Support NeoGAF

[ronito]

I'm sorry, but how does your example apply to the Bible specifically? Whom do the employer and worker represent? I'm not being facetious, but I want to make sure that I'm understanding exactly what you are trying to portray through your example.

I'm trying to portray that under other examples you would never do that kind of thinking. Not even with your employer, or the love of your life.

Why then is the book on which you base your life (which is more important than either of those) exempt?

You asked why a scholar believing that the bible can never be wrong is insane. Yet if you applied that thinking to any other aspect of life it would be defined as insane. So then is it so strange that people think that it's insane?

 

[JGS]

Why, in your view, are biological processes bounded by the structure of human language (in specific, the process of naming)?

In other words, why can't finches turn into something with a different name? Is there some causal relationship between what we choose to call things and the processes driving natural selection that prevents finches from turning into non-finches? Can you explain those relationships to us?

Because as I see it we humans have historically created names for things based on limited knowledge: we call a finch a finch and differentiate it from sparrows and jays because of obvious, macroscopic, directly viewable differences between them. I see no reason to arbitrarily decide those names- chosen centuries ago using available limited, macroscopic knowledge- should be a guide to what is biologically possible. I also cannot understand why we should dismiss new knowledge- such as better understanding of body structure, the operation of ecology and catalogues of the creatures occupying them, fossil records, DNA and other genetic data, and so forth- on the basis of the restrictions of an old name.

What if we came to an understanding that when scientists say finches descended from dinosaurs (a view that has become mainstream in the scientific community over the past decade or so), they could also say that finches ARE dinosaurs? Would the reconsideration of old names using new data, in the "finches are dinosaurs" manner, solve your problem? If not, why not?

I thought your articles are what binds things by their name. If you had shown me something that didn't do this I would have had a different response. I look at things quite simply and the more that animals have in common, the more likely they can hook up by any number of scientific methods.

However, this does not explain life in the first place. I know their not connected, but at some point, the super cell that defied cell theory had to branch off to millions of completely different things. Even over billions of years, that process is improbable. That's where me a speciation part ways for the most part.

 

[Pandaman]

I'm not aware of the argumentative prowess of the laughing smiley. Given your proclivity for using them, though, you apparaently believe they amount to substantive argumentation. Perhaps I should look into that.

As to the counterpoint, again, patience.

I'm sorry, but you did say that you were done, so why would i bother attempting an argument? You certainly do grasp at straws. :lol

the super cell that defied cell theory

The what now?

had to branch off to millions of completely different things. Even over billions of years, that process is improbable. That's where me a speciation part ways for the most part.

why is it improbable? you can accept that one species can branch off into two and that these species are equally capable of doing the same, etc, etc. [demonstrated in the chiclid example], so why and at what point does it suddenly become implausible?

 

[jdogmoney]

I thought your articles are what binds things by their name. If you had shown me something that didn't do this I would have had a different response. I look at things quite simply and the more that animals have in common, the more likely they can hook up by any number of scientific methods.

However, this does not explain life in the first place. I know their not connected, but at some point, the super cell that defied cell theory had to branch off to millions of completely different things. Even over billions of years, that process is improbable. That's where me a speciation part ways for the most part.

That's not speciation. That's abiogenesis.

Speciation is when something splits off into a new species.

Something splits off into a new species when it can no longer breed with (what was formerly) the same species and produce fertile offspring.

This has happened.

A lot.


:lol

Deus, the :lol comes in pretty handy when the argument gets silly, which it kinda did.

I think the main point is you say the Bible is infallible. Someone points out a contradiction.

Even if there is some explanation, which I eagerly await btw, the explanation is not in the Bible itself, which would make the book incomplete, and thus fallible.


My question is this: Even if the Bible is fallible (it is), why would that mean discount the moral lessons within?

 

[JGS]

The what now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory

Exceptions
See also: Origin of life
1.Viruses are considered alive by some, yet they are not made up of cells. Viruses have many features of life, but by definition of the cell theory, they are not alive. They are basically made up of proteins.
2.The first cell did not originate from a pre-existing cell. There was no exact first cell since the definition of cell is imprecise.
3.Mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own genetic material, and reproduce independently from the rest of the cell.

 

[Mumei]

Deus, how can it be that the Gospel accounts differ on key parts of the resurrection (who saw him first, how many saw them, where they were at, what sorts of things were said, etc.) and yet also be inerrant?

