Johnny Skeptic

That is fine. According to you, the Bible says that a global flood occured. Obviously, a global flood did not occur.

The Bible is nothing more than personal opinion, speculation, and guesswork, certainly not history and science.

rhutchin

Why don't you start a new thread and explain how you came to the conclusion that the Bible does not tell us that a global flood occurred.

rhutchin

That's interesting. I tend to be oblivious to the author of the books that I read (I may know them by reputation, like John Piper, but not know anything about them). The material in a book stands on its own.

Books always tell us something. That's their purpose. I think you are getting into some weird philosophizing here.

rhutchin

If I understand your point, you are claiming that two different authors both use the same term, "preparation," in describing events that involve the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread and that one meant something different from the other. I can't buy into that. I think, within the cultural setting, the term, "preparation," had only one meaning and a person reading the synoptics or John would understand the term, "preparation," to mean the same thing - the preparation of the pascal lamb to be sacrificed in the temple.

Perhaps, you are arguing that, apart from the formal temple ritual, each family could kill a lamb for the passover meal and this action would be called the "preparation."

Regardless, both the synoptics and John place the timing of the "preparation" as coming immediately before the sabbath, don't they.

The synoptics:

And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, (Mark 15:42)

And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. (Luke 23:54)

John:

The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. (John 19:31)

In each case, the crucifixion has occurred. There is not way that you can construe the references to the "preparation" in the synoptics to come before Jesus is crucified.

Doug Shaver

In many contexts, it is rhetorically convenient to say it that way, but as a matter of empirical fact it is the people who write the books who are doing all the telling.

And in any context, if there is any question or dispute about just what it is that "the book says," then there can be no resolution without an inquiry into the author's state of mind.

rhutchin

OK. Books are the means for people to convey their thoughts and ideas to others. To the extent that the author is able to accurately convey those thoughts in writing, we know what he thinks. If the person is not able to write well, then his thoughts and ideas will be distorted. Nonetheless, the book is that which provides the information absent other means especially for those who have died.

I don't see why you are dwelling on this. Is there a point that you want to make relative to that which we read in the Bible?

Doug Shaver

Yes. The point is that if I read something in the Bible that seems unlikely to be true, it is reasonable for me to infer that the author probably either made a mistake or was deliberately writing fiction, pending my becoming aware of good evidence that would make some other inference more reasonable.

rhutchin

How do you determine if what you read in the Bible "seems unlikely to be true"? Do you make any presuppositions that we should know that allow you to come to this conclusion?

Doug Shaver

By comparing it with what I think I have learned about the real world after 63 years of living in it and studying how it works.

Pardon the cliche, but I never know whether to laugh or cry whenever I hear an apologist refer disapprovingly to presuppositions.

Of course I make some presuppositions. We all do. If you'd like to compare your presuppositions with my presuppositions and let the lurkers decide whose are more reasonable, I'm game, and it's your move.

Johnny Skeptic

Well, regarding your belief that a global flood occurred, there is no "seems unlikely to be true" about it. It is a virtual given that a global flood did not occur. Even many conservative Christians know that, including Hugh Ross, Ph.D., astronomy, and Glenn Morton, geophysicist. They both believe that the flood was localized, but Ross believes that a localized flood occurred in Mesopotamia, and Morton basically says that there is no way that a localized flood occurred in Mesopotamia. How do you explain the needless confusion that God causes?

Your question indicates that you are up to one of your old fundie tricks of trying get skeptics to become the claimants and try to disprove the Bible. Please be advised that skeptics are no more obligated to disprove the Bible than you are obligated to disprove Deism. I am pretty sure that you would not like to try to disprove Deism.

How do you determine if what you read in the Bible "seems likely to be true"? Surely you must know that there are entire books in the Bible that cannot be validated by using history and/or science.

It would be nice if you had something to offer other than personal opinion, speculation, and guesswork.