I made it! I read through and blogged the whole Bible. Here are my closing thoughts, in no particular order.
Was it worth it?
This project started as a whim; a bubble of an idea inspired by my shiny new Kindle (which I still love). I probably averaged around 45 minutes per day of reading, writing, and background research (not counting the time spent reading books about the Bible), so there were many times when I wanted to just drop the whole project and reclaim my time.
But overall, it was worth it. Independent of the subject I chose to study, it was good to set a goal of blogging daily and follow through on it. Having a project that required daily output provided a good opportunity to show myself how much I could accomplish in a year. I have no idea how many words I wrote, but I am guessing it averaged at least several hundred per day. To just pick a number, 300 words a day for a year is over 100,000 words, enough, according to the internet, to make an average length novel.
As for choosing to read the Bible, it was as good a topic as any, and probably better than many. I learned a lot about the Bible's origins and its content. Given that I live in a predominantly Christian culture, knowing the Bible is useful. To some degree, the benefits have been immediate; there were at least two times this year that I understood a literary allusion that would have gone over my head if not for my Bible project.
Was it interesting?
Overall, no. The Bible has some good passages and stories, but those, for the most part, are the sections that you are already familiar with (Judges and selected passages of the prophets provide the main sources of surprisingly interesting text).
However, a lot of the Bible is dull and repetitive. If we could have skipped the detailed descriptions of buildings (temple, tabernacle, a palace or two) and the clothing of priests, we could have cut at least a couple weeks off of the readings. Probably a month. Another week could be dropped if genealogies were skipped. Dropping the passages that were word for word reproductions of other parts of the Bible would get back at least another week (Chronicles and Samuel/Kings, I am looking at you; synoptic gospels, you also get a glance).
Much of the rest of the Bible contains repetition that is more justifiable. Although the histories of Chronicles and Samuel/Kings sometimes share text verbatim, at other times they give different perspectives on the same issue. The same can be said for the gospels, prophets, and letters of Paul (in short, the vast majority of the Bible). But still, much of the repetition seems to provide little or no value.
In short, God needs a better editor.
Did this project change my opinion of the Bible?
To be honest, I haven't the foggiest idea. It did not fundamentally change my opinion of the Bible, but it's hard to remember the details of the opinions that I held then for comparison to those I hold now.
For example, I am strongly of the opinion that the authors of the books of the Bible believed that they were communicating messages they received from God. The prophets probably really saw visions (even though, like with dreams, most of the details were filled in during the retelling). The people who wrote books in the names of others probably really thought that the person they were attributing their words to would have held the same ideas in similar contexts. However, I cannot remember what I felt about this topic last January.
The gist of my opinion of the Bible as a holy book has not changed. It can still be summed up with "Is this the best you can do?" As the words of different people trying to find their place in the world, the Bible is a fascinating piece of literature. As a holy book, something meant to convey universal truths and/or instruction, it is a failure.
I have heard or been told many times that the words of the Bible are convincing. That if non-believers would just read the Bible with an open heart and an open mind, they would come away seeing its truth. Those people obviously have not read the Bible. I started this project with, I believe, a heart and mind as open as a doubter could have and have come away only strengthened in my opinion one of the worst things a doubter could do to convince them of the truth of the Bible is to seriously read the whole thing.
What stuck out the most?
I have been harping on this a lot lately, but I feel the need to take one last opportunity to say how selectively the Bible is used, both within the Bible and by modern day readers of the Bible.
Within the Bible, the authors of the New Testament books selectively apply the Hebrew scriptures. Suppose we are generous and grant that the authors of the Hebrew scriptures were writing words with double meanings that even they would be surprised at. Even then, when you look at the original context of the fragments of Hebrew scripture quoted by New Testament authors, you can see that most of the time, those fragments, which seem so applicable when quoted, are surrounded by other verses that have no applicability to the point the NT author is trying to make. Sometimes, they even contradict the point those authors are trying to make.
Reading the whole Bible also highlights how selective modern day readers tend to be when they quote the Bible. The worst source of offence is the psalms. Time and time again, I would read a psalm and see some familiar verses just to learn that they are surrounded by verses about God's wrath, requests for revenge upon enemies, etc. But this tendency is not limited to the psalms. Familiar verses are often surrounded by verses that are not just unfamiliar but which are downright at odds with modern beliefs about God and/or Christianity.
I was also amazed to discover how non-biblical much modern Christian thought is. This includes modern beliefs that have little to no biblical basis (e.g., most beliefs about heaven, hell, and angels) and ideas that are expressed in the Bible and ignored by modern believers. The later category is harder to give an example for since most examples are noticed by some people and ignored by others. Thus, some Christians both listen to and try to live by Jesus' words on wealth redistribution while others would likely be surprised to learn they are there.
This ties in with the final thing that stuck out to me: it would be hard to build a coherent belief system that truly took all of the Bible into account. This is to be expected in a book that is large in words, historical scope, and variety of authors. However, for those who believe that the Bible does contain a coherent belief system, this ought to be more worrisome than it seems to be. Almost any belief a Christian holds is challenged somewhere in the Bible. Yet few and far between are the Christians who avoid the trap of certainty.
This tendency is even worse, in my opinion, when some churches claim to know that other churches are flat out wrong. For most conflicts about biblical validity of beliefs within the church, the Bible allows both sides to make a case. Very, very few things can be said to have unambiguous biblical support when the Bible is considered holistically.
Would I do it again?
No.
Well, maybe. There are Bibles which order the texts chronologically. I might be interesting to read through one of those. But I probably wouldn't bother to blog it.
In any case, if you base you beliefs on the Bible and haven't read through the whole thing, you definitely should do so. Even if you don't expect to understand it all (and you certainly shouldn't expect to), it's good to know what you are basing your life on.
I'm glad you did read the whole Bible. Even as a Christian, raised in the word, I have had some of your same questions. Why do some focus on one portion of scripture and not another? Why are only the inspiring parts retold? Well that's why, because they're inspiring I suppose. God is a God of wrath and judgement. Anybody tells you differently, they're selling something. Which is what makes Jesus dying on the cross so much more powerful. This is my saving Grace. I've read many of your posts, while it's hard to watch what you believe being torn up, it's also impossible not to question. Even after reading your posts, I am an idiot, I still believe in God, Jesus, the holy spirit heaven and hell and I DEFINATELY BELIEVE IN THE WRATH OF GOD.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I am glad you found value in following this. I would also warn you not to fall into the trap of certainty. I would say that the Bible is not so clear that God is a God of wrath and judgment as you think it is.
ReplyDeleteI read this link today and, while a little too late to be timely, though I'd share. It reminded me of this blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theonion.com/articles/bible-study-group-preparing-for-bible-aptitude-tes,18797
-Carrie
I found this a little late, (As it is now January of 2011). However I think I will take some time and go back and read some of what you had to say. Let me say that I am a believer and believe in the complete inerrancy of the Bible. I guess that's what you mean by the "Trap of certainty". I don't believe it to be a trap at all but that's another discussion all together. Anyway, I too am a student. I am getting my bachelors in religion, (Christianity to be exact) and it will be interesting to see what you have to say. You stated that you may try reading it again in another form. I of course would encourage you to do so but might I make a suggestion first? Go and read "Journey into God's Word" by Scott Duvall and Daniel Hayes. It should give you a little insight into how to better understand what it is that you are reading. It certainly does for me. Especially in those areas where there seems to be the most obvious of contradictions.
ReplyDeleteAnyway I commend you on your accomplishment, and I will pray that someday you will see the light that shines through the Word of God.