And you say that the Quirinius issue was resolved - but how does it change the fact that there's a ~10 year discrepancy between two of the Gospel accounts of when Jesus was born? I know you said you'd provide sources for that one, at least, so I'm waiting on that, too.

 

[Pandaman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory

okay. so is the problem with the first cell existing or its subsequent evolution?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I'm trying to portray that under other examples you would never do that kind of thinking. Not even with your employer, or the love of your life.

Why then is the book on which you base your life (which is more important than either of those) exempt?

You asked why a scholar believing that the bible can never be wrong is insane. Yet if you applied that thinking to any other aspect of life it would be defined as insane. So then is it so strange that people think that it's insane?

You have to go considerably further back if you're going to make the claim that believing the Bible can never be wrong is insane. You have to start with the existence of God. If one believes in the existence of a perfect God, then by default, he believes that everything that God does must be perfect. If one believes that this perfect God produced a text called the Bible, then by default, one must also believe that this text must be perfect. After all, it was created by a perfect being.

So, the question is, why fault someone for being consistent in his beliefs? That person is justified in not applying that same thinking to any other aspect of life because when doing so, you are talking about the actions of humans, whom that person believes to be imperfect when compared to a perfect God.

In sum, to criticize a person who believes in the infallibility of the Bible appropriately, you must first criticize his belief in the existence of a perfect God.

 

[Pandaman]

You have to go considerably further back if you're going to make the claim that believing the Bible can never be wrong is insane. You have to start with the existence of God. If one believes in the existence of a perfect God, then by default, he believes that everything that God does must be perfect. If one believes that this perfect God produced a text called the Bible, then by default, one must also believe that this text must be perfect. After all, it was created by a perfect being.

So, the question is, why fault someone for being consistent in his beliefs? That person is justified in not applying that same thinking to any other aspect of life because when doing so, you are talking about the actions of humans, whom that person believes to be imperfect when compared to a perfect God.

In sum, to criticize a person who believes in the infallibility of the Bible appropriately, you must first criticize his belief in the existence of a perfect God.

does this seriously pass for reasoning in theology? And you wonder why i laughed.

One could also avoid the issue by criticizing ones belief in the extent of gods involvement in the creation of the bible. but lets not suggest anything that wouldn't let you hide behind theology as a whole.

 

[ronito]

You have to go considerably further back if you're going to make the claim that believing the Bible can never be wrong is insane. You have to start with the existence of God. If one believes in the existence of a perfect God, then by default, he believes that everything that God does must be perfect. If one believes that this perfect God produced a text called the Bible, then by default, one must also believe that this text must be perfect. After all, it was created by a perfect being.

So, the question is, why fault someone for being consistent in his beliefs? That person is justified in not applying that same thinking to any other aspect of life because when doing so, you are talking about the actions of humans, whom that person believes to be imperfect when compared to a perfect God.

In sum, to criticize a person who believes in the infallibility of the Bible appropriately, you must first criticize his belief in the existence of a perfect God.

You're tying yourself in knots in order to justify it. So you're saying that if you believe in God then you MUST believe that the bible is infallible? Not even Occam and Aquinas believed that.

Again that also falls into the insanity delusion.

What about people with serious physical defects? "Well God made them that way."

You're just looking to excuse your positive feedback loop, which again if I went took you to a restaurant and said, "This food is perfect." and you taste it and it tastes like feces and you come back and say "This taste like poop!" and I replied, "Let me correct you. It tastes PERFECTLY like poop." You'd call me insane.

Again belief without any critical thought isn't belief. It's delusion.

 

[jdogmoney]

You have to go considerably further back if you're going to make the claim that believing the Bible can never be wrong is insane. You have to start with the existence of God. If one believes in the existence of a perfect God, then by default, he believes that everything that God does must be perfect. If one believes that this perfect God produced a text called the Bible, then by default, one must also believe that this text must be perfect. After all, it was created by a perfect being.

So, the question is, why fault someone for being consistent in his beliefs? That person is justified in not applying that same thinking to any other aspect of life because when doing so, you are talking about the actions of humans, whom that person believes to be imperfect when compared to a perfect God.

In sum, to criticize a person who believes in the infallibility of the Bible appropriately, you must first criticize his belief in the existence of a perfect God.

The bolded part is where even other Christians disagree with you.

Some say it's God's document, written through man, who (even when divinely-inspired) screw up sometimes.

