3 edits
Sorry, I have not made myself clear; it's not the modern analysis of the ancient texts which is problematic, it's the ancient texts themselves. They survive because they supported the message which believers wished to transmit.
Therefore the content is necessarily fallacious because believers wished to transmit them on?
Can you explain how THAT ipso facto make them FALSE information.
Is there such a thing as true propaganda?
Is it conceivable the something significant to a huge degree would be preserved, passed on by people risking their lives in many cases to possess and transmit them?
Is that an unthinkable and impossible scenario on general principle?
@sonship saidAs I have repeatedly stated, it of course does not render the contents necessarily fallacious. It certainly does, however, render it suspect. If you cannot understand or refuse to admit why this is necessarily the case, I don't think there's much point in continuing with this conversation.
@avalanchethecatSorry, I have not made myself clear; it's not the modern analysis of the ancient texts which is problematic, it's the ancient texts themselves. They survive because they supported the message which believers wished to transmit.
Therefore the content is necessarily fallacious because believers wished to transmit them on?
Can you expl ...[text shortened]... possess and transmit them?
Is that an unthinkable and impossible scenario on general principle?
@avalanchethecat
As atheism is so totally devoid of meaning and substance, I think you should stop your suspicion talk / discussion.
@avalanchethecat saidI'm going to make this apart a little at a time; at the end of the day, I'm wiped out but getting stronger.
"What is popular is meaningless; if something isn't true and we realize it, we have to alter our views to fit what we now know. The trouble with saying only science gives us the truth is that it is never something we can say okay, now we know because it is always we know until we don't. There is nothing wrong with that, but reality is what it is, no matter what we thi ...[text shortened]... ties with which it has endowed me with do not permit me to accept it's existence based on scripture.
The first point I'd like to address is ancient documented history and modern science papers. These are two completely different types of documents; if true, it is ancient history recorded by people living it at the time. The other research papers could be accurate or inaccurate hypotheses on any number of topics.
As we have already agreed, what we believe we know is always subject to change if something new shows up, dispelling what we once thought was solid. So all of those come in under that cloud; this isn't a bad thing, this isn't an evil thing, it simply is us trying to gather what we see and trying to make it what we know.
The ancient manuscripts for the New and Old testaments come in from several different sources, several different languages, kept by several different groups, and concerning the earliest ones, some of them are decades from the original, not thousands of years. The gospels were not all written in the same place at the same time; one of the best talks I have ever heard I posted here if you want to listen to, she addressed all of the major issues I have ever heard. She addresses all of the questions from an academic perspective with reason and evidence.
"Why trust the bible, Amy Orr-Ewing"
So were they telling the truth, were the documents tampered with, those are legitimate inquires that must be answered with more than I have a burning feeling in my heart it is true. Is it reasonable, or just out there altogether?
Every published paper is examined; I don't know which link you watched. I offered two. If it was on abiogenesis, I thought the conversation was informative. Getting from A to Z non-life to life isn't enough to have a narrative; the scriptures could be called a narrative.
Its evidence, can that, explain this. Fossils don't play a part in this for me; we can create a narrative about the fossils any way we want; we cannot show how energy, matter, and information got together due to some mindless process.
@sonship saidDo you indeed, that's super-interesting.
@avalanchethecat
As atheism is so totally devoid of meaning and substance, I think you should stop your suspicion talk / discussion.
@kellyjay saidYou make a spirited defence Kellyjay, and I'm even prepared to believe that you honestly believe that your single, ancient and explicitly biased source carries the same weight of evidence as a century of modern scientific investigation. I can't agree with you, but I am encouraged that we can have this discussion without any of the rancour which normally colours such exchanges of views on this board.
I'm going to make this apart a little at a time; at the end of the day, I'm wiped out but getting stronger.
The first point I'd like to address is ancient documented history and modern science papers. These are two completely different types of documents; if true, it is ancient history recorded by people living it at the time. The other research papers could be accurate o ...[text shortened]... want; we cannot show how energy, matter, and information got together due to some mindless process.
@avalanchethecat saidThank you, and sources, not source, for all of my explicitly biased evidence. 🙂
You make a spirited defence Kellyjay, and I'm even prepared to believe that you honestly believe that your single, ancient and explicitly biased source carries the same weight of evidence as a century of modern scientific investigation. I can't agree with you, but I am encouraged that we can have this discussion without any of the rancour which normally colours such exchanges of views on this board.
@kellyjay saidWe..e..e..ll not really. But ok.
Thank you, and sources, not source, for all of my explicitly biased evidence. 🙂
4 edits
@avalanchethecat saidThe Bible is 66 different books, not just one book; it is a text library. I assume you have heard much of this before ~40 different authors, written I believe, on three different continents, in three different languages, and copied and dispersed where it was written into several other languages and locations. Now each of these things is their little piece of the puzzle validating text.
We..e..e..ll not really. But ok.
Once it started getting dispersed across the world, all of these various copies would/could be used to validate any fraudulent text, there would be no way anyone could control the copies, and it was without a doubt not only tried to limit and destroy these text but also add and take away from them. Those who were writing them did it in the most accurate manner possible at the time with extreme care in getting it right.