Shane
Shane, thanks for the suggestion, and I hope you enjoy reading my blog.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say the trap of certainty, I don't mean something like you thinking the Bible in inerrant (although I think an honest reading of the Bible would lead you to drop the belief that it is inerrant in the common sense of the word). Rather, what I mean by the trap of uncertainty is the unwillingness to examine your belief that the Bible is inerrant. It is the unwillingness, or inability, to look at your belief and think, "what if I am wrong? how would that change my perception?"
Happy reading.
I understand what you mean. In fact I have done that, and my research has only made my faith stronger. I'm sure you have been challenged to at least a handful of debates in your year of reading. Nonetheless, I would like to present one more. I challenge you to present to me something that you have inconclusively seen to be in error. Since you clearly feel that way, the challenge shouldn't be all that difficult for you.
ReplyDeleteI think it will give us both an opportunity. For me, it will do just as you suggested, ie....challenge me to look at the possibility that my faith is founded in something that could be false. And for you, (If I am successful in my quest to prove your example wrong) give more evidence that the Bible is in fact, inerrant.
What say you? You already spent an entire year reading it. What would a little rigorous debate hurt? BTW, if you choose to accept my challenge, I will at no time be disrespectful towards your views. Nor will I be rude to you with my responses. Basically I won't call you a closed minded fool. :-) At the same time, I hope you won't call me a brain washed twit.
Cheers,
Shane
The problem with such a debate is that any particular example can be excused. That said, if you want specific examples, you can read my blog or many other sources:
ReplyDeleteContradictions within the Bible
Quiz Show (Biblical Contradictions): A highly entertaining YouTube video
Contradictions in the Bible: Tends to focus on the more minor contradictions
Foundation of Sand: Biblical contradictions: Focuses on higher level issues than the previous
Some Mistakes of Scripture: When the Bible gets the Bible wrong: The Bible misquotes itself
The Jesus Timeline: Contradictions abound when trying to reconcile the gospels
Little Known Bible Verses: A series on somewhat obscure Bible verses. Many of them contradict other parts of the Bible and/or common understanding about Christianity
Contradictions between the Bible and known facts
The Pillars of the Earth: Is the Bible scientifically accurate?
More general discussions
Bible Inconsistencies: Theories of inspiration, some examples, and pointers to books of interest
On Inerrancy: Problems with believing the Bible in inerrant
Christianity is incoherent: See particularly the section on consistency which discusses problems with Christianity, beyond apparent Biblical contradictions
You have certainly given me something to think about. Since I am writing a paper for one of my classes on this very topic, I may have a few things to say about it. At the same time, it may take a while to respond. Having said that, I'm not sure what you mean by "Excused". I simply don't believe that because there is never a reason to make an excuse for the bible. Rather I would give a clear explanation, not an excuse. I'll get back you as soon as I can on one or more of the above listed sources.
ReplyDeleteTake your time. I am in no rush.
ReplyDeleteI have looked at several of the sites that address contradictions within the Bible, and while I didn't look at every single one that was pointed out, the ones I did look at are answered in most cases with a simple reading of the text. Others require a little more investigation like looking at the original greek or Hebrew, but within just a few short minutes I was able to dispel every single "contradiction" that I looked at. As for the "Pillars of the Earth" site. It makes no argument that actually proves there is no God. It simply says that some of the arguments made by SOME Christians don't prove there IS a God. That doesn't really help the case for atheism much. In the last section, I just chose one, (Christianity is incoherent), and it too was simply an argument that proved nothing. My point is I'm not sure how anything you have presented proves anything, or for that matter would even push any rational thinker towards your argument for atheism. In fact, some of the arguments presented are so vague that I would be inclined to believe the opposite is true simply because the case against it is SO weak.
ReplyDeleteYour focus on vague generalities rather than specifics make me wonder about your sincerity in expressing a desire to have a conversation.
ReplyDeleteYou take as an assumption that these sites are trying to prove there is no God. This is a faulty assumption. Rather, they are trying to show that the idea of the Christian God and the correctness of the Bible are so burdened with problems that a rational person is reasonable in dismissing those claims as false.
I suspect that if you looked over those materials again with a eye toward actually understanding what the arguments they make rather than just trying to refute them and maintain your existing world view, you would get a lot more out of them.
Your last statement, "some of the arguments presented are so vague that I would be inclined to believe the opposite is true simply because the case against it is SO weak" shows, in my opinion, how much you have to learn about the acquisition of knowledge. Plus, if you're inclined to believe something because the arguments against it are terrible, you should be running away screaming from Christianity given that most Christian apologetics are truly pathetic.
I would also like to point out that the purpose of this discussion was never to try to prove whether or not there is a God. It was, as you stated, "to present to me [Shane] something that you [Erika] have inconclusively seen to be in error".
ReplyDeleteThe sources I gave do indeed show many inconclusive errors and also contain many conclusive errors.
If you want to explore the philosophical arguments for and against God, I would suggest you spend more time exploring Common Sense Atheism since I tend to find such arguments rather pointless and tedious. You may consider starting with the "Tent Pole Posts" or exploring the essentials on the right side bar. Or just expand out the archives page and see what titles catch your fancy.
Finally, I invite you, at this point, to present ideas in favor of your own position. Either for the original topic (Biblical correctness), your revised topic (the existence of a God, presumably a Christian omnimax God), or whatever you would like to next turn the conversation to.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have deleted your comment, but I'll address it anyway. Slowly and in parts.
ReplyDeleteThere are three reasons to reject the fulfilled prophecies as being indicative of the truth of Biblical prophecy.
1) It is often wrong to assume the prophecy was recorded before the fulfillment of it. I will give specifics below, but often the appearance of a prophecy depends on an assumption of the traditional authorship of the Bible. Yet Biblical scholars almost universally agree that many of these claims are wrong.
2) Predictions based on prevailing conditions of the time are not impressive, especially in conjunction with point (3), and especially when the prediction amounts to "my enemies will be destroyed". Consider the modern American pundit (of any political persuasion). The vast majority of the predictions they make are wrong, but because they are aware of the what is going on in the world, it is not surprising that they are sometimes right.
3) The Bible itself claims that a prophet is only a true prophet if all their prohpecies are fulfilled. Thus, it is the burden of you, the believer, to show that every single prophecy was either fulfilled or could have been fulfilled. If any prophecy was left unfulfilled, then that prophet is a false one.
With that, we can address the three fulfilled prophecies on the page you linked.
Cyrus
First, the prediction that Cyrus would allow the Israelites to return home. Your link notes that, the passages which say this are Isaiah 44:28 and 54:1. However, the second does not appear to be a reference to Cyrus, at least not in any direct way that supports the author's point, but let's just consider the first.
As I mention here, modern scholars agree that this passage, which is part of Chs 40-55, was not written by the historical Isaiah. It was written by an anonymous author that is called Second Isaiah. Thus, since they were written by a different author, there is no reason to believe that they were written before Cyrus started his campaign of conquering. At that point, this prophecy becomes subject to point 2: it's about current events, so can hardly be called prophetic.
And for now, that is probably enough.
And to make sure you have something to do while waiting for the rest of my response, I suggest an analysis of The Jesus Timeline.
ReplyDeleteI didn't delete it. I don't know what happened. Oh well. Anyway, I don't know what "Biblical scholars" you are talking about but no research I have done makes any legitimate claim of that nature. Here is a great explanation that clearly refutes that assumption.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH9-6A.htm
I'll check out your link later. Time for bed.
Here is your comment. I will blame the internet gnomes.