As for your last part, okay. I don't think that's true, at all, but whatever, you're the scholar.

Perfect God. Why do I have nosehairs that are longer than the normal length?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Deus, how can it be that the Gospel accounts differ on key parts of the resurrection (who saw him first, how many saw them, where they were at, what sorts of things were said, etc.) and yet also be inerrant?

And you say that the Quirinius issue was resolved - but how does it change the fact that there's a ~10 year discrepancy between two of the Gospel accounts of when Jesus was born? I know you said you'd provide sources for that one, at least, so I'm waiting on that, too.

Right, I'm working on getting together a lengthy list of sources for you guys to check out, both on the Quirinius issue and the development of the biblical text.

As for the resurrection, you and other questioners are expecting the writers to adhere to an unreasonable standard of accuracy. You are expecting the gospel writers to report the exact same details in the exact same manner.

As an example, would you expect the accounts of those who experienced 9/11 at ground zero first hand to be exactly the same? Let's say two people get out of the first tower together before it collapses and two cops are there at the bottom to direct them. One of the cops says, "Go, go, get as far away from the building as you can!" One news network interviews Person A, while another interviews Person B. The same question is asked: "What happened when you came out of the doors of the tower?" Person A said, "We came out of the doors and a cop was yelling at us, telling us, "Go, go, get as far away from the building as you can!" Person B said, "We came out of the doors and there were two cops there directing us and one was telling us to get away from the tower."

Are those accounts in conflict with one another?

 

[Count Dookkake]

So I am about half-way through Dianetics and I love it. Not going to be come a Scientologist, but I can see why people fall for it. Enough of it makes common sense and seems to be applicable to everyday life. The fake science jargon is pretty convincing if you don't understand science.

If the church higher-ups hadn't gotten so far off track from what this first book teaches, I could see Scientology having been taken more seriously.

Right, I'm working on getting together a lengthy list of sources for you guys to check out, both on the Quirinius issue and the development of the biblical text.

As for the resurrection, you and other questioners are expecting the writers to adhere to an unreasonable standard of accuracy. You are expecting the gospel writers to report the exact same details in the exact same manner.

As an example, would you expect the accounts of those who experienced 9/11 at ground zero first hand to be exactly the same? Let's say two people get out of the first tower together before it collapses and two cops are there at the bottom to direct them. One of the cops says, "Go, go, get as far away from the building as you can!" One news network interviews Person A, while another interviews Person B. The same question is asked: "What happened when you came out of the doors of the tower?" Person A said, "We came out of the doors and a cop was yelling at us, telling us, "Go, go, get as far away from the building as you can!" Person B said, "We came out of the doors and there were two cops there directing us and one was telling us to get away from the tower."

Are those accounts in conflict with one another?

Let's take a moment to think about the difference in size between a small, nondescript tomb and SEVERAL CITY BLOCKS.

 

[soul creator]

when someone "presupposes" that a religious claim is true, the obvious response to something that conflicts with that claim is that, well, reality is wrong.

Of course, the problem with that viewpoint is that it's inherently impossible to argue/debate against that in any sort of normal sense. Argument and debate kind of depends on having some degree of "common ground" established. Normally, things like "reality" and "evidence" are what's used as the common ground. And in fact, even religious people acknowledge this common ground...in every other aspect of their lives. But when it comes to certain religious viewpoints, all of that goes out the window. If you don't realize this, you get very frustrating discussions.

The other problem is that person #2 can come along and say, "well, I presuppose that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is true and accurate" and have just as much an equal say in the discussion. What are you going to do, point out places where the Lord of the Rings conflicts with reality, and contradictions in the text? Clearly, your faith isn't strong enough.

It's why discussing "the supernatural" in any sort of serious way is meaningless. Literally, anything goes. No limits. Making up rules as you go along. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. No matter what reality-based "argument" someone comes up with, you can turn around and say "but God!". Arguments for God and the supernatural are ultimately just more elaborate versions of "well, infinity plus two!"

As for the resurrection, you and other questioners are expecting the writers to adhere to an unreasonable standard of accuracy. You are expecting the gospel writers to report the exact same details in the exact same manner.

It's interesting how these gospel writers are all of a sudden just regular old flawed human beings, when in other situations we're supposed to believe it's the perfect word of God.

That's rather convenient.

