidence that Matthew, for example, invented prophecies out of thin air. And if two gospels can not agree on the dating of Jesus birth, I'd say that this is good evidence against them being (completely) true.

As is yours.

First go to BC&H, read a lot, then come back and see who's laughing.
*shrug*

Columbo

Sven,

Oh - good evidence. Can you show me then?

No Sven - there is no evidence - just speculation. Look at the book you suggested;

"the bible unearthed". Hmmmm, doesn't take Columbo to see the intentions there.


No Sven - it demonstrates that you prefer personal add hominem attacks which have nothing to do with backing up your claims, which is what you have to do. I am asking you to back up your claims. You said NOTHING, zero, zilch concerning the miracles of Christ because I am correct, there is no such historical evidence against him.

Likewise, you can't just ask me to read a book - or a thread made by partaken by atheists.

Hmmm, only I haven't seen any evidence yet. I mean - could you atleast suggest ONE EVENT??????

As for my behaviour, 1. It's a add hominem attack which is irrelevant, and two - you illogically assumed I am a typical creationist - and compared me to other creationists - who share the name, which is an illogical useless piece of information - the fallacy of the undistributed middle. All I share with "other creationists" is the name "creationist", therefore logically, there is no connection between me and a YEC, as I am a creationist who accepts science, and so first I must see that the evidence is against the bible, and that the bible decidedly says contrary to that evidence, to be guilty of this "behaviour".

Example of the undistributed middle term;

Bush believes in God, Jesus believes in God - therefore Jesus would vote Bush, or is for Bush.

WRONG. Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

And so - other creationist are irrelevant to me, as there are many forms. Young earthers - flat earthers, old earthers. I use the term - because I believe God created.

Also - you said, "You behave exactly as every other creationist:" -

1. Show me creationists behaving this way, so I can believe you.
2. Show me the evidence against the bible which you should quote, so that I can behave this way.

Arguing when you can't prove something is also the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Even if there was no evidence for an Exodus or Christ - that doesn't prove they didn't happen, it proves there is no evidence.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

PoodleLovinPessimist

There's more to this question than just the specific evidence. It's a metaphysical question: If we have good scientific warrant for believing something is impossible, what should our attitude be towards a claim to the contrary? Should we disbelieve the claim, believe the claim or remain agnostic? If we do anything but disbelieve the claim, we are taking the metaphysical attitude towards science that it doesn't say anything at all.

If we ascribe any epistemological status to science, then we must at least strongly disbelieve reports that counter our scientific knowledge. This is not to say that we must absolutely reject claims contrary to science, but that an alternative explanation consistent with known science is preferable if such an explanation exists. And, of course, the alternative explanation that the stories of the resurrection are simply fiction is consistent both with the evidence available and with our scientific knowledge.

One can, of course, take the metaphysical position that science is not a valid epistemology. You can even take the metaphysical position that science is sometimes valid and sometimes invalid, perhaps on alternate Thursdays. <shrugs> Again, though, I remind you that few people here care what you actually believe; you don't have to believe anything in particular. What matters, though, is whether your metaphysical beliefs make for interesting philosophy. The position that "I can believe anything I want" is true, but it's not interesting philosophy.

Well, we appear to disagree on what the Bible actually says. You're the Christian, you probably know the bible best, all you have to do is show us in Genesis a gap in the narrative where we can put in the extra history without contradicting the literal meaning of the text. If you don't want to do this (and I wouldn't blame you) let's keep talking about the metaphysics of science vs. the obvious accounts of miracles in the Bible, which involves the same metaphysical issues.

Columbo

PLP.

Perhaps every other thursday indicates it's not proper to ever take science as invalid. However - how can science describe the brilliance of say, a musical, or a good book? You imply that you think I am picking and choosing, but this is incorrect, as science is simply not applicable when it comes to decidedly un-natural events.

Therefore - no science can be applied to the events of the Gospel message.

It might be conventional wisdom that no supernature is detected, but then - when did Jesus allow himself to be tested?

Also - PLP, it was you who started in this thread, to suggest that science and the bible are mutually exclusive. So when you say no one cares what I believe, I must wonder what your motive was for mentioning that the YEC position is correct biblically. Are you saying it's better for believers to be YEC essentially? Or did you want to bait me because I am apparently a believer - who isn't YEC?

If no one cares what I believe - is it okay with you that I don't believe that science and the bible are mutually exclusive? I think it's a reasonable position - as I am not making any claim that the bible is scientifically correct, but rather - if I want to know how something works - like an earthquake, I'll go to the science. But if I want to know why it happened, then I'll go to my bible.

For me - the timetable is created by the headmaster - but the headmaster can still change the timetable, indeed - he creates and controls it - not the other way around.

To suggest God MUST fit into man's knowledge, is for me - an arrogant position. We know so little.

Gliptic

Ah, so you say that the events never really happened. Because that's the only reason why science wouldn't apply.