Did Jesus say he was God???

[metis]

I have a scientific degree and work in science so I do appreciate science. I however have a far less optimistic opinion of it than many in this modern era. I see first hand the unreliability of even older 90's technologies. In fact my employment is dependent on sciences failures and business is a booming.

Although many hypotheses have been dead ends, one should remember what "hypotheses" actually means. And if science is so off base, why has there been so much progress brought about by science?

1. Reliable science is extremely consistent with the bible.

That largely depends on interpretation, and a more literal approach towards the Bible is often the exact opposite of what we now know through science.

2. There is no conflict between reliable science and God.

That's rather amazing since we literally know nothing about God since the acceptance of God is based on faith and not empirical evidence.

3. Science in general confirms the bible.

Depends on interpretation.

1. For example there must be ten thousand historical claims which have potential for objective confirmation of denial. Overwhelmingly they are confirmatory and many times the bibles claims prove the archeologists wrong in the end.

And many times it's worked the other way around. Ever read BAR?

2. The bible also makes many scientific claims about for example germ theory, hydrology, oceanic dynamics, cosmology, etc... These have all been confirmed by objective science.

Not really.

3. The bible makes many philosophical claims. These can be compared to what secular philosophy states as axioms or principles.

Depends.

4. There are many indirect indications that can be compared to objective conclusions. For example the bible indicates life can only come from life. That is exactly what science claims as well. I mean actual observed science that conforms to objective evaluations not fantasy and speculation.

Science makes no such assumption, for as yet we simply do not know with any certainty if life could have evolved from inorganic matter.

5. There are many logical tests. For example the bible recorded long before any telescope was even hinted at that the stars are practically numberless. This was at a time when less that ten thousand stars were visible.

I think looking out on a clear evening could tell us that.

I appreciate the admission. I would sum it up like this.

1. There is no proof for God

Correct.

2. There is however a mountain of evidence for God.

Incorrect. There actually is no objectively-derived evidence that clearly indicates as such.

3. There is no reliable science that contradicts with the Bible, reliable science is extremely consistent wit the bible.

Depends on interpretation.

4. There are objective tests for many of the bibles claims but not any objective tests for a great many others.

Not true. If you disagree, go talk this over with some of the Muslems, for example.

 

[1robin]

Although many hypotheses have been dead ends, one should remember what "hypotheses" actually means. And if science is so off base, why has there been so much progress brought about by science?

I mentioned science not the specific subgroup of hypothesis. Science is constantly failing. It in many cases gets it right eventually but that still means that most of it at any one time is mistaken. How do you know much progress has been made? Compared to what? Maybe an alien species is looking at us and shaking their heads at our sluggish progress. This is kind of irrelevant anyway. Most of reliable science confirms the bible. The part of "science" used to contend with it is from the most unreliable arenas of an already hazardous field. My entire job is an effort to make science work and it is a constant problem even with 90s technology. If we have this much trouble making H009 or 1553 busses that work given they are 30 years old then forget any credibility in knowing exactly what occurred in multiple universe or a billion years ago. Please make this area of discussion more relevant to theology if you can. Generalizing is not very profitable.

That largely depends on interpretation, and a more literal approach towards the Bible is often the exact opposite of what we now know through science.

That is what I mean by generalizing. Which scientific claim is the opposite of what biblical verse?

That's rather amazing since we literally know nothing about God since the acceptance of God is based on faith and not empirical evidence.

That is completely wrong. The belief in God is based in many things including historical events, it's philosophical consistency, it's scientific claims like cosmology and germ theory, the bible's textual integrity, the list never ends and many of the areas have empirical evidence. I would also claim that the tiny fraction of science used to normally contend with the bible lies in a domain where more faith given less evidence by far is necessary than for my theology. How many bible's did the multi-verse right to evaluate?

Depends on interpretation.

I get the impression you will avoid any methodology by which this can be concluded. That is fine but unless a resolution is desired and specifics are given I do not want to waste time.

And many times it's worked the other way around. Ever read BAR?

No, never heard of it. I however have been involved in formal debate and informal debate for years. I have yet to see a single clear historical claim from the bible be proven false. many lack enough evidence to confirm and many contradict theories but so far I have seen none that contradict historical fact. Pick your favorite from BAR and we will have a crack at it.

Not really.

That is not an argument and yes in fact they have been confirmed in every way. They are point blank facts. I do not even know what a contention to them would look like. Especial the ones I mentioned. They have been simple truths that science backs up in every way and are taught in every classroom.

Depends.

Is there an argument coming at some point. I can answer maybe to every point but it will not make for a persuasive debate or interesting conversation.

Science makes no such assumption, for as yet we simply do not know with any certainty if life could have evolved from inorganic matter.

In science the definition of a law is a contention that has no known exception. It is an informal law and a formal principle in biology that indeed life only comes from life. There are no known exceptions and even every over zealous theory has problems that as yet have no solution or example.

I think looking out on a clear evening could tell us that.

That is exactly the opposite as what we should expect. A person counting a thousand grains of salt on his table does not conclude that the grains of sand on his table are numberless. A person counting cars on the free way and getting ten thousand does not conclude the number of cars is equal to a quantity so large it can't be determined. Keep in mind this is long before space was understood and stars were known to be what they are. No one looking up and counting 4000 visible lights would conclude there were actually an almost infinite amount of stars in reality. In fact that is what we generally find in non-biblical texts recording the numbers of things that could be seen including stars.

Correct.

Incorrect. There actually is no objectively-derived evidence that clearly indicates as such.

I see invented a qualification that was not in my claim in order to provide you with a false criteria. Actually much of eh evidence for God is objective, though objective is not a required criteria anyway, and further more not part of my claim. You seem to have an agenda that generates huge ambiguity in easy contestable concepts and exactitude in enormous and complex arenas, as needed.