 

[Kinitari]

I don't have a version of speciation. I usually wait to be told the various views regarding evolutionary developement. At that time I decide whether to beieve it or not. As with all of my discussions, if it's proven I accept it. If not, I don't although there are varying degrees of what "proof" is on this board.

I'll see if I can find a version of speciation we can both agree on then.

Now to the bullets:

1. Agreed

So you agree that if Salamanders from the same 'ancestor' grow apart and are unable to breed with each other, that can be considered 'speciation'?

2. I have no problems with that either except I would say the seperations are distinct but don't have to do much with man's classification of them.

Humour me for one minute, and pretend the Bible does not exist - what reason would you have for having a distinct seperation between species?

3. I'm saying that any similarities between chimps and humans can be explain by creation as much as by evolutionary process.

A lot of things can be explained by creation - in that you don't really need any other explanation than "God did this" - I understand that you are religious, but do you really place that on equal footing with the toils of scientists over decades, extracting information and evidence clearly outlining the shared lineage of humans and the great apes?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

You're tying yourself in knots in order to justify it. So you're saying that if you believe in God then you MUST believe that the bible is infallible? Not even Occam and Aquinas believed that.

Again that also falls into the insanity delusion.

What about people with serious physical defects? "Well God made them that way."

You're just looking to excuse your positive feedback loop, which again if I went took you to a restaurant and said, "This food is perfect." and you taste it and it tastes like feces and you come back and say "This taste like poop!" and I replied, "Let me correct you. It tastes PERFECTLY like poop." You'd call me insane.

Again belief without any critical thought isn't belief. It's delusion.

You're misreading me. I didn't say that if you believe in God then you MUST believe that the Bible is infallible. If you believe in a perfect God and believe that the Bible is the direct result of this perfect God, then you must believe that the Bible is infallible. Not everyone who believes in a perfect God believes he produced the Bible.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

when someone "presupposes" that a religious claim is true, the obvious response to something that conflicts with that claim is that, well, reality is wrong.

Of course, the problem with that viewpoint is that it's inherently impossible to argue/debate against that in any sort of normal sense. Argument and debate kind of depends on having some degree of "common ground" established.

Correct. And it would do well for your compatriots in this thread to pay attention to this.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

So I am about half-way through Dianetics and I love it. Not going to be come a Scientologist, but I can see why people fall for it. Enough of it makes common sense and seems to be applicable to everyday life. The fake science jargon is pretty convincing if you don't understand science.

If the church higher-ups hadn't gotten so far off track from what this first book teaches, I could see Scientology having been taken more seriously.



Let's take a moment to think about the difference in size between a small, nondescript tomb and SEVERAL CITY BLOCKS.

Several city blocks? I said the cops were right there when they both exited the building. Person A and Person B each saw them immediately upon exiting the building. The distance they traversed afterward has nothing to do with the example.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

does this seriously pass for reasoning in theology? And you wonder why i laughed.

One could also avoid the issue by criticizing ones belief in the extent of gods involvement in the creation of the bible. but lets not suggest anything that wouldn't let you hide behind theology as a whole.

As long as you cannot retort without including insults directed at my academic discipline, I'm going to ignore you.

 

[Mumei]

As an example, would you expect the accounts of those who experienced 9/11 at ground zero first hand to be exactly the same? Let's say two people get out of the first tower together before it collapses and two cops are there at the bottom to direct them. One of the cops says, "Go, go, get as far away from the building as you can!" One news network interviews Person A, while another interviews Person B. The same question is asked: "What happened when you came out of the doors of the tower?" Person A said, "We came out of the doors and a cop was yelling at us, telling us, "Go, go, get as far away from the building as you can!" Person B said, "We came out of the doors and there were two cops there directing us and one was telling us to get away from the tower."

Are those accounts in conflict with one another?

In the midst of a building collapsing, it's easy to see why there might be minor discrepancies in the 9/11 account - maybe there were two cops and one of them was so panicked that s/he didn't notice the other one. Maybe there was just one and the other one in his panic or after embellishing things in his mind began "remembering" that there were two cops. It is a reasonable mistake to make.

That example is not parallel. There's a difference between "There were one cop vs there were two cops," and Jesus first appeared to X disciples vs. Jesus first appeared to Y disciples vs. Jesus first appeared to these women vs. Jesus first appeared to just this woman" or "Jesus met the disciples in Galilee on a mountain after the resurrection vs. Jesus met the disciples in a house in Jerusalem vs. Jesus first met them at the ocean," or whether there were angels at the tomb or not or whether the women who first saw Jesus communicated this fact to the disciples, and so on and so forth. That seems to me to be a great deal more discrepancy between the stories than the "one cop vs two cops" scenario.