ReplyDeleteshane has left a new comment on your post "Last thoughts":
I admit that it is difficult for me to stay on the original topic because my first instinct is to defend rather than teach. It is simply my nature. That being said, if you are a true atheist then I guess my first goal is to try and prove that there is a god of any kind, then to prove that the God of my faith is the only God, THEN to prove that the Bible is in fact inerrant. However if I am to stick to the original topic, as I said with one of my first posts, it would be easier for you to give me a specific error that you see. Not because it is impossible to answer every question, but because it is more reasonable to address one at a time. Your response gave me more than 100 supposed errors. Of course I can take them one by one and show proof that they are not errors at all, and will gladly do so if that's what you want. I just think it is pretty weak on your part to simply give me a bunch of links to someone else's work and then expect me to reply to all of it. Doing it one by one is much more conducive to a conversation than just writing a big essay about all of them together. IMHO.
I will say this. The youtube video, while entertaining, is a joke. I went through it and wrote down the verses that they say contradicted each other, and it is clear that whoever put that together has simply taken bits and pieces and put them together in a way that supports his/her agenda. Anyone who actually reads any of the passages that were brought up and puts them into context will see that there are no contradictions at all. For example the very first question asks about Gods anger. The verses are written to two completely different sets of people. In Micah the words are to REPENTANT people and therefore God forgave them, (or did not stay angry). The passage in Jeremiah is talking to UNREPENTANT people and the text makes that clear. In this case, God does not forgive because there is no repentance, (or His anger does not stop). In question 2 The video maker completely changes the word from to tempting to make it contradictory. The correct word used in the Bible is tested, not tempted, and those are completely different. If I need to explain that I will but I will assume you are educated enough to understand the difference between a test and a tempt. Question 3 claims that Jesus says a man can go to heaven by keeping the commandments. And another verse claims only faith in Christ can do that. When Jesus says that, He is making the point that it is impossible to enter heaven without His salvation because it is impossible to keep the commandments. He says, keep the commandments and be saved, but He knows that no man is capable of that, so the only way to heaven is through Him. Every single supposed contradiction can be answered. It's that simple.
As for Biblical correctness lets look at prophecies of the Bible. I could go and do a bunch of research and find them, (I have a few books laying around here) but I found a web page that shows several prophecies that later came true. Here is the link.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm
On this page you will see 3 very specific prophecies that are fulfilled to completeness, in some cases hundreds of years later. These are only 3 of literally tens and hundreds of instances where the future was foretold and it came true with 100% accuracy, with secular history backing it up all the way. The point is that no man can predict the future with that kind of record. He might get it right every now and then, but to do so with 100% accuracy? It just doesn't happen unless there is an all powerful God giving him/her the information. I'll stop there for now, I have to get some school work done.
Let's detour from prophecies to talk about Isaiah's authorship. By the way, nice use of scare quotes to imply that the scholars who disagree with your premise are not legitimate scholars.
ReplyDeleteLet's start with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a 100% reliable source of information, but it does point to references.
Reading the article, you see two things right away. First, these Biblical scholars you don't know about have been around for over a hundred years. Second, the only support the traditional view of authorship garners is that it is traditional.
Moving on, you see a summary of the reasons scholars believe the book is the work of multiple authors. You can read those yourself. This section contains the third thing to notice. Because they are cited in the section on authorship, you can tell 12 of the 27 references treat the multi-authorship seriously (11 of the 12 are books). We cannot tell just from that whether or not the references think it is the best explanation or if it is just one of many, but clearly this is a serious theory, worthy of more consideration than you seemed to give it. Note also that 0 references are cited for the traditional view.
The 8th edition of Stephen L. Harris's textbook Understanding the Bible gives additional references that I can provide on request.
As for the article you link, it claims that many scholars reject the theory of multiple authors, but it lists hardly any references, and lists no academic references explicitly defending the traditional view. Most of the references, in fact, seem to refer to descriptions of the dominant view. The reference it sites for the bulk of the substance of its refutation is named Answers to Tough Questions which sounds more like a book with an agenda than proper academic scholarship. Why, if this theory is rejected by so many legitimate scholars, is the primary citation not a legitimate piece of scholarship? (You can read some of the low rated reviews on Amazon to get details about that book's low level of scholarship.)
That source tries to imply that only liberal scholars believe that Isaiah was written by multiple authors when, it should be clear by now, this is the dominant theory about Isaiah's authorship.
That article tries to make a strong case that the Messianic prophecies are a strong indicator of the legitimacy of the single author idea. However, they do not discuss that some of these verses, particularly "the virgin birth of Christ", may not even have the meaning traditionally ascribed.. You can see the Wikipedia article for details. (I will continue to site Wikipedia articles not because they are the best source of information, but because they are the most easily shared in an online discussion. You can follow-up with the cited references as your interest and time permits.)
In short, although the agreement of a majority of scholars is not sufficient to show an idea to be true, it does show that such a position should be seriously considered rather than dismissed.
I am trying to have a conversation without name calling and the like. Twice now you have in one way or another alluded to me being less than honest, or at minimum using scare tactics, (Of which I have done neither). You sight things that are admittedly unreliable, (Wiki) and then use sources from it. If it is unreliable, then how can its sources be reliable? If you cannot refrain from that sort of bashing, I will not continue. That was my only rule, and you aren't sticking to it. Furthermore, I addressed some specific "apparent" contradictions and you have ignored those replies. It's typical of skeptics to use such tactics as you have. Starting off with not being specific, but trying to overwhelm. Then not really focusing on issues that are so clearly refuted. I was hoping we could get past that, but apparently not.
ReplyDeleteI apologize for insulting you. I am not quite sure when I insulted your honesty, but I assumed you were intentionally using quotes since grammatically unnecessary quotes generally are added for some purpose. I also apologize if you think I am bashing you. I did not intend to do so.
ReplyDeleteAs for Wikipedia, you misunderstand me. Wikipedia is unreliable in so far as it only contains summaries of works, and summaries, by their very nature, present a partial view of their contents. Traditional summaries and book reviews suffer the same flaws. That does not, however, mean that the sources that are being cited are not reliable nor does it mean that the summaries are not reliable in so far as summaries are ever reliable. Make sense?
With respect to the things I have not addressed yet, I did explicitly say that I would be replying slowly and in parts. I also said that the detour into authorship was a detour. If you would like specific points addressed, list them, and I will address them. As it is, I was just going to go through them in the order that struck my fancy. I apologize if this is not acceptable to you.
I started off with many links because I did not wish to duplicate work that others have already done. You surely must agree that as the one claiming that the Bible is inerrant, it is your intellectual responsibility to address every proposed contradiction. I do not expect you to do so all at once, of course. Rather than thinking of my initial links as me trying to swamp you, think of it as me showing you my hand. Instead of stringing you along, I wanted to show you all that I had to offer.
I do wonder why you are being so defensive, but that is a matter best left to your own internal reflection.
Do let me know whether or not you are interested in continuing this conversation. The posts each take non-trivial research and writing effort, and I am not going to bother replying to any more points unless you indicate that it is worth my time.
ReplyDeleteI will be responding. Unfortunately I took a pretty bad fall on my mountain bike Saturday and broke my shoulder blade. As you can imagine, typing is quite painful and difficult, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds very painful. Get well soon!
ReplyDeleteContinuing on, let's talk about the prophecy about the destruction of Tyre. As the site you link mentions, this prophecy is given in Ezekiel 26.
ReplyDeleteThe link you gave says straight up that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Tyre about a year after the prophecy. Thus, we see right off that this prophecy is about current events and, therefore, not any more prophetic than a journalist or political pundit today.
As that link points out, the prophecy was only partially fulfilled at that time. Further destruction did not occur until a couple hundred years later.
Thus, we finish the summary. Let's now consider the rest of the facts. First, what is supposed to be impressive about this prophecy is that the complete destruction occurred a couple hundred years later. However, the text of the prophecy does not support the view that it was meant to be fulfilled over hundreds of years. The text indicates that it is supposed to be Nebuchadnezzar's soldiers who break down the walls and demolish the city. But they didn't. That siege ended in a compromise. (History of Tyre, Nebuchadnezzar).
