The Bible - Why Trust It

[nPeace]

Great. Very good.
Have a great day.

Very good.
Actually I thought if one wanted to challenge the Bible's reliability this would be the thread to take you up on your challenge... considering the title.

 

[nPeace]

Wow @sooda the more you repeat it, the more true it becomes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Very good.
Actually I thought if one wanted to challenge the Bible's reliability this would be the thread to take you up on your challenge... considering the title.

Another one who ignores the link that WAS provided, and which included references at the bottom to actual papers detailing some of the examples in the linked section.


O well. Same as the other it seems. Just looking for an opportunity that half looks like something they can jump on to be dismissive.

Whatever keeps them from sane judgement and objective analysis of the facts.

 

[firedragon]

Very good.
Actually I thought if one wanted to challenge the Bible's reliability this would be the thread to take you up on your challenge... considering the title.

Apologies brother. I didnt understand your statement.

 

[nPeace]

Apologies brother. I didnt understand your statement.

No problem.
I think we agree that Atheist and skeptics want us to accept links where critics use their interpretations of the Bible - right or wrong.
However, they don't think it right to accept another interpretation that is contrary - whether it's posted here or in a link.

I guess the situation is one where the "true experts" in life are the ones whom Atheist are in full agreement with.
So how can anyone else matter...
It's as though experts who say contrary, need to go back to elementary school and work their way back up to where they are now.
Truly amazes me.

Hope I didn't confuse you further.

 

[firedragon]

No problem.
I think we agree that Atheist and skeptics want us to accept links where critics use their interpretations of the Bible - right or wrong.
However, they don't think it right to accept another interpretation that is contrary - whether it's posted here or in a link.

I guess the situation is one where the "true experts" in life are the ones whom Atheist are in full agreement with.
So how can anyone else matter...
It's as though experts who say contrary, need to go back to elementary school and work their way back up to where they are now.
Truly amazes me.

Hope I didn't confuse you further.

The problem with many people brother as I see is that they quickly become experts in other peoples religions and scripture. One documentary, one debate, one website, maybe a few, maybe of each, maybe even a 100. The issue is we may claim to be too much of an expert so quickly that we don't know what we are missing.

There are websites that has some number of contradictions in the Bible. One sees that website and its done. Now he is an expert. Even if he sees a 100 websites like that one should not move so quickly.

Sometimes the knowledge to be gained in the field of a scripture is so vast that experts dont think they are experts. Sometimes a layman thinks he is such a huge expert knowing very little about it. Thats because he doesn't know the vastness of the subject. This is the dunning-kruger effect. They are so confident that their knowledge surpasses everyone that they are so arrogant not to respond with an answer of significance. The questioner is already preconceived to be an idiot in the field so 'I cant be bothered answering'. No offence, but I see this in many atheists. Theists, too but to a lesser degree. All this I mean in the field of theology, biblical or not.

 

[nPeace]

The problem with many people brother as I see is that they quickly become experts in other peoples religions and scripture. One documentary, one debate, one website, maybe a few, maybe of each, maybe even a 100. The issue is we may claim to be too much of an expert so quickly that we don't know what we are missing.

There are websites that has some number of contradictions in the Bible. One sees that website and its done. Now he is an expert. Even if he sees a 100 websites like that one should not move so quickly.

Sometimes the knowledge to be gained in the field of a scripture is so vast that experts dont think they are experts. Sometimes a layman thinks he is such a huge expert knowing very little about it. Thats because he doesn't know the vastness of the subject. This is the dunning-kruger effect. They are so confident that their knowledge surpasses everyone that they are so arrogant not to respond with an answer of significance. The questioner is already preconceived to be an idiot in the field so 'I cant be bothered answering'. No offence, but I see this in many atheists. Theists, too but to a lesser degree. All this I mean in the field of theology, biblical or not.

That happens too, but I think these are referring to Biblical scholars - the ones who use methods of textual criticism.
What I am saying though, is that the skeptics don't care about other experts in the same field, or similar, who disagree with those opinions.
It would seem, the "experts" who's opinions are in agreement with their world view, are the only experts. There are no others.