Besides all that, you're claiming that the Bible is the perfect, inerrant Word of God. You can't say that I'm holding it to an unreasonable standard if you believe that. I'm expecting something perfect and inerrant, after all.

Edit:

Or as soul creator just said:

It's interesting how these gospel writers are all of a sudden just regular old flawed human beings, when in other situations we're supposed to believe it's the perfect word of God.

That's rather convenient.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Several city blocks? I said the cops were right there when they both exited the building. Person A and Person B each saw them immediately upon exiting the building. The distance they traversed afterward has nothing to do with the example.

Was Jesus's tomb covered in ash and releasing thousands of terrified people?

Your example is flawed for more than one reason.

 

[ronito]

You're misreading me. I didn't say that if you believe in God then you MUST believe that the Bible is infallible. If you believe in a perfect God and believe that the Bible is the direct result of this perfect God, then you must believe that the Bible is infallible. Not everyone who believes in a perfect God believes he produced the Bible.

So wait. Can't there be a perfect God whos words were written by imperfect people? Seems to me you'd have to believe in a perfect god and perfect prophets. Which is more a muslim belief than a christian one.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

The bolded part is where even other Christians disagree with you.

Some say it's God's document, written through man, who (even when divinely-inspired) screw up sometimes.

As for your last part, okay. I don't think that's true, at all, but whatever, you're the scholar.

Perfect God. Why do I have nosehairs that are longer than the normal length?

I don't doubt that some Christians disagree regarding the extent of God's involvement in the creation of the Bible.

As for my last part, my point is that it's pointless to say, "Oh, this guy is an idiot and/or delusional because he believes the Bible is infallible and inerrant," WHEN that individual is merely being consistent with the beliefs that (1) the Bible is the direct work of God and (2) that God who created it is a perfect being.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

It's interesting how these gospel writers are all of a sudden just regular old flawed human beings, when in other situations we're supposed to believe it's the perfect word of God.

That's rather convenient.

I never said that the gospel writers made a mistake in the text, did I? You're insinuating something that I did not.

 

[JGS]

That's not speciation. That's abiogenesis.

However, this does not explain life in the first place. I know their not connected, but at some point, the super cell that defied cell theory had to branch off to millions of completely different things. Even over billions of years, that process is improbable. That's where me a speciation part ways for the most part.

Speciation is when something splits off into a new species.

Something splits off into a new species when it can no longer breed with (what was formerly) the same species and produce fertile offspring.

That would certainly explain the vast herds of mules out there as well as liger prides.

Spoiler

That was a [bad] joke, so no links please

This has happened.

A lot.

Pandaman does the proof thing better.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

In the midst of a building collapsing, it's easy to see why there might be minor discrepancies in the 9/11 account - maybe there were two cops and one of them was so panicked that s/he didn't notice the other one. Maybe there was just one and the other one in his panic or after embellishing things in his mind began "remembering" that there were two cops. It is a reasonable mistake to make.

In my example, neither Person A nor Person B made a mistake. You are incorrect.

That example is not parallel. There's a difference between "There were one cop vs there were two cops," and Jesus first appeared to X disciples vs. Jesus first appeared to Y disciples vs. Jesus first appeared to these women vs. Jesus first appeared to just this woman" or "Jesus met the disciples in Galilee on a mountain after the resurrection vs. Jesus met the disciples in a house in Jerusalem vs. Jesus first met them at the ocean," or whether there were angels at the tomb or not or whether the women who first saw Jesus communicated this fact to the disciples, and so on and so forth. That seems to me to be a great deal more discrepancy between the stories than the "one cop vs two cops" scenario.

I was simply giving an example to illustrate that accounts can have less detail then other accounts and still be accurate, i.e. without factual error.

Besides all that, you're claiming that the Bible is the perfect, inerrant Word of God. You can't say that I'm holding it to an unreasonable standard if you believe that. I'm expecting something perfect and inerrant, after all.

If by "perfect" and "inerrant" you mean "must give the exact same details of historical accounts in the exact same wording" then I can't argue against you.

 

[ronito]

I never said that the gospel writers made a mistake in the text, did I? You're insinuating something that I did not.

So now the bible is perfect except where it's not?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Was Jesus's tomb covered in ash and releasing thousands of terrified people?