The prophecy also implies that Tyre will never be rebuilt. However, Tyre exists to this day. I suppose you can allow for hyperbole in prophecies, but that seems to cause as many problems as it would solve.
Finally, while we are on the topic of Ezekiel, let's consider some unfulfilled prophecies. But first, let's examine why that's. Well, Deuteronomy 18:20-22 says:
"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death."
You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
In short, if a prophet makes a false prophecy, he is not really a prophet.
So let's look at Ezekiel 29. Ezekiel declares that it is the word of the Lord that Egypt would become desolate and its people scattered for 40 years:
I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. The foot of neither man nor beast will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years. I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will lie desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries.
This did not happen. And it is almost certainly not ever going to happen because it refers explicitly to Pharaoh's, and Egypt is not ruled by a Pharaoh any more. (Hat tip for this example.).
Thus, Ezekiel fails the Bible's own test for being a true prophet.
And that is enough for tonight.
I will also point out that my arguments against the prophetic value of these prophecies are not ironclad. However, they do not need to be. You were offering them as proof of the Bible's correctness. Thus, to show that they are not proof of the Bible's correctness, it is only necessary to show that there are enough reasons to doubt their prophetic value. I believe that I have shown rather conclusively that a rational person has many reasons to believe the given prophecies have no prophetic value. I would like to think that I have shown that not believing in the prophecies is more rational than believing that these were fulfilled prophecies, but I am guessing you will disagree.
ReplyDeleteYes it was excruciating. I'm 38 years old and haven't cried from pain since I was a boy, and I wanted (and in fact did a little) to cry like never before. Anyway I am healing up nicely and should be back to 100% in no time.
ReplyDeleteSo anyway here we go.....
I want to go back and address the issue of Isaiah's authorship. You made a statement about "modern scholars" I don't want to get into semantics but I would not necessarily describe them as such. Rather they are more "liberal" scholars who IMHO, have an agenda. And that is to disprove the Bible. Regardless of that, you believe one set and I believe another set. Neither of us can be 100% sure who is correct so we will just have to let that one go. Having said that, just because a prophecy is fulfilled a year later, or 400 years later, or partially at one point and then fully later doesn't matter. The fact is that it was still fulfilled. Fulfillment is fulfillment regardless of timeline unless one was specifically given. As for the city of Tyre. It has not been rebuilt. It has never been the same as it was before. It was one of the largest cities in its time and has never been the same. It's now just a small fishing town. Saying that it was rebuilt is like claiming the twin towers were rebuilt just because they built a memorial or a mosque.
As for the Egypt prophecy from Ezekiel, I of course have a different take than you. Since I am not as up to defending prophecy as I would like to be I had to do a little research to find explanations for your claim. This is one.......
Nebuchadnezzar imposed a stunning and devastating defeat on Egypt at the battle of Carchemish. Although he did not occupy the entire nation of Egypt, his defeat of Egypt at Carchemish made him the major power in the Middle East, and Egypt was subject to him through tribute. Then, much later in 568 BC Nebuchadnezzar did in fact actually invade Egypt proper. A fragmentary historical document indicates that Nebuchadnezzar actually campaigned in Egypt, subjugating parts of the country during the rule of Amasis, about 568 BC. Naturally, during this campaign, Nebuchadnezzar took massive booty, as predicted by Ezekiel. Ezekiel never prephesied that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer all of Egypt. It says that he will campaign there, taking land and plunder as his reward. Ezekiel 29:19 was in fact fulfilled at that time to the letter.
This is another and takes some real reading to fully grasp but is worth it.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?27094-The-Four-Pillars-of-Egyptian-Chronology
As to your last statement, I agree that there is an argument to be made against some prophecies. But just because a murderer has a lawyer who makes a good argument, it doesn't mean he is innocent. So of course I disagree with you.
I would like to get back to the reason I started this whole thing to begin with. The apparent contradictions. I addressed a few and would like to hear your response. This thing of getting all off topic, (Which I know was partially my fault) is taking a lot of my time to keep up with. So if you are still willing, let's just do one thing at a time.
Glad you are starting to get better.
ReplyDelete1. Authorship of Isaiah
You make an unfounded assumption that the scholars you call liberal have an agenda to disprove the Bible. This is clearly false. Many of the scholars who do not accept traditional authorship claims are faithful believers. They do not see accepting alternate claims of authorship as problematic to their faith, especially when, as in the case of Isaiah, the book under discussion does not even make internal claims which supports the traditional view. You have also yet to provide names of any scholars who support the traditional view. You have provided one link which supports that view and, as I have already discussed, that link only cites a non-scholarly source in support of the traditional view of authorship. In short, you seem to claim that anyone who does not agree with your conclusions is a liberal scholar out to discredit the Bible. Such claims are unfounded.
2. Prophecies
You seem to be of the opinion that a prophecy need not be fulfilled to the letter to be a fulfillment. But in that case, how can you tell the difference between a prophet and a person who makes a whole lot of predictions, some of which are partially right? If you allow hyperbole, as you seem to claim was the case in the prophecies about Tyre and Egypt, then you can pretend any prophecy was fulfilled. It's also worth noting that Ezekiel 29 make very specific predictions about the geographic extend and the degree of desolation of Egypt's misery. Neither of claims holds any truth, and to claim that a military defeat fulfills those very specific claims is weak.
Your statement about lawyer's is (a) irrelevant and (b) bordering on an ad hominem attack. You also miss the key point of my statement that there are good reasons to believe that the prophecies you presented were not fulfilled. You presented the fulfillment of prophecies as proof that the Bible was true. What I have shown is that what you thought is proof is most certainly not proof. The fact that you find it personally convincing is irrelevant to the fact that you incorrectly presented it as proof.
3. Contradictions
Finally, to get back to the original topic of contradictions, a good place to start would be the Jesus timeline videos. Let's start there.
I would also ask you to clarify what you goal is in discussion contradictions. If your goal is to convince me there are no contradictions, then you have already failed; I consider the Biblical declaration that all a prophet's prophecies come true to contradict that there are prophecies that can only be considered to have come true if you have faith enough to stretch the interpretations. If your goal is to convince yourself there are no contradictions then there is, obviously, plenty of material still to cover.
ReplyDeleteTo be quite honest, I don't know exactly what my end goal is. Of course as a believer I would love to be able to get you to believe as I do, but at the same time I understand that that probably isn't going to happen with a simple debate here and now. I guess my immediate goal is to simply see what someone like you, (an obviously educated and well spoken atheist) believes, and of course WHY you believe it. And then also to better prepare myself for further debates in the future. The truth is that I LOVE to debate. In my past, many of those debates turned into arguments and those situations were unfortunate. As I grow as an adult and as a believer, I am trying to get better at debating while holding back my tendency to want to argue. Generally speaking I am pretty good at it, but this is an area where I want to get better......a lot better. So maybe in a way, I am using you to help me in that quest. And maybe in some small (Or large) way, we can both get the other to think about things on a deeper level than we did previously.
ReplyDeleteObviously you have done a great deal of research on the topic. I am always amazed at the contrasts in conclusions that people come to as they study the Bible. Take a guy like Lee Strobel. You have probably heard of him, but if not here's the reader's digest version. He was an atheist who set out researching for the purposes of proving the Bible false. As he did so, it became clearer and clearer that it was correct. He is highly educated and seems to be someone that would not be easily deceived but then you have someone like you who has come to believe the complete opposite to be true.
Anyway, I am starting to babel on so let me check out this Jesus timeline stuff and I'll get back to you soon.
