So, in other words, whenever any findings based on reason or evidence contradict the Bible, they must be dismissed as inaccurate.
Name one.
To the contrary, I said that
the findings always support the Bible, whether they come late... or not.
What is called "evidence contradicting the Bible", are people sitting on their behind and giving their opinion... dare I say, flawed reasoning, on what they think about what they read in the Bible.
They often have zero evidence.
They have absence of evidence arguments.
How is that different to "apologetics" giving their opinion on what they read in the same texts?
What about the scholars who disagree with the majority.
I guess they don't have evidence and reason, right?
The documentary hypothesis (DH) is one of the models used by biblical scholars to explain the origins and composition of the Torah ... A version of the documentary hypothesis ... posited that the Pentateuch is a compilation of four originally independent documents... The sources would have been joined together at various points in time by a series of editors or "redactors.
The consensus around the classical documentary hypothesis has now collapsed. This was triggered in large part by the influential publications of John Van Seters, Hans Heinrich Schmid, and Rolf Rendtorff in the mid-1970s, who argued that J was to be dated no earlier than the time of the Babylonian captivity (597–539 BCE), and rejected the existence of a substantial E source. They also called into question the nature and extent of the three other sources. Van Seters, Schmid, and Rendtorff shared many of the same criticisms of the documentary hypothesis, but were not in complete agreement about what paradigm ought to replace it. As a result, there has been a revival of interest in "fragmentary" and "supplementary" models, frequently in combination with each other and with a documentary model, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another. Modern scholars also have given up the classical Wellhausian dating of the sources, and generally see the completed Torah as a product of the time of the Persian Achaemenid Empire (probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place its production as late as the Hellenistic period (333–164 BCE), after the conquests of Alexander the Great.
Wow. That's some evidence -
people arguing about what they think. Lol.
Seems more like lazy people to me. "Let's just throw away the book - lump one date to it. Done."
The donkeys have spoken. Let's all just accept it, and go home.
If that's what you are saying, yes, that's how it is.
Since when is evidence arguments from subjective opinions?
Anyone who makes claims that contradict the Bible (or at least, these users' interpretations of the Bible and whatever in it they consider to be meant literally) are dismissed entirely out-of-hand.
Well no, but anyone is free to have their opinion.
It's not like there is only one.
I actually have a scholarly document that supports the authenticity of the writings of the Gospel... giving them early dates,
contrary to the majority of scholars, and I accept these, not because I want to, but because they are supported by the internal evidence - what's actually there in scripture - writen for everyone to see, and form their opinion, and the external - early historians from as early as the first century.
That... is evidence. Not biased opinions and arguing for those.
Their position is clear and firm. The Bible is right, so any historians that contradict it must be wrong.
So your view is that any historian that agrees with the Bible is wrong?
The Bible proves to be right. The evidence supports that. The arguments don't
I go with the evidence. So do the minority scholars.
Something is not to be accepted on the basis of numbers - the number of people that say "Aye!".
It's trivial to demonstrate that the Bible is wrong. Anyone with a decent education in history can do that. It's much more difficult to get people to recognize when their faith is actually misplaced confirmation bias, because then you're dealing with their entire identity, their values, their concept of reality, and their very way of thinking. You can't really do all of that in a single thread.
Let's turn the tables.
i don't play one sided games.
The scholars who have a decent education in history, is not a scholar that disproves the Bible.
Many scholars with a decent education have demonstrated the Bible is true.
A List Of Conservative And Liberal Bible Scholars
Modern atheists often say that “a majority of scholars…” say certain things regarding the reliability of the Bible. When we press these individuals on precisely who these scholars are, we find that they are most often atheist of progressive scholars who do not believe God exists in the first place.
Unknown to a majority of people is the existence of the atheist New Testament scholar. These are people who don’t believe God exists, or that the Bible is true, yet seek to write about these important subjects as experts. Imagine going to a doctor for medical advice and he tells you that he doesn’t believe in medicine. Today many people accept the conclusions of atheists [or those leaning toward atheism] regarding whether the New Testament is a reliable record of truth.
Now tell me, why would I accept the views of someone who does not believe in God, or the Bible... unless I'm an idiot.
It's more difficult to get opposers of faith to recognize when their beliefs and ideologies are actually misplaced confirmation bias, because then you're dealing with their entire identity, their values, their concept of reality, and their very way of thinking.
This thread's purpose is, in my eyes, already concluded. We've now laid bare the mechanisms in play when people choose to believe religious interpretations of scriptures over the expert opinions of historians. What a shocker, but they're the same mechanisms behind Young-Earth Creationism and the Flat-Earth Movement. They're the same devils you and I have been fighting all this time, and we aren't really getting anywhere this way.
Expert opinion of historians? Which ones? The ones you prefer?
Well there is your confirmation bias right there, because expert opinions of historians do not lie in one camp.
You are basically saying every believer should come over to your side.
I find that die hard atheistic faith to be very demanding.
It's worst than wayside preachers who try to force people to accept their message... imo.