Your example is flawed for more than one reason.

I'll gladly provide another one. You and your girlfriend spend the day together. You go swimming for two hours, get something to eat at McDonald's, go cruising down Main St. for about an hour, eat dinner at Pei Wei, where your girlfriend accidentally knocks a salt shaker off the table, shattering it and embarrassing her in the process, then go to the theater and see "How to Train Your Dragon." You drop her off at her house after the movie and return to yours. Your parents ask you, "So, what did you do today?" You say, "Well, we went swimming, did some cruising, and went to a movie as well." Your girlfriend's parents ask her, "So, what did you do today?" She says, "Well, first we went swimming for two hours, then after that we went to McDonald's where I had a vanilla milkshake, then we went cruising down Main St. for about an hour, then ate dinner at Pei Wei, where I accidentally knocked the salt shaker off the table, shattering it, which was embarrassing, and then we finally went to the movie theater and saw 'How to Train Your Dragon.'"

Is either of those accounts factually inaccurate?

 

[Count Dookkake]

I'll gladly provide another one. You and your girlfriend spend the day together. You go swimming for two hours, get something to eat at McDonald's, go cruising down Main St. for about an hour, eat dinner at Pei Wei, where your girlfriend accidentally knocks a salt shaker off the table, shattering it and embarrassing her in the process, then go to the theater and see "How to Train Your Dragon." You drop her off at her house after the movie and return to yours. Your parents ask you, "So, what did you do today?" You say, "Well, we went swimming, did some cruising, and went to a movie as well." Your girlfriend's parents ask her, "So, what did you do today?" She says, "Well, first we went swimming for two hours, then after that we went to McDonald's where I had a vanilla milkshake, then we went cruising down Main St. for about an hour, then ate dinner at Pei Wei, where I accidentally knocked the salt shaker off the table, shattering it, which was embarrassing, and then we finally went to the movie theater and saw 'How to Train Your Dragon.'"

Is either of those accounts factually inaccurate?

Stupid example.







I would never eat at Pei Wei.

But seriously, a mundane event like this doesn't require the detailed account that the alleged resurrection of the alleged son of god would.

 

[Pandaman]

As for the resurrection, you and other questioners are expecting the writers to adhere to an unreasonable standard of accuracy. You are expecting the gospel writers to report the exact same details in the exact same manner.

As an example, would you expect the accounts of those who experienced 9/11 at ground zero first hand to be exactly the same? Let's say two people get out of the first tower together before it collapses and two cops are there at the bottom to direct them. One of the cops says, "Go, go, get as far away from the building as you can!" One news network interviews Person A, while another interviews Person B. The same question is asked: "What happened when you came out of the doors of the tower?" Person A said, "We came out of the doors and a cop was yelling at us, telling us, "Go, go, get as far away from the building as you can!" Person B said, "We came out of the doors and there were two cops there directing us and one was telling us to get away from the tower."

Are those accounts in conflict with one another?

what about this example: ten years after man A is born, his parents go to city A and give birth to him.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

So now the bible is perfect except where it's not?

Again, you're not following me. The Bible is perfect and contains no errors. If your standard of accuracy is that four people reporting the same events must spend the same amount of time on every event reported, must use the exact same wording to report every event, and must recount the exact same amount of details about every event, then I can't help you.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Stupid example.

I would never eat at Pei Wei.

But seriously, a mundane event like this doesn't require the detailed account that the alleged resurrection of the alleged son of god would.

Detailed according to whose standards?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Again, you're not following me. The Bible is perfect and contains no errors. If your standard of accuracy is that four people reporting the same events must spend the same amount of time on every event reported, must use the exact same wording to report every event, and must recount the exact same amount of details about every event, then I can't help you.

No one expects that. It's just that the defining facts that are stated should match up.

Like the time of the last supper, the time of the sentence, the time of execution, the time of resurrection... you know things like that.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

what about this example: ten years after man A is born, his parents go to city A and give birth to him.

You're oversimplifying and glossing over all of the items pertaining to the Quirinius census. And you know it.

 

[Pandaman]

holy moly, there's a wiki article on the census.