Cheers
A discussion for the sake of discussion's sake? That's a reasonable goal.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I cannot summarize what I believe and why I believe it in one post (and you clearly don't expect me to), I can give the unifying theme for the reasoning behind my belief: the burden of proof is on believers of religion, and they have failed consistently to shoulder that burden.
If I did have to summarize my beliefs I would say I am an agnostic positive broad indifferent open active non-religious atheist. (That will make more sense if you peruse the definitions here.)
I would also note Lee Strobel's case is not quite as rosy and convincing as it might seem. Daylight Atheism has an in-depth review of Case for a Creator which shows that while Lee Strobel may be educated, he was not educated about the atheism he rejected. Or, if he once was, he has forgotten it all because his book is full of basic misunderstandings about atheism.
Looking forward to your further responses.
Ok so here we go. I am not familiar with the claims of Josh McDowell but from what I gather he is making the claim that Quirinus was ruler of Cilicia which was later annexed by Syria and that makes perfect sense then that Luke would refer to the area as Syria since when he wrote his gospel it was in fact Syria. Here is a pretty good site I found that documents everything well.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/cyrenius.htm
So although I’m sure you will disagree, that pretty much covers the claimed contradiction of Luke that the “timeline” presents. Here’s the thing though. Even if something has not yet been proven by archaeology yet, (Which IMHO this one clearly has been) does not mean that it isn’t true. It simply means that the proof hasn’t been found.
Anyway that covers all the John the Baptist stuff since we can now put Jesus’ birth clearly in the 3-6BC range, not the 10AD that the timeline says is a must for Luke to be right.
I want to just put a little side note in right now. Something I read the first day I saw your blog has had me thinking. You said something about being told that if you just read the Bible, you will get answers to questions, or your eyes will be opened…blah blah blah. Sorry I don’t remember the exact wording. Anyway, obviously you disagree with that statement and quite frankly I don’t blame you. I do too. I understand what was meant by it, (Whoever said it), but to take that as a hard fast rule would be silly. Let me tell you what I believe about reading the Bible.
If someone reads the Bible and genuinely wants to have things revealed to them, then I believe they will. The problem is that “If” right there. What I’m saying is that it takes more than just a simple reading, as you were told, and you have clearly proven that. I will go so far as to say that even reading it “with an open mind” isn’t enough. I put quotes there because that statement and its antithesis are so often misused so I really prefer not to use them at all. Furthermore, I understand that there are going to be things that cannot be fully explained by dates and timelines and science and objective knowledge. Some things just take faith; like some of the things in the “Jesus timeline” that I don’t have an explanation for. I simply believe in my heart that there are explanations out there for those things that just haven’t been discovered yet. Why do I have such faith? I have it because I see and feel it working in my life.
When I trust in the God of the Bible, my life just works. Everything, (And I mean everything) works better. My finances, my school, my job (Although I currently choose not to work), my marriage, everything. You may chalk that up to simple coincidence but that doesn’t explain how it is so consistent. When I say “every time”, I truly mean EVERY TIME. Coincidences just don’t work like that. In the long run, it’s a 50/50 crap shoot at best, not the 100% guarantee that trusting in God provides. Now don’t get me wrong, I still screw things up a lot and that’s why bad things happen sometimes. Also, every now and then God allows Satan to tempt us and we fail. We are all human and none of us is perfect. But I can honestly say that without question, if I have given a situation to God, it has always worked out. I can’t emphasize that enough. Like I said, some things just take faith, and maybe that’s where you and I will differ the most. If you would like examples of what I’m talking about I will be happy to give them but I think you get what I mean there.
The bottom line is this; if you want to really get something out of the Bible, you have to read it with not just an open mind, but also an open heart. As a matter of fact, I will go so far as to say that just being open may not be enough for someone like you. You may need to actively and honestly seek truth. I know you think you have/are doing that, but let me explain exactly what I mean.
ReplyDeleteFor just a second….ok longer than a second, what if you genuinely asked for something/anything to have faith in, in regards to the Bible. I know it sounds somewhat cliché-ish but what if you literally said…
“God, if you’re up there, show me something.” And really mean it. If you read the Bible with that kind of mindset I believe you would walk away with an entirely different perspective.
Ok so now it’s getting late and I have a paper due tomorrow. I’ll get back to addressing the timeline in a few days.
I'll respond to the Jesus timeline bit later. I only have time for one research intensive response every day or three.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I want to dismiss the "open heart" fallacy right now. It has at least three problems.
1) It provides an convenient excuse as to why non-believers don't believe. If someone doesn't believe after trying to understand with an open heart, you can just claim (as, in fact, you already have in these last two responses), that the other person's heart was not open enough. It is more or less equivalent to "the Secret".
2) People can convince themselves of anything. To take an extreme case, captives sometimes come to believe their abusive captors are right. People convince themselves of false things all the time.
3) It's circular. You are saying that I will come to believe in God and the truth of the Bible if I start with the assumption that God will show me the truth of the Bible. Well duh. If I sincerely start with the assumption that aliens have visited the earth, then I will find the claims of alien visitations convincing. It's called confirmation bias.
Finally, and this is less a problem with the fallacy than with your challenging me to try it. You probably haven't done it yourself. Have your read the Koran with an open heart? Gone to mosque services and lived a the life of a dedicated Muslim to see if it changes your heart and belief? If you haven't done that for every religion you reject, then, by your own argument. you are rejecting those religions on false grounds.
I would also say that this whole passage just shows how far confirmation bias can take one:
ReplyDeleteWhen I trust in the God of the Bible, my life just works. Everything, (And I mean everything) works better. My finances, my school, my job (Although I currently choose not to work), my marriage, everything. You may chalk that up to simple coincidence but that doesn’t explain how it is so consistent. When I say “every time”, I truly mean EVERY TIME. Coincidences just don’t work like that. In the long run, it’s a 50/50 crap shoot at best, not the 100% guarantee that trusting in God provides. Now don’t get me wrong, I still screw things up a lot and that’s why bad things happen sometimes. Also, every now and then God allows Satan to tempt us and we fail. We are all human and none of us is perfect. But I can honestly say that without question, if I have given a situation to God, it has always worked out. I can’t emphasize that enough.
Let's look at all of the ways confirmation bias is in effect here. You say that everything works out when you trust in the God of the Bible. You then immediately go on to say that everything doesn't always work out but provide excuses: (a) you screwed up or (b) God allows you to be tempted. All you have shown is that when things go well for you, you give credit to God. You have shown in no way that your faith actually has a tangible benefit beyond biasing how you look at reality.
And that's ignoring the fact that humans are cognitively wired to ignore data that does not correspond to their existing beliefs (biases, biases, and more biases). We are all subject too these biases, which is why subjective opinions, no matter how personally convincing, are nothing more than subjective.
Ok so I had to check this one more time. I should have been in bed an hour ago...oh well.
ReplyDeleteThose aren't excuses, they are reasons. I'm sure you know the difference. For example, if you and I are on a trip and you know the way but I don't, and I take the controls and ignore your guidance then when I get us lost, there is no excuse, only a reason; and that reason is that I didn't listen to the one who knew the way. The same applies rule applies to Christianity.
As for the biases, of course, we all have them. You just as much as me. Do you think that you started reading the Bible last year with no biases? Of course not, but while biases can and often do influence our thought process, they don't determine truth, nor do they prove or disprove anything. Furthermore, if those biases are based in what someone knows to be truth, they are no longer really biases are they.
I dismiss your argument about having to test other religions. It sounds all warm and fuzzy and makes for a good soundbite but it simply isn't necessary. The things that you diminish about Christianity are the very things that make it so distinct from those other religions. The virgin birth, the death and resurrection and on and on. And that's not mentioning the things that have happened in my own life that prove without any doubt that what I believe is 100% true, without question. I'm referring to those things that go perfectly when I just leave it to Him.
