cjack

Damn, Coleslaw beat me to it, and was far more concise than my now-dead post!

Well mdd? Can the Bible be even a tiny bit wrong? (Edited to add) What if ALL the evidence is known, and in that case the Bible is clearly wrong?

hatsoff

Most of the Bible's claims are simply unconfirmed, not disproven. A few of its claims are soundly refuted by historical record. More are refuted by natural laws (IE, raising people from the dead or feeding the 5000).

Nature does not allow for absolute proof, so Christians can always wiggle out of a Biblical error if they presuppose inerrancy.

diana

That admission makes me a prophet. Thanks.

That's because they're writing their own stuff from things they have learned. If you wish to have sources for what they tell you, just ask.

No. You quoted what others said without giving your exact source. That isn't the same as explaining something from your own preexisting knowledge. Again, if someone says something here and you think he's full of it, simply request substantiation. But when you quote and don't give credit? You sound like one of my students.

You mean, we interpret the bible without presuppositions, and therefore we "haven't understood it." Nononono. We don't understand it like you understand it, which is not that same as not understanding it. Your arrogance is showing again.

You mean, when I say, "Don't listen to him because he is an atheist/Christian/Muslim"? That's ad hom. If I say you're wrong because you're a Christian, that's ad hom.

However, simply attacking another person individually does not necessarily constitute ad hom. I suppose you mean the bit about accusing you of lying... If it's good enough for a court of law to discredit the witness, it's good enough for me. Supported accusations of lies are not ad hom attacks, unless I use this information to claim you should not be listened to, period. Which I have not. I've used it as an example of how you rationalize your behavior to make yourself believe you comply with what you preach instead of simply practicing what you preach. I've used your behavior, as a preacher for the COC, to show the dishonest methods regularly employed by others of your ilk. You were polite enough to further demonstrate how this works by trying to rationalize your behavior, which is a far better example than I could have explained.

I suppose thanks are in order.

Thanks.

d

mdd344

Hatsoff,
Is there any arch. evidence that completely, without question, refutes the Bible, beyond any other rational explanation?

Sauron

I've never sat down to count up all the archaeological claims made in the bible. In fact, I don't think there's anyone has. My guess is that there is no way to agree upon a grand total number. Josh McDowell tried to count *prophecies* up and assign a probability of fulfillment, in "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." But he made so many mistakes in his history and his calculations that he decided to leave the Fulfilled Prophecy Chapter 11 out of the latest printing of ETDAV.

[1] To create a percentage, you need two numbers:

a. a total
b. a subset

And then you use this formula:
(subset / total) x 100 = percentage%

There's no way to get either (a) or (b).

[2] You'd also have to suggest some guidelines as to what constitutes an archaeological claim, as compared to a historical or a textual claim. For example, if the bible says:

DAN 5:1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

Is that an archaeological claim? Or a historical one? Or both?

You don't have to go that far to find the real reason why your position won't work. Infallibility, by definition, means zero mistakes. But all it takes is 1 claim proven wrong, and biblical infallibility would be disproven.

Off the top of my head, I can come up with at least a dozen major (not minor) archaeological claims in the bible that have failed miserably. So from my perspective, it isn't necessary to know an exact percentage of correct vs incorrect claims. Biblical infallibility has already been shot down.

I hope the above clarifies it.

David B

I suppose that depends on where you draw the line 'related to the bible'. If One looks at all the archaeological evidence concerning the time period dated to within acceptable error to before the age of the Earth insofar as it can be told from biblical sources as related to the bible, then certainly all of that.

Lots.

Fuck knows. But all the evidence that comes from pre biblical dates is sufficient to screw the inerrantist position. Completely.

Shall we have a look at some archaeology, and the dating thereof, of what is inconsistent with an inerrantist biblical view. The percentage is irrelevant, as long as it is sufficient. Which it is.

Tons of evidence disagrees with a literal interpretation of the bible. Tons of archeaological evidence. Pretty much the whole of biology and genetics. To a close approximation, all of geology. And cosmology.

Over-fucking-whelming evidence against.

Want to start on plate tectonics?

Or what?

David B

hatsoff

No. It's like I said: absolute proof doesn't exist.

mdd344

hatsoff,
Then I would strongly suggest no one ought to include the phrase 'archaeological' anything in a statement about how the Bible was not what it claimed to be.

Which was my point with Sauron. In fact, based on what you said, I would expect objective people never again to refer to that as an example of how the Bible is not what it says it is.

Is there any reason why I should not expect that?

Sauron

I think I do a pretty good job of citing sources. That takes a lot of work, and I try to format the text carefully so it's easy to read and what I'm quoting is clear.

Given the effort that I'm putting into making this discussion productive, can you explain why you ignored almost all my posts on the problems with Daniel?

mdd344

Sauron,
I noted what you said. And you are one of the few that actually does a professional type job. But I do not feel the need to answer your posts. I have presented what I wanted to present. You have given your response. Basically, I am done with it. People who read can see both sides, and decide for themselves.