Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mdd344 · 01-06-2007, 02:42 PM

Sauron stated, "No one here is wholesale rejection of the bible, or questioning its importance in shaping western civilization. But the claim of infallibility and divine inspiration flies in the face of historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence. "

THAT is the lack of objectivity I have noted. Even the Smithsonian disagrees with the bit about archaelogical evidence. And they certainly are not 'Christian.'

hatsoff · 01-06-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Sauron stated, "No one here is wholesale rejection of the bible, or questioning its importance in shaping western civilization. But the claim of infallibility and divine inspiration flies in the face of historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence. "

THAT is the lack of objectivity I have noted. Even the Smithsonian disagrees with the bit about archaelogical evidence. And they certainly are not 'Christian.'

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're not being objective.

Sauron · 01-06-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Diana,
You are still mistaken. I discussed the Koran not only with you, but with others. Now if you didn't read all of that, I am sorry indeed. But it is there whether you read it or not. Go and find it. Whomever it was I was discussing it with--between the two of us we came to an agreement about the 'divine presupposition.' Perhaps you missed that.

Well, that was me. I stated:

Quote:

Edited to add: look at it this way. You made a claim on a different post that you could spot mistakes in the book of Mormon and the Quran. But you don't believe in either of those two texts. By your own standards, you have contradicted yourself. You cannot spot any mistakes in those two books, because you don't believe in them. Therefore you must either:

(a) admit that those two books *could* be correct in how they present God; or
(b) admit that a person does *not* have to believe in some idea or religious concept, in order to spot mistakes in that idea or concept

What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

And a follow-up post, you agreed with my points:

Quote:

Sauron,
Okay, I get that point. And that makes me feel better about any discussion on it. I agree with your points.

So which is it?

Sauron · 01-06-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Sauron stated, "No one here is wholesale rejection of the bible, or questioning its importance in shaping western civilization. But the claim of infallibility and divine inspiration flies in the face of historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence. "

THAT is the lack of objectivity I have noted. Even the Smithsonian disagrees with the bit about archaelogical evidence.

No, son. They do not disagree with it. You are sadly mistaken.

You seem to have skipped the Smithsonian Statement on the Bible - I'll include a piece here, to remove the excuse of not reading it again:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...9156/ssotb.htm

Quote:

However, in the stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).

It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.

diana · 01-06-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Diana,
You are still mistaken. I discussed the Koran not only with you, but with others. Now if you didn't read all of that, I am sorry indeed. But it is there whether you read it or not. Go and find it. Whomever it was I was discussing it with--between the two of us we came to an agreement about the 'divine presupposition.' Perhaps you missed that.

As I politely requested, please provide the link. I was under the impression I have followed all the threads in which you've been having discussions, but perhaps I missed one.

Link, please.

EDIT TO ADD: Thanks for the link, Sauron.

Quote:

Second, prior to talking to you I had not even intended to parenthetically cite sources. I was merely preparing the best material I found in a report. I was not aware that it was an 'official paper.' It was merely what I had gathered and I never stated differently. After talking to you, I did cite them, in parenthesis. I also, as I have stated now for the third time, avoided using the Holden link source throughout the paper other than on a very few occasions. The other link, Conklin, I used a lot, and noted it throughout. What I didn't want was the links torn up and what I had gathered ruined BEFORE anyone had a chance to read it. That is entirely fair given the treatment I have endured by some.

When I was in the fifth or sixth grade, a little boy was visiting my brothers one afternoon and all sat down to do their homework. The boy told me he was writing a paper for a class. He began writing, but left out punctuation. I told him he needed to use punctuation, and he said, "The teacher didn't tell us we needed to use punctuation for this assignment."

Right. This board has rules about citing your sources. That's why I told you you'd have to cite them. Not that you should have to be told. You did not cite them honestly. It is reasonable to believe you did not for the exact reasons you gave me before you posted.

Keep wriggling. It's...both interesting and sad, like watching a cockroach try to get to its feet after it falls on its back.

d

diana · 01-06-2007, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

You seem to have skipped the Smithsonian Statement on the Bible - I'll include a piece here, to remove the excuse of not reading it again:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...9156/ssotb.htm

Why do we have an "official Smithsonian statement" on geocities?

d

Sauron · 01-06-2007, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diana

Why do we have an "official Smithsonian statement" on geocities?

d

It was provided earlier in this thread. You'd have to ask the website owner.

diana · 01-06-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

So which is it?

Yes. I note mdd has still not followed this question to its logical conclusion.

I'm interested to see what happens when he does. "Okay, I get that point" doesn't really follow this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion, does it?

Quote:

It was provided earlier in this thread. You'd have to ask the website owner.

Yes, I know. I just got distracted and forgot to ask then.

Even if the website owner works there in an official capacity, if he (she?) were providing the Smithsonian's official position on this, he'd be well advised to use the Smithsonian's official website.

While the post strikes me as rational and even professional, I question the source.

d

mdd344 · 01-06-2007, 03:00 PM

Sauron,
In your quotation, why did you leave out this part?

"On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated. There are conflicts between present archaeological evidence and historical reports that may result from a lack of information on our part or from misunderstandings or mistakes by the ancient writers. "

That certainly is at conflict with how you described 'archeology' and the Bible. You lead people to believe very little matches, when in fact, tons of it matches perfectly.

hatsoff · 01-06-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diana

Why do we have an "official Smithsonian statement" on geocities?

d

It is quoted by a number of websites, including answersingenesis.com--which, by the way, calls the Smithsonian an "evolutionary propaganda machine."

Go figure.

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

01-06-2007, 02:42 PM	#251
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	Sauron stated, "No one here is wholesale rejection of the bible, or questioning its importance in shaping western civilization. But the claim of infallibility and divine inspiration flies in the face of historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence. " THAT is the lack of objectivity I have noted. Even the Smithsonian disagrees with the bit about archaelogical evidence. And they certainly are not 'Christian.'

01-06-2007, 03:00 PM	#259
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	Sauron, In your quotation, why did you leave out this part? "On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated. There are conflicts between present archaeological evidence and historical reports that may result from a lack of information on our part or from misunderstandings or mistakes by the ancient writers. " That certainly is at conflict with how you described 'archeology' and the Bible. You lead people to believe very little matches, when in fact, tons of it matches perfectly.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.