In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the census with the birth of Jesus, which the Gospel of Matthew places about a decade earlier (c. 4 BCE), during the rule of Herod the Great. Bible scholars have traditionally sought to reconcile these accounts; while most current scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke.[3]

sources:
Raymond Brown, Christ in the Gospels of the Liturgical Year, (Liturgical Press, 2008), page 114. See, for example, James Douglas Grant Dunn, Jesus Remembered, (Eerdmans, 2003) p344. Similarly, Erich S. Gruen, 'The expansion of the empire under Augustus', in The Cambridge ancient history Volume 10, p157, Geza Vermes, The Nativity, Penguin 2006, p.96, W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders, 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984, Anthony Harvey, A Companion to the New Testament (Cambridge University Press 2004), p221, Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Doubleday, 1991, v. 1, p. 213, Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. London: G. Chapman, 1977, p. 554, A. N. Sherwin-White, pp. 166, 167, Millar, Fergus (1990). "Reflections on the trials of Jesus". A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOT Suppl. 100) [eds. P.R. Davies and R.T. White]. Sheffield: JSOT Press. pp. 355–81. repr. in Millar, Fergus (2006). "The Greek World, the Jews, and the East". Rome, the Greek World and the East (University of North Carolina Press) 3: 139–163.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

No one expects that. It's just that the defining facts that are stated should match up.

Like the time of the last supper, the time of the sentence, the time of execution, the time of resurrection... you know things like that.

I believe they do match up and conservative biblical scholars do as well. Other biblical scholars do not. Again, there is scholarly debate and always will be.

 

[ronito]

Again, you're not following me. The Bible is perfect and contains no errors. If your standard of accuracy is that four people reporting the same events must spend the same amount of time on every event reported, must use the exact same wording to report every event, and must recount the exact same amount of details about every event, then I can't help you.

Let me rephrase:

"Again, you're not following me. The Bible is perfect and contains no errors. Unless you count the errors."

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I believe they do match up and conservative biblical scholars do as well. Other biblical scholars do not. Again, there is scholarly debate and always will be.

The great majority of biblical scholars do not believe that those match up.

The debate is more or less over.

 

[JGS]

I'll see if I can find a version of speciation we can both agree on then.

Really not necessary since your search has no effect on either one of us does it? If it does, how so?

So you agree that if Salamanders from the same 'ancestor' grow apart and are unable to breed with each other, that can be considered 'speciation'?

Who knows. I just like the sound of this

...but for it to become a 'fish' is asking for the impossible, or at least damn near impossible.

Humour me for one minute, and pretend the Bible does not exist - what reason would you have for having a distinct seperation between species?

What's the reason non-Biblical civilizations gave?

I didn't differentiate animals because of the Bible:lol . As a kid I was able to tell the difference between a cat and a dog.

...A lot of things can be explained by creation - in that you don't really need any other explanation than "God did this" - I understand that you are religious, but do you really place that on equal footing with the toils of scientists over decades, extracting information and evidence clearly outlining the shared lineage of humans and the great apes?

Sure. :lol

Seriously what exactly do you think I'm saying that is spittng in the face of scientific fact?
Honestly, I don't give a Flying Fig Newton about what some scientist thinks if they can't prove it and I don't believe it. Again, attempting to disprove my beliefs does not aid the scientist's stance anyway.

Unless you are running the experiment, you don't need much more from a scientist other than "Because I say so" on the parts I don't believe.

You assume the toils of scientist (Not the science itself) is somehow superior to the toils a religious person faces and again like others presume to equate religion and science and finding one lacking over the other. I don't do this except from your viewpoint.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

holy moly, there's a wiki article on the census.


sources:
Raymond Brown, Christ in the Gospels of the Liturgical Year, (Liturgical Press, 2008), page 114. See, for example, James Douglas Grant Dunn, Jesus Remembered, (Eerdmans, 2003) p344. Similarly, Erich S. Gruen, 'The expansion of the empire under Augustus', in The Cambridge ancient history Volume 10, p157, Geza Vermes, The Nativity, Penguin 2006, p.96, W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders, 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984, Anthony Harvey, A Companion to the New Testament (Cambridge University Press 2004), p221, Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Doubleday, 1991, v. 1, p. 213, Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. London: G. Chapman, 1977, p. 554, A. N. Sherwin-White, pp. 166, 167, Millar, Fergus (1990). "Reflections on the trials of Jesus". A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOT Suppl. 100) [eds. P.R. Davies and R.T. White]. Sheffield: JSOT Press. pp. 355–81. repr. in Millar, Fergus (2006). "The Greek World, the Jews, and the East". Rome, the Greek World and the East (University of North Carolina Press) 3: 139–163.

