Vinnie

Yeah, I believe God was too busy to stop the Holocaust but he found time to make an ass talk This is coherent and logical to me because "God 's ways are not our ways."

From something I wrote:

You are right though. Some people will believe almost anything

Vinnie

Vinnie

I "lack belief" in talking asses :notworthy

Vinnie

penumbra

Come by my office sometime and I'll show you a few!!!

Celsus

Let's keep this thread on topic folks.

Joel

penia

I didn't know I'd get so many responses so soon. I think the main point of
Holding's article (who I am not) is that without specialized knowledge it is
foolish to claim that the Bible is false or erroneous. Some may have this
special knowledge and can critique it, but without it its just hot air.
I don't believe in evolution but I know nothing about science so I don't try
to use facts and numbers that I don't even understand to try to disprove it.
I stay away from that arena because I don't have the facts. but I do
believe the Bible is inerrant so I study that.
Anyone can critique it, but they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. If
the Bible was truly proven as a hoax then there would be far less christians
today.

Roger Pearse

I wasn't there, and don't have prejudices on what can happen in this universe. If there is an omnipotent God, the objection must be meaningless: likewise the quaintly Victorian argument that it is vulgar or inappropriate. Presuming that there is not and then mocking people for not sharing this presumption must be bad manners, I'd have thought! (If we're going to be Victorian).

<joke resisted>

All the best,

Roger Pearse

DrJim

You, however, claim no specialized knowledge of science, so rightly don't use it to disprove evolution (which would be hard...) Fair enough, but if you are unwilling to seriously look at the challenge science presents to your theological position (you don't have to be a rocket-scientist...) you position is just a claim, and really has not grounding. You just assume biblical inerrancy and so only "study" the bible. Why should we give YOU the benefit of the doubt if you are unwilling to present and educated position?

P.S. An awful lot of "critics" of the bible are extremely well educated in biblical languages, culture and history of the Ancient Near East. The challenge does not just come from science.

Until you demonstate some knowledge that Holding is claiming is necessary, I will find it hard to take your claims very seriously (or Holdings, since in those sites he doesn't seem to demonstrate his own skills with the anceint languages cultures, literatures etc either)

JRL

Steven Carr

So if I said I had built a nuclear reactor in my back bedroom, you would not be able to critique that, as your knowledge of nuclear physics is limited....?!?

And many of us have enough specialist knowledge to know , for example, that apologists explanations are smoke-screens and mirrors.

For example, a claim that God being angry with somebody for doing something God has just commanded him as 'comic relief' is desperate searching for something, anything, to say as a defense.

BTW, do you believe there are errors in the Koran?

Or do your anti-supernatural biases prevent you from believing that Muhammad made a night journey to Jerusalem?

After all , all is possible, (except that people can write legends and myths - that is IMpossible)

rmadison

I can assure you that you do not understand gravity either, although I'm sure you *believe* in it.

You don't *believe* evolution because....oh, that's right...you don't know why.

How could you possibly believe the bible is inerrant? You say you've studied it...and you haven't found anything ah...odd, strange, etc?

I find it hard to believe that somebody could actually read AND study the bible, and maintain that it is inerrant.

I must conclude that you've read the bible (Genesis at least), but you didn't actually think about it.

Why don't they?

Didn't you read Vorkosigan's comment?

LOL. I'll bite. Holding's argument is erroneous. One does not acquire "the right" to argue because one knows stuff. That's nonsensical. Anyone can argue anything they like, and arguments are evaluated not on what their promulgator knows, but on things like whether they use appropriate evidence and are constructed logically. The argument stands by itself.

Do you understand this?

This is just an appeal to an anonymous, hypothetical, authority, combined with a "authority of the gaps", and a reversal of the burden of proof argument. No matter how much a person has studied, the theist (you) can always come back and say something to the effect of, "Yeah, but have you studied everything...?"

It's bogus.

Either the argument (the bible in this case) stands on it's own two feet, or it doesn't.

I've studied the bible quite a bit, and I've concluded that it's a bunch of bunk.

Let's say that I've studied it longer than you have (or somehow, objectively understand it "better" than you do)

All you have to do is introduce witness "A", who has studied it longer/better than me. Then I can introduce witness "B", who has studied it longer/better than "A", and so on.

It's endless, and pointless.

So - back to basics. Back to the "nuts & bolts" - the bible itself.

Roger Pearse

I thought J.P.H. was grasping at something important, myself, but that the subject required more thought. It is remarkably hard to crystallise the idea, as I found myself today while thinking about it.

It is probably as well to indicate that by 'criticism' we do not mean 'criticism as in textual criticism' -- the unfortunate translation of German Textkritik, meaning something more like investigation/analysis. Rather in this context -- and in this group? -- we mean the common English meaning of 'finding fault'

No-one objects to investigation, I take that as a given.

Is 'finding fault' a legitimate activity for any ancient text? I can see it two ways.

1. On the one hand, there is no reason not to compare it to the other evidence from antiquity, and establish if the text is in error on points of fact: always allowing for the fact that the text is itself part of the body of evidence being assessed! We may certainly in this way discover that the later biographies in the Augustan History (Scriptores Historiae Augustae) are mainly fictional.

2. But on the other hand, any document that actually survives from antiquity is in some sense above our investigation. We do not live in that culture, we are not there, and five minutes in the middle of that culture (by time-machine) would unravel many of our assumptions. Things that seem obviously daft to us would become immediately normal, and perhaps even taken for granted.

How valuable is most of the 'fault finding' of the bible? Does it promote greater knowledge of antiquity? Do those doing it find themselves led on to a greater and greater interest in the ancient world, and make ever greater contributions, not only to their own but to others' knowledge? Or is it a handful of malice-twisted cranks biting each other in a corner? Which of these is closer?

The sort of fault finding that consists of finding things the finder does not understand or refuses to understand, and then argues that this is some form of criticism of a text -- well, does anyone think that worthwhile?

Might I suggest that while it must be possible to use positively a text in translation, to debunk it must certainly involve knowledge of the language that it is written in? After all, no-one is responsible for what a translator may do to his work!

Just some stray thoughts.

All the best,

Roger Pearse