CONFIRMABLE THEOLOGY?

Dear Mr. Morgan

I visited your forum and found it interesting, though a good representation of the polarization from both sides of the theist/non-theist aisle. I would just contribute that the analytical approach within the biblical issues raised here avoids a broader perspective and a range of “theories” that can be considered to answer many such inconsistencies in ancient history, just as with any science that doesn’t always “factually” stare us in the face.

My view in all this focuses on the ultimate purpose of biblical scripture as an instruction manual. If there is a true God, a virtuous and eternal life, and instructions on how to know and achieve both, I would want the most reliable documentation I can find. The alternatives are to follow unreliable sources, speculate from my personal world-view, or write off eternity entirely and hope I guessed right. But if reasonable information is available, I figure I’ve got nothing to lose and potentially everything to gain if I heed it. Sometimes the instructions might not fit my limited view of how things should operate, but how much do I trust myself over the professed manufacturer?

Despite the inconsistencies raised on your site, the fact is that biblical scripture overall and the wealth of manuscripts from which it is derived (most of which still exist today in one form or another for scrutiny by theists and non-theists alike) demonstrate significant validity within the study of ancient history through documentation, textual criticism, archaeology, geography, etc. Certainly, no other religious writings garner such confirmation in the sciences over such a long period of time. Historical documentation has even served to refute the “divine” nature of some spiritual founders revealing their own proclamations of non-divinity or a conspicuously contradictory personal example for their divinity.

Though I may find it an interesting exercise to rectify apparent contradictions that may arise in the Bible and attempt to determine if they are from “original” documents or the shortfalls of language translation, I am surprised, with all the historical support for biblical content, when some would use such relatively meager considerations to try to discredit the Bible and its corresponding theology as a whole. The Bible is not a single “theory” to be dashed, but an exhaustive collection of writings from different people, places, and times that must be at least considered for the remarkable content and thread of consistency that runs through it. There are obviously events and individuals that can’t be directly or factually proven in any such material, but neither can they be summarily discarded in light of all the confirmable elements, with the acceptance of secular histories based on equal or less criteria, and considering ongoing discoveries which are constantly providing new clues and revelations.

I trust that your readers would make a concerted effort to review all the information possible about biblical scripture and the related sciences rather than bow to easier and often self-serving condemnation, and ascertain if their future and that of their generations may benefit from what it may offer both factually and spiritually. I also suggest that, for the more discerning, this may not come from the average ministry but from diligent personal pursuit and gifted teachers. And it will probably not be intellect that brings us to a complete understanding.

I Cor. 1:21 (NKJV, NIV) – For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know him, it pleased God through the “foolishness” of the message preached to save those who believe.

-DM-

Ira:

I am not certain what it is that you have in mind when you say that you visited my "forum." You didn't identify the title of any article or provide a URL and I don't have a forum, per se. Various of <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/index.shtml" target="_blank">my articles</a> are included in the Secular Web <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml" target="_blank">Modern LIbrary</a>, and some of those articles address what I--and many others--consider to be biblical problems which are serious enough to preclude that the Bible was inspired by a perfect and omnipotent "God." I'm assuming it is these articles which you have in mind, and in particular, my compilation of <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html" target="_blank">biblical inconsistencies</a>.

--

While it may be your intention to focus "on the ultimate purpose of biblical scripture as an instruction manual," it is not at all self-evident that this is the "ultimate purpose of biblical scripture." I would agree, however, that whether there is or isn't "a true God," any reasonable person should want the most reliable documentation that s/he can find with regard to leading a virtuous life, whether that life be finite or eternal. In that regard, however, I believe that the Bible fails miserably for the very reason that it is hopelessly unreliable.

Even if one were able to convince him/herself that the Bible provides "reasonable information" in a general sense, the fact is that one might have plenty to lose and little to gain if s/he were to try to heed it. After all, the Bible is only one of several competing Holy Books which were allegedly revealed by a god. Which of those competing "Holy Books" to trust seems to be mostly a matter of where one is born and which religious belief system was held by one's parents. Not only that, heeding the Bible involves a belief in demon-possession as the cause of ill, the laying on of hands and exorcism as a viable cure for illness and disease, the ability to handle snakes and drink poison without suffering harm--and a number of other equally ineffective, impractical and/or downright dangerous practices. Thus, the potential for loss (rather than gain) can be increased by believing too wholeheartedly in what was written by ancient and comparatively ignorant men, men who claimed to be speaking for a perfect and omnipotent god when the fact of the matter is that what they put into the mouth of that god would make "Him" imperfect and/or less than omnipotent.

You ask, " . . . but how much do I trust myself over the professed manufacturer?," and yet you seem to fail to see the paradox in what is implied in that very question, namely that you have already trusted your judgement with regard to the advisability of buying into the concept of a "professed manufacturer" put forth in but one of several mutually-exclusive holy books written by men who claim to be speaking for "God" while at the same time you imply that you cannot sufficiently trust your own judgement so as to rely on it.