As long as they agree with it, it is right... regardless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with many people brother as I see is that they quickly become experts in other peoples religions and scripture. One documentary, one debate, one website, maybe a few, maybe of each, maybe even a 100. The issue is we may claim to be too much of an expert so quickly that we don't know what we are missing.

There are websites that has some number of contradictions in the Bible. One sees that website and its done. Now he is an expert. Even if he sees a 100 websites like that one should not move so quickly.

Sometimes the knowledge to be gained in the field of a scripture is so vast that experts dont think they are experts. Sometimes a layman thinks he is such a huge expert knowing very little about it. Thats because he doesn't know the vastness of the subject. This is the dunning-kruger effect. They are so confident that their knowledge surpasses everyone that they are so arrogant not to respond with an answer of significance. The questioner is already preconceived to be an idiot in the field so 'I cant be bothered answering'. No offence, but I see this in many atheists. Theists, too but to a lesser degree. All this I mean in the field of theology, biblical or not.

One is not an expert when one sees the countless contradictions. Merely enlightened. And then the fun starts, apologists go through all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to prove that contradictions are not contradictions. The problem with this is that it actually goes against the teachings of the Bible. One of the Ten Commandments is a ban on false idols and that is the problem. Literalists have made a false idol of the Bible. Instead of admitting the obvious, that yes the Bible does have errors in it, it is a work of man after all. And then claiming that the message is still true. Which is a defensible position, they take on the impossible and end up showing their beliefs to be false. It is a self defeating position to take.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As long as they agree with it, it is right... regardless.

This is an example of what I was talking about in my last post. To the literalist the message of the Bible does not matter, it is the false idol the Bible that matters.

 

[firedragon]

That happens too, but I think these are referring to Biblical scholars - the ones who use methods of textual criticism.
What I am saying though, is that the skeptics don't care about other experts in the same field, or similar, who disagree with those opinions.
It would seem, the "experts" who's opinions are in agreement with their world view, are the only experts. There are no others.

As long as they agree with it, it is right... regardless.

Yes. You right. Absolutely.

 

[firedragon]

One is not an expert when one sees the countless contradictions. Merely enlightened. And then the fun starts, apologists go through all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to prove that contradictions are not contradictions. The problem with this is that it actually goes against the teachings of the Bible. One of the Ten Commandments is a ban on false idols and that is the problem. Literalists have made a false idol of the Bible. Instead of admitting the obvious, that yes the Bible does have errors in it, it is a work of man after all. And then claiming that the message is still true. Which is a defensible position, they take on the impossible and end up showing their beliefs to be false. It is a self defeating position to take.

Who claimed the message is true or whatever brother?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who claimed the message is true or whatever brother?

You would think that a believer in a religion would claim that the message of that religion is true above all else. Otherwise one is merely worshiping dogma.

 

[firedragon]

You would think that a believer in a religion would claim that the message of that religion is true above all else. Otherwise one is merely worshiping dogma.

Ah. General statements. Im not interested in those brother.

Thanks anyway. Have a great day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah. General statements. Im not interested in those brother.

Thanks anyway. Have a great day.

Really? Why not? You do realize that much of the Bible, and probably the Koran too if you are Muslim, has been refuted. Both Genesis and Exodus for example. Relying on literalism only refutes one's personal beliefs.

 

[sooda]

One is not an expert when one sees the countless contradictions. Merely enlightened. And then the fun starts, apologists go through all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to prove that contradictions are not contradictions. The problem with this is that it actually goes against the teachings of the Bible. One of the Ten Commandments is a ban on false idols and that is the problem. Literalists have made a false idol of the Bible. Instead of admitting the obvious, that yes the Bible does have errors in it, it is a work of man after all. And then claiming that the message is still true. Which is a defensible position, they take on the impossible and end up showing their beliefs to be false. It is a self defeating position to take.

