Skeptical

Notwithstanding the oft repeated maxim "evidence of absence is not evidence of absence", a lack of evidence when said evidence should fully be expected can weigh strongly against the veracity of a claim.

If I knock on your door and claim I need to use your phone because my car just broke down in front of your house, yet you look out and no car is in evidence, you would probably seriously doubt the veracity of my story.

If I then said, "well, when I said in front of your house, I just meant that if you walk straight from your home about 1 mile ahead, my car is there." You then walk the mile and the car is not there and I say, "well, when I said a mile, I meant a "country" mile, which translates into roughly 10 miles compared to your "regular" mile.", so then you keep walking...etc. etc. At some point you must reasonably conclude that there is, in fact, no such car and I am simply pulling your leg, or I am deluded about my cars' existence.

Missing evidence where one expects it does tell us something, and can even be compelling in some instances.

I'm curious though, about your "inerrantist" statement. If you are "close" to this view, what parts of the OT or NT do you consider to be allegorical or simply not literally true? You don't have to give a comprehensive list, just one example of a statement or story you don't think is literally true. It would also be nice if you would give your reasoning as to why you think the particular incident is not literally true.

Major Billy

<a href="http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/?CP=SAL&DN=110" target="_blank">Heck yes...</a>

lpetrich

There is good reason to believe that that is true for parts of it, but that is certainly not true for ALL of it.

For example, the book of the Law that was "discovered" in the Temple had specified centralizing religious practice at Jerusalem -- and the Book of Deuteronomy preaches exactly the same thing. The centrality of Jerusalem is not very evident in the other books that have lots of laws, like Exodus, Leviticus, or Numbers. So that "discovered" book was likely Deuteronomy, which was likely composed for the purpose of justifying centralizing in Jerusalem. Otherwise would be asking much of coincidence.

Grumpy

Vorkosigan: Since inerrantists are people who believe in spite of material evidence, there's not much point in talking with them, except for the amusement value.

Haran: ...you do realize that most of that "material evidence" against the Bible is actually just a lack of evidence, right?

Material evidence is not a factor when discussing internal contradictions within the Bible, or any supposed inerrant scripture. On this subject, the only evidence needed is at least two statements from the scripture, one which says A=B, another A=C. Where inerrantists and skeptics disagree is whether B=C or not.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Grumpy ]</p>

lpetrich

What errors do you believe the Bible to have, O Haran? Please be specific.

And what are those arguments, O Haran?

ax

When taking things literaly or not, you need to look at what kind of book or passage it is,eg:
poetic, historical etc...If the skeptic really wants to find an answer,then he will search untill he has an exact answer.Its no good finding some insignificant apparent fault, and then not go the full degree to get an answer.Many of the apparent faults that have been listed on various sites have been proved wrong.( by the way, people should try using their brains and not expect me or anyone else to spell things out for them-I'm not trying to be mean here)

Skeptical

In my opinion, the problem is that there is no objective criteria, or at least none that is widely accepted, that allows one to determine which passages are "poetic" and which are "historic", which means it usually comes down to the particular biases and personal background of the person examining the passages in question.

For example, is the Genesis creation story "poetic" or "historic"? It clearly looks "poetic" to me and clearly is not in keeping with scientific evidence, yet some believe it is "historic". Indeed, some people believe it is _all_ "historic".

Given this, the only positions that seem consistent are biblical literalists, who simply believe it's all "historical", and the skeptics who for the most part believe it's all "poetic" or allegorical. (except for passages that can be independently verified to refer to historical events)

Most Christians actually fall somewhere in between these extremes, but when pressed regarding specific passages that contradict observed fact or generally accepted morals, they have difficulty clearly articulating why they do/do not believe some passages and not others. Most of the time it comes down to "well, I don't really believe/feel that God would say/do that...", which really just comes down to a personal evaluation without clear selection criteria.

If you want to see a clear indicator of this, start asking a non-fundamentalist Christian some specific questions about hell and the morality of such a place. Depending on their background and upbringing you will get some _widely_ varying answers and interpretations.

So you see, the problem is that people _are_ using they're brains, its just that when one starts to apply critical analysis to the OT and NT, it's quite a chore to sort out what is "poetic" and what is "historical" using any other benchmark than what is historically/scientifically verifiable. If you've got some other objective criteria for performing this task, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Haran

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Lost it.... Sorry...

Hahahahahahahahahahaha..... Please... You're killing me.

(p.s. - Will you guys ever really study? See, the problem here is that it takes knowledge to recognize bunk, and if you won't listen to me, then you must find out for yourself. Otherwise, you'll always be guilty of spreading junk scholarship. Learn the languages. Learn some history. Then try again. Please.)

Haran

Haran

While you have a point, your example leaves out a couple of very important factors...time and human error.

Time wears away evidence. Humans err by misinterpreting data.

I can't be as sure as you seem to be.

Haran

ax

The way I recomend to go about understanding the bible is as follows(sections anyway):
1.Study closely the passage in context with
the book's message or theme.A text without
a context is a pretext.Examine the circumstances
the reason for writing, the person addressed,
the person doing the writing, the time of
writing, prior and later developments, and other
factors, and you will find there is a perfectly
valid explanation.
2.Take into consideration the legitimate use of
parabolic language and figures of speech.Much of
the bible (psalms for example) is written in
poetice narrative.(figures of speech etc)
3.The full truth regarding a particular situation
can often be appreciated only if the different
aspects of that situation are emphasized
seperatly(eg the "election" and "whosoever"
passages) These are merely the surface
expressions of two aspects of a much broader
concept incorporatin all the activities of an
infinite god in relation to finite man. Like
the blind men, each attempting to describe an
elephant he could touch, we may well see only
a very small portion of the truth and need to
recognize that the apparent paradox may be
merely an extension of our own limitations.
4. Check out the translation, and the cultural
terms used.EG: the conflict between thou shalt
not kill and he that smitteth a man, so that he
die, shall be put to death is not a conflict at
all. The word "kill" in the 1st example actually
refers to murder.Translation problems are the
result of how stupid we humans can be at times.
(goes to show we need help of some sort).
5. The bible was written for all people. Not for
scientists and scholars only. THerefore, it frequently employs approximations and everyday ter
minology, rather than exact quantites and precise scientific notation.(when a series of events is narrated, the order may be either chronological or pendagogical, depending on the particular contextual purpose of the passage).
I've run out of time, but if you want to contact me to agree or slap me down in more detail, I'm at bionicvapurboy@hotmail.com .