Yes, the "manuscripts from which the Bible is derived" mostly still exist today in one form or another and yes, they demonstrate significant validity. They also demonstrate significant invalidity. The latter is not what one would expect in the case of a perfect and omnipotent "God" and should give one pause in terms of trust.

To cite "documentation, textual criticism, archaeology, geography, etc." as confirming the Bible is myopic given that the same disciplines can be used to point up its shortcomings.

To state that "no other religious writings garner such confirmation in the sciences over such a long period of time" is foolish given that the very same claim is made by Muslims with regard to the Quran.

Regarding our readers, many of them (including me) have made more than "a concerted effort" to review a sufficient quantity of the available information about biblical scripture and related sciences to become convinced the Bible is not worthy of our trust, that it is its own worst enemy, an almost certain path to nontheism for anyone who feels that s/he can spot quackery when s/he sees it.

Keep in mind that I was once a born-again, Bible-believing Christian myself. I attended literally dozens of Bible studies and I eagerly learned what I could from many gifted teachers. It was the Bible itself which led me away from Christianity. So far as I am concerned, a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it had "He" inspired the writing of a book such as the Bible. And I am not alone in my opinion.

--Don--

-DM-

Ira responds:

---------

Author Topic: Confirmed Theology? II
&lt;Ira White&gt;
unregistered

posted May 22, 2002 07:22 AM

Don,
I guess my only problem with the views you expressed is based on an implication that biblical scripture or its translations must be totally inerrant, at least from our human understanding, as the “divine word of God”. I still struggle with this to a degree recognizing that some content appears simple cataloging of insignificant events or cultural issues, and at least some self-professed personal opinions: “…I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgement…” (I Cor. 7:25, NIV).

If I choose to accept a perfect and omnipotent God, I can’t necessarily blame him for inconsistencies that may arise within the documentation of men. Rather, I might use tools to assess a likely explanation as discussed by Jeffery Lowder in his article at <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/mckinsey.html:" target="_blank">www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/mckinsey.html:</a> “…historians do not throw out entire groups of documents simply because the documents contradict one another about the incidental details. Instead, historians try to determine the best historical explanation for those disagreements, in an attempt to identify the core historical facts.” Then I can but trust my judgement for that which I can reasonably determine on my own, and trust “the manufacturer” for the lessons within that may be beyond my understanding or perspective. I don’t see that as a paradox.

As for “the very same claim is made by Muslims with regard to the Quran” and from a strictly historical standpoint, it has seemed clear in my studies that the offerings of Mohammed, along with those of the Mormon Joseph Smith, appear to be uncorroborated, predictable and self-serving revisions of established Judaic-Christian scripture from which they were derived hundreds or thousands of years later, and their personal backgrounds and actions tend to support this. I believe and hope my studies were not swayed by bias as I was actually leaning towards Mormonism at one point.

Beyond what I believe is an essential pursuit for validity within the phenomena of physically-manifested spiritual gifts and prophecies, we can only tax our intellectual prowess towards the understanding, rejection, or reconciling of scripture. Nevertheless, we can respect each other’s passion for the truth and the choices we each must make. Thank you for the opportunity of sharing these views with you.

Ira White

-DM-

That is perhaps your inference, but that was not my implication. I tried to make it clear that quantity and quality were involved.

Quote:

Don: Various of my articles are included in the Secular Web Modern LIbrary, and some of those articles address what I--and many others--consider to be biblical problems which are serious enough to preclude that the Bible was inspired by a perfect and omnipotent "God." . . . I believe that the Bible fails miserably for the very reason that it is hopelessly unreliable. . . . So far as I am concerned, a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it had "He" inspired the writing of a book such as the Bible.

But now that you mention it, there certainly is no reason that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could not, should not, or would not see to it that anything which "He" was involved in was itself perfect. Anything less would either deny "God's" alleged perfection or his alleged omnipotence--or both.

Then you deny his omnipotence and/or perfection. Let's face it, with a supernatural being who is allegedly perfect and omnipotent, the buck stops with that being when it comes to imperfections in a book which "He" has allegedly inspired.

Your "God" is not a run-of-the-mill historian, rather he is allegedly perfect and omnipotent. No historian that I know of makes that claim nor is that claim made that I know of by anyone else about any historian. That claim is, however, made about the "God" of Christianity, the "God" of the Bible. Your "God" cannot legitimately be compared to a mere historian.