I think the reason I like Archaeology and Israel Finkelstein in particular is to cut the fluff and get down to the basics of what is probably true without adding to or torturing scripture.

The easiest example is the matter of size and population of ancient Palestine.. They could not have had great powerful armies.. and there is NO evidence that any Canaanite villages were interrupted much less destroyed. So when you get down to the basics what IS the true story?

 

[sooda]

One is not an expert when one sees the countless contradictions. Merely enlightened. And then the fun starts, apologists go through all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to prove that contradictions are not contradictions. The problem with this is that it actually goes against the teachings of the Bible. One of the Ten Commandments is a ban on false idols and that is the problem. Literalists have made a false idol of the Bible. Instead of admitting the obvious, that yes the Bible does have errors in it, it is a work of man after all. And then claiming that the message is still true. Which is a defensible position, they take on the impossible and end up showing their beliefs to be false. It is a self defeating position to take.

I think the reason I like Archaeology and Israel Finkelstein in particular is to cut the fluff and get down to the basics of what is probably true without adding to or torturing scripture.

The easiest example is the matter of size and population of ancient Palestine.. They could not have had great powerful armies.. and there is NO evidence that any Canaanite villages were interrupted much less destroyed. So when you get down to the basics what IS the true story?

 

[sooda]

One is not an expert when one sees the countless contradictions. Merely enlightened. And then the fun starts, apologists go through all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to prove that contradictions are not contradictions. The problem with this is that it actually goes against the teachings of the Bible. One of the Ten Commandments is a ban on false idols and that is the problem. Literalists have made a false idol of the Bible. Instead of admitting the obvious, that yes the Bible does have errors in it, it is a work of man after all. And then claiming that the message is still true. Which is a defensible position, they take on the impossible and end up showing their beliefs to be false. It is a self defeating position to take.

I think the reason I like Archaeology and Israel Finkelstein in particular is to cut the fluff and get down to the basics of what is probably true without adding to or torturing scripture.

The easiest example is the matter of size and population of ancient Palestine.. They could not have had great powerful armies.. and there is NO evidence that any Canaanite villages were interrupted much less destroyed. So when you get down to the basics what IS the true story?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the reason I like Archaeology and Israel Finkelstein in particular is to cut the fluff and get down to the basics of what is probably true without adding to or torturing scripture.

The easiest example is the matter of size and population of ancient Palestine.. They could not have had great powerful armies.. and there is NO evidence that any Canaanite villages were interrupted much less destroyed. So when you get down to the basics what IS the true story?

You would think that Christians would welcome the news that the ancient Hebrews were not the cold blooded murderers portrayed in the Bible, but for some reason many oppose that good new.

 

[sooda]

You would think that Christians would welcome the news that the ancient Hebrews were not the cold blooded murderers portrayed in the Bible, but for some reason many oppose that good new.

Subduction Zone, post: 6335613, member: 63191"]You would think that Christians would welcome the news that the ancient Hebrews were not the cold blooded murderers portrayed in the Bible, but for some reason many oppose that good new.[/QUOTE]

Israel didn't have enough food to feed slaves or any big armies.. It was a hardscrabble proposition at best.

Same is true of the Arabian peninsula.. They could barely feed themselves and like Israel they exposed female infants until Muhammed came along and told them NOT to do that... His solution was polygamy so every female would belong to a family, tribe and clan.

The details and facts make fools of us all.
​

 

[nPeace]

I think the reason I like Archaeology and Israel Finkelstein in particular is to cut the fluff and get down to the basics of what is probably true without adding to or torturing scripture.

The easiest example is the matter of size and population of ancient Palestine.. They could not have had great powerful armies.. and there is NO evidence that any Canaanite villages were interrupted much less destroyed. So when you get down to the basics what IS the true story?

It's good to know that you appreciate the work of the archaeologist.

Since David ruled in the 10th century B.C.E,, I would ask the question 'where did David come from - out of what people? At what point in history did David's ancestors enter the scene?
Seems to me, when we connect the dots, the Biblical history is bang on.