Add into account all of the information with the text how they refer to each other the history and geographical knowledge shared it is obvious; those that were writing knew the people, places, and things they were talking about with all of the minor pieces of information added to the stories being shared. In our modern text, it is easy to see where discrepancies are found; they are highlighted, not hidden.
The people who were sharing the stories were not doing it for fame and glory, and you can look at Paul's life; he had the fame and glory before his conversation afterward, he suffered for his profession of faith. The mix of people involved in Jesus' life, from tax collectors the most hated to fishermen, and alike it was a hodgepodge collection of people. When Christ rose from the dead, women were some of the first to give witness; if you were going to make something up during that time, those would not be the witnesses of choice; they were witnesses not to prove a false story but to confirm a real one.
All those closest to Jesus died not recanting their stories; why would someone lie about something they knew wasn't true die for the lie? I can see someone believing a lie and dying, but not someone who knew the truth and lied anyway.
The four gospels were written by a gentile doctor Luke, who wrote two books of the Bible, two who walked with Jesus, and one a disciple of Peter, I believe. So from different perspectives, for different reasons, in different places and times, they wrote. Unlike today, they could not have collaborated their text being separated as they were. I believe the only way that might have to happen is if one read someone else's work written earlier.
That is just a little about the text; I've been to Isreal a couple of times, there is a lot there as well. The Amy link I pointed to you has collaborating information no one knew about until just a couple of years ago which is powerful. If you watch it, she will impress.
@kellyjay saidDo you want to know how many different authors have published peer reviewed papers supporting the theory of evolution? Lol, as if it was possible to count them all. I'm sure it must be in the tens of thousand at least, probably hundreds by now, and doubtless millions of papers. How long ago were the 'different' books of the bible collected together?
The Bible is 66 different books, not just one book; it is a text library. I assume you have heard much of this before ~40 different authors, written I believe, on three different continents, in three different languages, and copied and dispersed where it was written into several other languages and locations. Now each of these things is their little piece of the puzzle valid ...[text shortened]... ne knew about until just a couple of years ago which is powerful. If you watch it, she will impress.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 29080
1 edit
@sonship saidHe's just another grifter making money off other people with carefully crafted but conniving logic.
Here is an interesting (to me) interview with Eric Metaxas from (Socrates in the City). He discusses with an interview book Is Atheism Dead.
He stresses recent scientific and archeological findings.
The Big Bang.
Fine Tuning of universal constants.
He discusses discovery of Sodom.
Is faith at odds with science and logic?
Resistance to evid ...[text shortened]... Metaxas Interview - The Becket Cook Show Ep. 46
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSY1_WIqoqA
@avalanchethecat saidThe numbers of supporters or the popularity of beliefs are not a means to gauge truth unless you think a count of hands finds the truth or where the hands are when people raise them. Truth is distinct from us; even if we believe in something true, it will still not be a part of us; it is true because it is, not because of our beliefs; or faith about it.
Do you want to know how many different authors have published peer reviewed papers supporting the theory of evolution? Lol, as if it was possible to count them all. I'm sure it must be in the tens of thousand at least, probably hundreds by now, and doubtless millions of papers. How long ago were the 'different' books of the bible collected together?
Accepting evolution based on what we see around us (fossils) is not too far from saying we can grasp all the meaning a book has in it by looking at the chemical makeup of paper and ink alone. We are above that; we can read a book and grasp the text's meaning; this is something incredibly beyond a reductionist natural world view.
So papers that may or may not be accurate, versus a story told by people telling the truth or no, which was preserved because they thought these were the words of God and should be given the greatest of all care in keeping the message; untainted and pure? I think if you chuck one of these out without careful examination, you do yourself harm.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 29080
3 edits
@sonship saidI do not disagree with the premise that there might be a Cosmic Intelligence, but some of the conniving, controlling religion-promoters on itty-bitty, parochial Old Earth can go to their own self-invented Hells as far as I'm concerned.
Here is an interesting (to me) interview with Eric Metaxas from (Socrates in the City). He discusses with an interview book Is Atheism Dead.
He stresses recent scientific and archeological findings.
The Big Bang.
Fine Tuning of universal constants.
He discusses discovery of Sodom.
Is faith at odds with science and logic?
Resistance to evid ...[text shortened]... Metaxas Interview - The Becket Cook Show Ep. 46
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSY1_WIqoqA
On the other hand, maybe they really just don't know any better, and therefore should not be condemned.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidBut you reject the Vedas? Doesn't that completely debase your argument here?
The numbers of supporters or the popularity of beliefs are not a means to gauge truth unless you think a count of hands finds the truth or where the hands are when people raise them. Truth is distinct from us; even if we believe in something true, it will still not be a part of us; it is true because it is, not because of our beliefs; or faith about it.
Accepting evolutio ...[text shortened]... d and pure? I think if you chuck one of these out without careful examination, you do yourself harm.
@avalanchethecat saidVedas?
But you reject the Vedas? Doesn't that completely debase your argument here?