Right. A Wiki article settles it. Do you know what would happen to me or any other PhD student in any other discipline in America who cited a Wiki article as a source for a paper or dissertation? We'd get flunked. Immediately.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Right. A Wiki article settles it. Do you know what would happen to me or any other PhD student in any other discipline in America who cited a Wiki article as a source for a paper or dissertation? We'd get flunked. Immediately.

What would happen to a PhD student whose best defense for a position was a bit of circular logic from a book with no proper list of sources?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Let me rephrase:

"Again, you're not following me. The Bible is perfect and contains no errors. Unless you count the errors."

You can't have it both ways.

There are no errors in the Bible. If you believe that the aforementioned standard of accuracy is what it takes to constitute no errors, then the majority of ancient history just got tossed out the window.

 

[Mumei]

In my example, neither Person A nor Person B made a mistake. You are incorrect.

You're right; I misread.

But in one of the accounts, there was a single cop directing them, while in the other account there were two cops. Wasn't Person A wrong?

I was simply giving an example to illustrate that accounts can have less detail then other accounts and still be accurate, i.e. without factual error.

But this isn't a matter of more information / less information; it's about conflicting information - and not just "Jesus came back on Tuesday vs. Jesus came back on Wednesday" - although to me that would also be discrepancy enough.

If by "perfect" and "inerrant" you mean "must give the exact same details of historical accounts in the exact same wording" then I can't argue against you.

I don't care about the exact same wording, but I do care about the details. How can you say that there are no errors when they disagree?

 

[JGS]

Guys, I'm moving on. I have no interest in arguing evolution and it seems like pots are being stirred for no good reason. I would rather go back to abiogenesis since that is such a bunch of bologna, but I don't want to touch with a ten foot classification chart either.

I'll think up some worthy qualities for atheists in a little bit since I said I would get back to it.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

What would happen to a PhD student whose best defense for a position was a bit of circular logic from a book with no proper list of sources?

A position relying on faith would never be considered in a PhD program in the first place unless those running the program allow the person holding said position a measure of luxury in holding it. And they do for the most part.

There's nothing at all wrong with someone arguing a position so long as the presuppositions behind it are stated upfront. That goes for secular PhDs as well.

 

[ronito]

There are no errors in the Bible. If you believe that the aforementioned standard of accuracy is what it takes to constitute no errors, then the majority of ancient history just got tossed out the window.

Again if I say "Joe Bob was born in San Francisco." and you say "Joe Bob was born in San Jose." You wouldn't call that an error? Cause I would.

Seems to me, as I pointed out before if you believe that there are no errors in the bible, then you must believe that the people writing it were also perfect. How can you maintain the belief that

A: The Bible is perfect and it contains no errors
B: But it was written by imperfect people who might've gotten some details wrong.

It's a venn diagram two circles that don't intersect.

 

[Pandaman]

Right. A Wiki article settles it. Do you know what would happen to me or any other PhD student in any other discipline in America who cited a Wiki article as a source for a paper or dissertation? We'd get flunked. Immediately.

right, thats because you're the genius who is now purposely ignoring the citation part of the article that i went out of the way to provide for you for just this reason, that links to those wakky fringe sources like Harvard, cambridge, UofNC JSTOR. i mean, hell that's basically a blog! :lol

My professor agrees with nature on this matter.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

and in any event, half a point still beats no points. Criticise after you've made your counterpoint, you aren't on the clock so it wouldn't kill you to save your snide comments for when you have footing.

 

[Dude Abides]

Again, you're not following me. The Bible is perfect and contains no errors.

Lol.

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Turns out the value of Pi is not three.

 

[Pandaman]

Lol.



Turns out the value of Pi is not three.

its a perfect record of his measuring error! which is a metaphor for... uh. idoltry. god likes disliking that.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Again if I say "Joe Bob was born in San Francisco." and you say "Joe Bob was born in San Jose." You wouldn't call that an error? Cause I would.

That is an error. And to which supposed discrepancy in the Bible are you saying that refers?

Seems to me, as I pointed out before if you believe that there are no errors in the bible, then you must believe that the people writing it were also perfect. How can you maintain the belief that

A: The Bible is perfect and it contains no errors
B: But it was written by imperfect people who might've gotten some details wrong.

It's a venn diagram two circles that don't intersect.

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."--2 Timothy 3:16

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,' we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."--2 Peter 1:16-21