Even if it could be convincingly demonstrated that "a perfect and omnipotent God" exists, it would need to be convincingly demonstrated that this "God" had also inspired a Bible before I would want to believe that demon possession was at the root of illness, that illness could be cured by the laying on of hands and/or exorcism, that I could handle poisonous snakes and drink poison without it doing me any harm, that whatever I asked for in prayer believing I would receive I would actually receive, etc., etc., and even then, the fact that these teachings fly in the face of experience would give me pause.

If you want to believe these things--or if you want to use your own judgement to pick and choose what you will and will not believe in the Bible--so be it. Myself, I would judge "God" to be morally reprehensible had "He" anything to do with a book which is as imperfect as is the Bible.

The same can be said with regard to Christian revisions of the Old Testament--and even of the alleged teachings of Jesus inasmuch as very little of what he allegedly taught had not been taught before him and inasmuch as the myth of God incarnate--killed, and resurrected--is pre-Christian.

I certainly agree with you that we can respect each other's passion for truth and choice, but I must say that I think that the phrase "physically-manifested spiritual gifts" is oxymoronic; I tend to agree with Tom Flynn when he says that "spirituality" represents "transcendent double-talk signifying nothing."

--

Thanks for sharing. Should you wish to discuss your views further, you will need to become a <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=agree" target="_blank">registered user</a> of our discussion forums for the reason that the Feedback forum is not conducive to ongoing discussion in the same way that the other open forums are; in the Feedback forum, the only way of including a second reply from a user such as yourself in an already existing topic is to cut and paste.

Regards,
--Don--

-DM-

[Note: Moved here at the request of Ira White, who is now a registered user who would like to continue the discussion. --Don--]

Vorkosigan

....language translation, I am surprised, with all the historical support for biblical content, when some would use such relatively meager considerations to try to discredit the Bible and its corresponding theology as a whole.

Normally, we use history to discredit history, and theology to discredit theology. Nobody thinks that the Bible's theology is bad because its history is largely legend. Rather, we look at the kinds of moral behavior the Bible advocates, from killing wives who are not virgins on their wedding nights, to condemning non-believers to eternal torture, and we reject them.

The Bible is not a single “theory” to be dashed, but an exhaustive collection of writings from different people, places, and times that must be at least considered for the remarkable content and thread of consistency that runs through it.

Well, let's see.....the history of the creation of the Bible is complex, but in a nutshell, everybody was copying everybody, and the works were revised and edited periodically -- see, for example, the role of the P and R material in the creation of the OT. Again the NT was written by authors who used the OT, and heavily revised and controlled by the early orthodox Christians. A certain continuity is to be expected.

There are obviously events and individuals that can’t be directly or factually proven in any such material, but neither can they be summarily discarded in light of all the confirmable elements, with the acceptance of secular histories based on equal or less criteria, and considering ongoing discoveries which are constantly providing new clues and revelations.

Actually, secular historians frequently challenge the existence of major historical figures with far more data than the legendary Jesus.

Vorkosigan

doc58

Ira,
I would challenge you to do some research on the issue of manuscripts. When I was a Christian, I was always taught about the massive numbers of transcripts. Now I know the "rest of the story".
Did you know....

1)"Gospel manuscripts from the second century are very scarce, with only two fragments of John's gospel definitely written before A.D. 200 (i.e. P52 and P90)... of all the synoptic manuscripts which can be dated to the fourth century or earlier, only two (P45 and P75, both of the third century) contain more than a chapter" ('Novum testamentum,' p.111).

2)We have only 35 manuscripts dating from before 400CE, only four of which were at any time complete, and only 80 manuscripts dating from before 800CE.


3) No two of the 5400 manuscripts(except the smallest fragments) agree in all their wording. Some estimates put the differences at 200,000 to 300,000. In other words, there are more manuscript differences than there are words in the N.T.(from Ehrman)

4)"Furthermore, until beyond the 7th century, there is not one Greek manuscript that contains the books of the New Testament and just those books in their present order. The Codex Sinaiticus comes close, but it also contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, works rejected nowadays."
from: <a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm</a>

look at the above website and read "The N.T.- an Historical Introduction" by Ehrman.

lpetrich

Any good examples? And what are the reasons for such questioning?

It might be interesting to apply such reasoning to Jesus Christ.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Vorkosigan

I am thinking specifically of the claim that Socrates was an invention of Plato, the Confucius never existed -- new book out last year caused quite a stir, or that Tacitus was a forgery -- a claim made by 18th century scholars. I could multiply examples, but I think these will suffice.

lpetrich

I wonder what those arguments are, but one thing that Socrates and Confucius have in common is that they are both revered founder figures, and revered founder figures tend to collect lots and lots of myths. Even scientists cannot escape that; consider the curious belief that some seem to have that Charles Darwin had discovered evolution by natural selection by studying the finches of the Galapagos Islands when he visited there.

And would Jesus Christ also qualify as a revered founder figure? The answer to that question I leave as an exercise for the reader.

[ May 26, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>