These are not things that I could ever explain fully because one must experience them for themselves to fully grasp it, but they have been solid evidences for millions of Christians for more than 2000 years. Idk, maybe my little excursion into this debate will do nothing but put us in an endless circular argument and won't accomplish anything at all.
Your excuses most certainly are excuses. Where do I start on the inadequacy of your analogy? The difference between knowing the way in a geographical sense and your supposed knowledge on the spiritual journey is that you could give me the directions and if I followed them, we would reach our destination, even if I was skeptical of your directions. This is true of every single thing in reality that you could use as analogy. When it comes to real life, you don't have to believe the instructions work to get results. You just follow them, and the results follow. Belief about the instructions is irrelevant to whether or not they work.
ReplyDeleteThis is directly at odd with what you propose. You propose instructions that you say will only work if one believes the instructions work.
As for my argument about testing other religions, it most certainly is valid. Members of other religions believe that the things that have happened in their lives proof that their religions are 100% true, without question.
You say there has been solid evidence for millions of Christians for more than 2000 years. If that is supposed to be convincing, why are you not convinced by the billions of followers of the Hindu faith with their over 2000 years of history? Or Muslims with their 1500 years of history? Or Jews with their 2500-3000 years of history?
And those religions have their distinguishing characteristics too. They too could say, "The things that you diminish about are the very things that make it so distinct from those other religions. X, Y, Z, and on and on."
Christianity is not special. All religions differ in the details, but they all have the same amount of evidence for their position (which is to say, pretty much none). They all have similar excuses for why their miracles are true but the miracles of other religions are not.
You do have an intellectual responsibility to test other religions the same way you ask others to test your religion. If you have not gone through that test yourself, then asking others to go through the same test is hypocritical.
I would also like to point out that the fact that everyone has biases, including, as you correctly point out, me, is exactly why subjective experiences cannot be taken a indicators of truth. Everyone will come to a different subjective belief, therefore truth can only be determined when you rely in techniques that do not depends on the subjective beliefs of individuals
ReplyDeleteLet's get back to the Jesus timeline.
ReplyDeleteOk so here we go. I am not familiar with the claims of Josh McDowell but from what I gather he is making the claim that Quirinus was ruler of Cilicia which was later annexed by Syria and that makes perfect sense then that Luke would refer to the area as Syria since when he wrote his gospel it was in fact Syria.
Did you watch the second video? Starting around 3:30, it clearly pokes holes in this assumption which makes perfect sense to you. Quirinius was known to be governing another province at the time when McDowell claims he was governing or administrating Syria. To assume that he was governing two provinces at once stretches credulity beyond what is reasonable. (And the link provided does not the reduce the need for credulity.)
So although I’m sure you will disagree,
Please don't make assumptions about what other people will and will not agree with. It shows an unwillingness on your part to have a sincere conversation. Do you want to engage with the material I present, or do you just want to find ways to dismiss it to keep your own world view intact?
In any case, in this instance, I do agree that if you take the assumption of an earlier administration of Quirinius, it does clear up the assumption that Jesus had to be born later. However, the assumption itself is unreasonable. Furthermore...
that pretty much covers the claimed contradiction of Luke that the “timeline” presents.
That covers one contradiction that the timeline covers (once again, nice use of unnecessary quotes to imply that the timeline is not legitimate). As the second video makes clear, even if you clear up that contradiction, there are plenty more inconsistencies in the account. The last third or so of the second video makes clear how many assumptions you have to make to get the timelines to reconcile. Some of them are reasonable, but others are ridiculous. Certainly, the burden of accepting that many outrageous assumptions should be a strong indication that perhaps the conclusion you are going for is wrong.
Here’s the thing though. Even if something has not yet been proven by archaeology yet, (Which IMHO this one clearly has been) does not mean that it isn’t true. It simply means that the proof hasn’t been found.
This comment applies to only a small number of the assumptions that have to be made to reconcile the conflicting timelines presented in the gospels. Furthermore, even if something has not been proven or disproven by archaeology, we can still judge how much of an intellectual stretch it is to accept the assumption. In this case, accepting that Quirinius was governing two provinces at the same time (or governing one while being an administrator in another) is a rather long stretch.
Anyway that covers all the John the Baptist stuff since we can now put Jesus’ birth clearly in the 3-6BC range, not the 10AD that the timeline says is a must for Luke to be right.
As I have already mentioned, even if you are willing to stretch credulity to get to this point, there are still many more problems with the gospel timelines that you have yet to reconcile.
Something of a side note, DeistPaladin, the creator of the Jesus timeline video, has another video which shows just how similar Christianity and Islam look from the point of view of a non-believer. It's a point worth considering if you want to claim that Christianity is special.
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to be patient with me. I'm realizing very quickly that I don't have the time to dedicate to this that I would like to have.
ReplyDeleteNo rush.
ReplyDeleteI'm reading the Bible with my kids on Sunday mornings. Genesis and Exodus were okay but Leviticus got dumped. Numbers got dumped. Deuteronomy is getting a light reading now.
ReplyDeleteI wish more far amazement in uncovering God in Biblli. God listens always - ale or we be able to so alone be patient.
ReplyDeleteJezus lives and tells to you I Am. Do you in this believe really ?
If so you need not already this anything nothing more.
Jezus rose from the dead yesterday. It appears with this today which they want Him to see very. Let they Rose from the dead it will bestow you room on every day.
Andrew
http://trzykroki.blogspot.com/
Shalom,
ReplyDeleteGod willing, I'm going to read through it once in my life time as not much time is left for me. Currently I am busy right now with New Testament. You may browse the files (New Testament) of my work-in-progress at http://tiny.cc/BostonReaders
I don't find anything here you mention about how much you now realize you don't know after a momentous work is done of reading it once through? Of course, I assume you could understand all the English sentences, or at least you could solved them out. But could you figure out, what it is saying, what it is telling?
Did you find or try to find there something you set out to find? Every page is waiting for you to find who God is, who the Messiah is, who man is, and who you are. Or, you have been looking for none of these? If so, then, 'having done reading once' is of not much value. Perhaps some usefulness for polemical writing along with some hubris.
First of all we should not pass the Bible soley as a canon of a religion (or any Church, or denomination). Nor it's a book of ethics that we find impressed or helpful.No, it's a living book, a book of the story of God's love from creation to consummation - the story of a God who seeks and comes to us revealing Himself; is not waiting for us to find Him (to find the way to Him and get enlightened on our own. He calls and invites us to join a divine fellowship of all the created beings in a wonderful dance - all through Yeshua, the crucified Messiah, who Himself said is the way to the Father and the divine reality (truth) and the life of God.
We all are believe (in) a god - someone who has power over us, a mighty being who can control us and the world. For most of people, this being turns out to be simply oneself (‘Me’) which holds and yields power, enjoys pleasure, basking in pride. The true God, He alone, totally other and absolute, from whose love we are created. What we have as the Bible is the only place where we can find Him as He reveals Himself. Blessed are tho ones who find the very meaning of life and who find their lives made worthy because of Him.
May God bless our souls and mercy on us all.
Hello again,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to get this out there while it's fresh in my mind. I gotta get back to school work but I found this interesting since you brought it up earlier. You mentioned the theory that you think the book of Isaiah is split between chapter 39 and 40 and this shows 2 separate authors. SOmething about the second half being written several hundred years or at least some significant amount of time later. I am currently taking an Old Testament class and it appears to me that there is little to no evidence at all to support that theory. Ok so the tone changes from the first half to the last half. It makes perfect sense because the entire context changes there. Furthermore, the early church accepted the entire book as written by only one man. Lastly, the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Which I just had the pleasure of viewing first hand) have no break at all between the to halves. As I'm sure you are well aware that that is the oldest known manuscript of the OT. I for one would give it more credence than some person 2000 years later saying something that has no historical or archeological evidence at all. Believing the more modern and liberal scholars of today flies in the face of hermeneutics as a hole. I submit that the reason you believe these scholars is because their views and theories line up with what you already believe. If you believed the actual evidence, you would have to consider the possibility that there was something supernatural going on and that doesn't fly real well in atheist circles.
