The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact? (page 5)

Shining One

>Can bible claims be similarly tested? Can one or more people independently test and observe bible claims such as the origins of the universe? The existence of a garden of Eden? Most of the bible cannot, because the bible consists mainly of historical accounts. We haven't invented a time machine yet that can take us back to verify the claims. Therefore, the "bible" in it's entirety, cannot be "factual".

Can naturalism be similarly tested? Can one or more people independently test and observe Darwin's claims such as the timeline needed or the existence of transitional species? The origin of life from non-life? None can do this, because the theories consists mainly of speculations and data that can be interpreted in several ways equally. We haven't invented a time machine yet that can take us back to verify the claims. Therefore, 'natualism' in it's entirety, cannot be "factual". LOL

>Based on this definition, what is "factual" about the bible? These are all factual statements:
- There is a bible.
- The bible is a compilation of many written works, composed over thousands of years.
- There are various translations of the bible available.
- There are also disputes as to which works should be included in the bible, and which excluded, though there are a core set of works that all have in common.

The Bible as we know it was established by the third century. It is not as much in dispute as you typically claim. You use this in order to try and have a 'pick and choose' faith and claim that this is reasonable. I would put you a little to the 'right' of heretics like Bishop Spong though, LOL.

>The following is not a "factual" statement, because there is no empirical way to back it up:
- Every event described in the bible happened as written.

This is another 'straw man' lingering from our discussion. You are talking about strict literalism not Biblical interpretation. Scripture needs to be read and analyzed like any other writing work, using solid methodology and exegesis that established the context of each passage. This is not possible when one arbitrarily determines which teachings of the Bible we will follow by their popularity to us and others. The Bible defines itself as the word of God. When we cheapen it to the point that the popular norms of the present time overule its veracity, it ceases to be a what IT claims to be.
Rex

LittleToe

ShiningOne:
On a completely different note, may I suggest you attempt to use the Board's "Quote" feature, as it'll make you far more readable.

After you finish your typing you highlight the section of text that you want to put in a box and click on the button to the right of the "Smiley" - it looks like a speech bubble.

Just trying to help...

Narkissos

Rex (tremendae stupiditatis?)

The Bible as we know it was established by the third century.
The Bible defines itself as the word of God.

Can you see the abyssal contradiction between those two sentences of yours?

jgnat

Scientists, by nature, MUST test out their hypothesis. Based on any physical evidence that is avialable to them.

jgnat

Maybe God only existed from the third century on. After men built him.

tetrapod.sapien

Narkissos,

thanks for replying! -- i get it now. i see where you were coming from.

Rex,

When we cheapen it to the point that the popular norms of the present time overule its veracity, it ceases to be a what IT claims to be.

so it doesn't stand up to critical analysis then? you do realize that's what you're saying, right?

at any rate, the world is better off without it, and the koran and the torah. there is much great philosopy that leaves the holy books in the dust.

jgnat,

I don't have that luxury. To deny God would be to deny my rescue. I feel very much like the leper who came back to say "Thank you". Besides, I KNOW my faith is based on faith, and cannot be proved. Or disproved.

i am not saying that you do not know this. but i am wondering how we can agree on anything, if that basic precept cannot be agreed on first. i am willing to admit that i could be wrong, and i even have a list of things that i would accept as reason enough to reconvert back to xianity.

no one is asking you to deny god, just to admit that there is that slight possibility that you may be wrong.

for example: what if you entered into a debate with an atheist, and she was able to show you that belief in god has a higher likelihood of being in error than non-beleif. let's just say.

so based on what i know of you, you would be willing to admit that her arguments were better than yours, but in the end you refuse to admit that you're wrong, or possibly wrong? and i guess that begs the question, what is the difference between "being wrong", and "possibly being wrong"?

ts

jgnat

Tetrapod, "KNOW my faith is based on faith, and cannot be proved. Or disproved." I don't try and defend it with the scientific method. It cannot.

tetrapod.sapien

yes, i know. i got that the first time you wrote it.

but my question remains unanswered. are you, or are you not, willing to admit you could be wrong? if not, what's the point of debating?

i am not asking you to prove your faith via scientific method. an admission of posibility has nothing to do with science.

ts

jgnat

Yes, I could die my last breath....and nothing. That is a possibility.

OldSoul

Tetrapod.Sapien,

I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. However, since I am going to live as though I am right it doesn't really matter that I may be wrong. That being the case, the question of whether I may be wrong becomes a futile device as surely as the one who challenges the existence of anything will still behave as though things exist.

BTW, speaking of debates, it's still your turn in our other discussion.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?

Share this