@Shane, have you taken the time to look at the evidence presented by the scholars you disagree with or are you just studying the opinions of those you agree with?
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in so far as the evidence is not definitive either way. But I find the evidence in favor of Isaiah having multiple authors to be more compelling than the traditional answer.
This is _not_ because I prefer the conclusions of modern scholars. It is because the claims in favor of traditional authorship are nothing more than arguments from authority and tradition.
Your argument about the oldest known scrolls not showing a split are irrelevant because those scrolls still come hundreds of years after the latest date for any part of Isaiah.
On the other hand, the conclusions of modern scholars are based on textual and statistical analysis and are robust through many different methods of analysis.
Supernatural claims require exemplary proof. Thus, the fact that there is some small possibility, mainly derived from traditional beliefs, that something supernatural once occurred is in no way compelling. To say that someone has to consider likely the possibility that something supernatural was going on requires much stronger evidence.
A question for you: Tradition says that the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph Smith on golden plates. Do you believe that that was likely? Based on your standards, shouldn't you feel compelled to believe it likely based on authority and tradition and the fact that the claim is consistent with the oldest known manuscripts of the books of Mormon? Or are you more credulous when it comes to Christianity than when it comes to other religious traditions?
I would submit to you that I am not being unduly skeptical with respect to the claims of Christianity. Rather, I would submit that you apply lower standards to your own religious belief than you do to the religious beliefs of other traditions. In other words, you're just as much of a skeptic as I am, except when it comes to your religious tradition. Take the extra step and apply fair and equal standards to your own beliefs.
@Shane, To expand upon the last point a bit more, please watch this video which shows how most Christians holds double standards when it comes to their beliefs. You maybe be the exception, but give the matter some sincere thought.
ReplyDelete(Note, that video does phrase things more bluntly than I would, but I the general point of it still holds.)
ReplyDeleteI first off want to point out how since we have started this little conversation, many times you have completely diverted from the topic at hand. I mention Isaiah and you show me a video about Mormons and Muslims. Nice diversion, and this isn't the first time you have done it, but since you brought it up I will address it. But I fully expect you to respond to mine as well.
ReplyDeleteYour video fails to mention the thousands of pieces of archeological evidence that support scripture. That's not to mention the eye witness testimony to those miracles that your video claims there is no evidence for. Quite the contrary. The video lumps three religions together as being equal when nothing could be farther from the truth. The two other religions, (And any others that you want to present) pale in comparison in terms of historical, archeological and eye witness evidence. I find it interesting that people like yourself don't have any trouble accepting the testimony of a witness to a murder, but a witness to something supernatural....no way. The NT has been recorded with complete accuracy for 2000 years and those people wrote down what they saw. But because what they saw was supernatural, you reject it. Just like you reject the authorship of Isaiah, because accepting it would mean you must acknowledge something supernatural. You do so because it doesn't fit into your world view.
Your video is correct on 2 counts. There is no evidence at all for Mormonism or Islam. Christianity however has an almost limitless supply. That doesn't mean we can exclude faith completely, because it still takes some. I think the problem arrises when people want to be able to believe in something without any faith at all. Of course there are many areas where that is possible and I wish Christianity as a whole was one of them. Unfortunately it isn't. But just because some faith is needed, doesn't mean that that faith is a blind faith. It is a faith based in evidence: Historical, archeological and first hand testimony.
You have accused me of diverting the topic and not responding to your comments about Isaiah. This ignores that the bulk of the post labeled "May 5, 2011 11:29 AM" is addressing your concerns about Isaiah. I'll also not that in that response I asked a simple and straightforward question of you which you seem to have completely ignored ("have you taken the time to look at the evidence presented by the scholars you disagree with or are you just studying the opinions of those you agree with?").
ReplyDeleteYou also call my bringing up about the delusional bubble video a delusion, but it follows directly from what you were talking about. You brought up the topic of standards of evidence. In particular, you made the claim that I preferred the evidence that agreed with my position.
I commented upon the claim that I am not applying standards fairly by pointing out that you were likely doing the same thing. In particular, I responded to your claim about my evaluation of evidence by saying that perhaps you applied different standards of evidence.
Thus, your accusation that I did not address your comments about Isaiah and changed the topics are obviously based on a foundation of sand. The most charitable interpretation of your baseless accusations is that what you really meant to say is that I did not fully address your points about Isaiah and that I gave more emphasis to the topic of standards of evidence than you had meant for me to. If that is the case, it would be much more productive for you to say exactly which of your statements I did not address to your satisfaction. Just saying "But I fully expect you to respond to mine as well" and excepting me to read your mind and figure out which points were not sufficiently addressed is rather useless.
To explicitly address your points about the evidence for Christianity, what leads you to dismiss the other two religions so quickly? Believers of both of those religions, and most other religions, would claim archeological evidence to support their position (in fact, since they both derive from the Judeo-Christian tradition, nearly all of the evidence of Islam and Mormonism can be taken as support for those religions too, just like Christians use evidence that they believe supports Judaism and claim that it also supports Christianity). Have you studied the claims of evidence in those other religions or have you, at best, given that evidence a cursory glance and then dismissed it because you are already in the belief bubble of Christianity?
You can Google as well as I can, but within the first page of results for two simple searches, I found claims that Mormonism has archeological proof and Islam is supported by scientific proof. And those are just the first sites of what appeared to be many. Thus, it seems to me that your claim that these religions pale in comparison to the Christianity when it comes to evidence is not true. As far as I can tell, these religions have proof which is just as strong (i.e., just as unconvincing) as the evidence for Christianity.
To address more specifically two particular statements of yours:
ReplyDeleteFirst, "I find it interesting that people like yourself don't have any trouble accepting the testimony of a witness to a murder, but a witness to something supernatural....no way."
What testimony are you talking about? If you are talking about the testimony of the Bible itself, then you need to justify why the self testimony of the Bible is more reliable than the self testimony of the scriptures of other religions. If you are talking about the testimony of Christians, you have to justify why that testimony is more reliable than the testimony of followers of other religious traditions.
You bring up the analogy of a testimony for murder, and I think that can be instructive. If someone testifies about a murder, and their testimony is consistent with other evidence, then it is reasonable to believe it has some basis in fact (although if you examine the literature about cognitive biases, you'll actually see that most testimony is highly unreliable). However, if someone testifies about a murder and their testimony is contradicted by that of another witness whose testimony is more aligned with the facts of the situation, then the first witnesses testimony is unreliable.
Testimony does not exist in a vacuum. It is valuable in so far as it supports or contradicts the rest of the known facts. Testimony about supernatural claims of Christianity has the double problem of both being inconsistent with other people's testimonies of the supernatural and inconsistent with known facts.
Second, you say: "The NT has been recorded with complete accuracy for 2000 years and those people wrote down what they saw."
What proof do you have that the NT was recorded with complete accuracy? How do you define complete accuracy? How do you know people were recording what they saw? You believe these to be true, but it is your obligation, as the one making the claim, to provide incontrovertible evidence.
Let's also get back to what you claimed, once upon a time, as your goal: "That being said, if you are a true atheist then I guess my first goal is to try and prove that there is a god of any kind, then to prove that the God of my faith is the only God, THEN to prove that the Bible is in fact inerrant." You then went on to say that to stay on topic, you would focus on showing the Bible to be inerrant, even if that is putting the cart before the horse.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that you have been singularly failing in accomplishing your goal. When I bring up an issue with your claim of Biblical inerrancy, such as the multiple authors of Isaiah, you responde that there exist what you consider to be reasonable explanations for the perceived inconsistencies.
This is sufficient if your goal was to prove to yourself that your belief is reasonable. However, you claimed that your goal was to prove to me that the Bible is inerrant. Thus, it is not sufficient to say that you don't believe the evidence that I accept because you find the evidence you accept more convincing.
No, if your goal is prove that the Bible is inerrant, you need to provide more than a plausible case. You need to provide an iron clad case. You need to prove beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt that the Bible is inerrant.
If this were a murder trial, and you claimed as your evidence the testimony of one witness that the suspect was at the murder scene and I claimed as mine that another witness saw the suspect at the grocery store at the same time, it would be clear that your evidence fails to prove that the witness was at the scene of the crime.
So your job, if you want to achieve your goal, is to present convincing evidence and decidedly refute all contrary evidence. I doubt you can do that.
In short, you have, by now, demonstrated sufficiently that you believe the Bible is inerrant and, furthermore, that you believe your position to be based upon sound factual evidence. However, you have made no progress in your goal of providing convincing reasons for anyone else to agree with you.
ReplyDeleteWOW! That's a mouth full. I'm headed out the door but I want to say one thing real quick as to the eye witness stuff. It seems that you are treating the Bible as though Christians claim it was written by some mystical being or something and therefore it's words cannot be used as eye witness testimony. I'm sure you know we don't think that. There are several authors who all claim the same things. It's not like your example of the murder trial with one witness against one other witness. There were literally hundreds of eye witnesses to supernatural things. Jesus walking and talking after he was put to death being the most significant. It is more than enough evidence to convict in a court of law. In presenting the "my word against yours" court case you have presented a straw man argument. I gotta go. I'll respond more next week when I have time. Oh wait, one more thing. The evidence that is the same for Christians and Mormons and Jews and Muslims is fine. So what? There is a point at which all those religions part ways, and it is at that very point that there is no more evidence for the others. Christianity however continues to have evidence. Maybe that evidence isn't enough for you and I get that, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any at all.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that you are treating the Bible as though Christians claim it was written by some mystical being or something and therefore it's words cannot be used as eye witness testimony. I'm sure you know we don't think that. There are several authors who all claim the same things
ReplyDeleteIt may seem that way to you, but you are wrong. The model of Biblical authorship that is accepted by most modern scholars (which, I know, you think are all atheistic liberals and so not to be trusted) is that three of the four gospels shared sources. You can learn about it yourself. Although I would be surprised if you haven't at least heard of these authorship hypotheses before. If you haven't, you must be attending a truly negligent educational institution.
But in any case, the point is that you cannot use the gospels as independent witness testimonies. They were derived from the same folklore and stories. (Yes, I said folklore; there is good reason to believe that the gospels were not written by eye witnesses but were written many years after the fact by people who had heard the rumors about Jesus.)
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you take the gospels as four independent witnesses. You also say there were literally hundred of eye witnesses. That is a ridiculous claim. What you can say is that the gospels claim there were hundreds of eye witnesses. If a newspaper claims that hundred of people witnessed a murder, that claim is worthless unless those claimed witnesses speak for themselves. Does that difference make sense to you? (This page talks about the silliness of that claim in a bit more detail.)
The evidence that is the same for Christians and Mormons and Jews and Muslims is fine. So what? There is a point at which all those religions part ways, and it is at that very point that there is no more evidence for the others.
Once again, I see you're not actually responding to what I wrote. You may notice, if you read again, that I said that the evidence for Christianity counts towards those other religions plus they claim their own additional evidence in their favor. Thus, they both have strictly more evidence than Christianity.
I think we are going in circles here. We have demonstrated that it is utterly impossible to prove the other wrong and prove ourselves right. It just cannot be done with facts and history and the like. The difference between you and me is that it appears that you are unwilling to accept anything outside of the natural. Like Sagen said "The cosmos is all there is". I submit that there is more and you are simply unwilling to accept it because it requires something beyond the natural world. It requires an acceptance of the supernatural. It requires faith. When you couple the evidence with faith and experience, (the two things you dismiss) there is only one conclusion; there is a God. When you claim there is no god, there is also only one conclusion. That all truth is relative and there is no foundation for ethics and morality. Thus, if we are simply here by mere chance, then I can murder everyone in my church and there is no grounded truth to say that it is wrong to do so. I have my right and wrong and you can have yours.
ReplyDeleteI think we are going in circles here.
ReplyDeleteMost certainly.
We have demonstrated that it is utterly impossible to prove the other wrong and prove ourselves right.
Also true.
It just cannot be done with facts and history and the like.
Well it can, but only if we accept a common definition of how we evaluate history and determine facts.
The difference between you and me is that it appears that you are unwilling to accept anything outside of the natural. Like Sagen said "The cosmos is all there is". I submit that there is more and you are simply unwilling to accept it because it requires something beyond the natural world. It requires an acceptance of the supernatural.
Not quite. I am willing to accept the unnatural. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus, "some people said it happened" it not sufficient proof, and you have yet to present any evidence that does not reduce to that.
I would also submit that you just as skeptical as I am, if not more, with the claims of other faith traditions.
It requires faith. When you couple the evidence with faith and experience, (the two things you dismiss) there is only one conclusion; there is a God.
Define faith. Most definitions of faith assume a belief in God. Under those conditions, of course you conclude there is a God.
Where have I said that I dismiss experience? I fully accept experience. I accept my experience; I seriously consider the experience of those I trust. However, a random person's claim that their experience leads them to believe something is not worth much to me.
And you seem to not apply a uniform stanard. Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, etc all have faith, evidence, and experience, but you reject their faith traditions completely.
When you claim there is no god, there is also only one conclusion. That all truth is relative and there is no foundation for ethics and morality. Thus, if we are simply here by mere chance, then I can murder everyone in my church and there is no grounded truth to say that it is wrong to do so. I have my right and wrong and you can have yours.
ReplyDeleteThis is a common misconception. I won't try to answer at length; I am not a moral theorist. That said, I will give you a few pointers.
Jonathan Haidt's The Happiness Hypothesis is not about religion. But it does talk about how moral values likely evolved. To sum up a much more elaborate discussion, cooperative societies are much more successful and adaptive than those which are not.
Murder, for example: you say that if there is no God, then you can murder. But atheists do not murder any more than theists. And here's why: it'd be stupid.
Suppose you were a murderer. No one would interact with you. Even if they couldn't just imprison or kill you, they would just stop interacting with you. No one would sell you food, other goods, or services. No one would live near you. You'd be driven out of your home and your family would abandon you. A society based upon murder being okay would not survive.
(Also, are you really claiming your belief in God is the only thing that keeps you from murder? If you really believed that, you would be a terrible monster, even if your belief in God does keep you from actually doing the acts that you apparently are only barely held from doing.)
In any case, back to the pointers. Daylight Atheism provides a simple explanation of atheist morality. It assumes compassion exists. Given that, morality follows. Belief in god is not necessary for morality, just the demonstrable existence of empathy and compassion.
But that short essay does not provide a comprehensive non-theistic moral system. Such a thing requires much more space than a blog post. For an exploration of a moral system that is not based on the existence of any deity, try exploring the Morality in the Real World podcast. Each episode is linked as both a transcript and an mp3.
I hope those resources help that neither god's existence nor belief in any god is necessary to live a moral life.
I would also point out that most theistic moral systems have their own problems. The simplest examle is the Euthyphro dilemma.