Depends on interpretation.

That is not an argument.

Not true. If you disagree, go talk this over with some of the Muslems, for example.

Not only are you wrong, you would not know you were right even if you were. You cannot know every claim the bible makes and the evidence for it, there for you can make no claim about the totality or quality of evidence for it's claims and you certainly cannot know the claims of all other faiths so your insurmountable problem is amplified. I would explain why my statement is true but your response make me question whether you are interested in a debate at all. Depends and depends on interpretation are not arguments by themselves.

 

[metis]

How do you know much progress has been made? Compared to what?

I think it's rather obvious to just about everyone that there's been a great deal of progress that science has brought us, and we could cover item for item but that would be a waste of time. In just one area, look at all the medical technology science has brought us whereas our life expectancy here in the States is roughly double of what it was at the time of American Revolution. Yes, not every item that science has come up with works, but it's the nature of science and scientists to experiment, thus taking hypotheses and seeing if they work. That's the nature of what we do in science, and it seems mind-boggling to me that you don't seem to understand nor appreciate that while calling yourself a scientist.

Also, let me just add that the contributions of theists, including many Christians, weren't always positive. How many people have been killed in the name of "God", for example? How have our schools often been dumbed down with teaching faith beliefs as if they were scientific principles?

Please make this area of discussion more relevant to theology if you can. Generalizing is not very profitable.

You generalize constantly, typically making grandiose statements on items that don't directly relate to what's being discussed. Please take your own advice before telling me what I supposedly must do.

That is what I mean by generalizing. Which scientific claim is the opposite of what biblical verse?

Here's a whole batch of them, which can be found here: An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense If you want to maybe discuss a couple of items, I am willing to do as such.

That is completely wrong. The belief in God is based in many things including historical events, it's philosophical consistency, it's scientific claims like cosmology and germ theory, the bible's textual integrity, the list never ends and many of the areas have empirical evidence.

If what you said was true, then we would see these supposed "things" being constantly broadcast from every mountain whereas there would be simply no doubt about there being a God, and your number one supporters would be scientists. But neither is true. There simply is no objective evidence for God, and you haven't put forth one piece of direct evidence, which makes it quite obvious that you really don't have any or you would have done it by now. So, why don't you put forth your evidence?

I get the impression you will avoid any methodology by which this can be concluded. That is fine but unless a resolution is desired and specifics are given I do not want to waste time.

I'm not forcing you to write anything back. But the problem mostly lies with both of us. For one, you keep throwing stuff into the discussion that simply doesn't directly deal with the issue at hand, and then I have the problem of not having the time to spend trying to respond to every single item you throw against the wall. Just one post of yours may have maybe three or four dozen points, so how is it possible that I could adequately respond to them all? I've asked you before to limit your points whereas we could have time to maybe get into a few, but you just keep on throwing stuff in that are totally unnecessary to the discussion at hand.

No, never heard of it. I however have been involved in formal debate and informal debate for years. I have yet to see a single clear historical claim from the bible be proven false. many lack enough evidence to confirm and many contradict theories but so far I have seen none that contradict historical fact. Pick your favorite from BAR and we will have a crack at it.

Here's their website: Bringing the Ancient World to Life – Biblical Archaeology Society Since I gave you another link on scientific errors found within the scriptures, we need not get into BAR.

In science the definition of a law is a contention that has no known exception. It is an informal law and a formal principle in biology that indeed life only comes from life. There are no known exceptions and even every over zealous theory has problems that as yet have no solution or example.

There simply is no "law" that covers whether life may have originated from non-life or whether it has theistic causation. These hypotheses are under experimentation and study as we write here, and at this time there's simply no biological axiom that covers this. See: Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually much of eh evidence for God is objective, though objective is not a required criteria anyway, and further more not part of my claim. You seem to have an agenda that generates huge ambiguity in easy contestable concepts and exactitude in enormous and complex arenas, as needed.

There is no objective evidence for God, and your repeated claims that there is is simply not true. Matter of fact, how do you know it's not "Gods"? The real answer: there isn't, especially since that it's hypothetically possible that Gods may be able to collaborate much like humans can collaborate at times.

Not only are you wrong, you would not know you were right even if you were. You cannot know every claim the bible makes and the evidence for it, there for you can make no claim about the totality or quality of evidence for it's claims and you certainly cannot know the claims of all other faiths so your insurmountable problem is amplified. I would explain why my statement is true but your response make me question whether you are interested in a debate at all.

The point is that Muslems have reasons and rationale for their beliefs much like Christians and Jews do. Much of what people of faith tend to do is to accept certain foundational beliefs, which generally are not provable, and then build their theology and defenses from there. If you accept those foundational teachings, it can be hard to counter their theology and their arguments. Christianity and Judaism both have foundational beliefs that simply are not in any way provable. However, that doesn't mean they're wrong.

Depends and depends on interpretation are not arguments by themselves.

I was just saying that what you had stated might be true with certain interpretations, but interpretations tend to vary from one person to another.

 

[metis]

1robin, you might be interested in this:

Does the Bible contain errors? If those errors are scientific or historical, as opposed to matters of faith and morals, does it even matter?

These questions came up during the Second Vatican Council when some theologians asserted that Scripture indeed contained such errors. Cardinal Koenig of Vienna attempted to prove it using Mark 2:26, where David "went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions." According to 1 Samuel 21:1, Abiathar was not the high priest, but rather his father, Ahimelech. This scriptural example on the surface appears to support his claim that the Bible contains historical errors.

According to Scripture scholar Raymond Brown, the awareness of these so-called historical errors moved the Church at Vatican II to teach that the Bible is free from error only in matters of faith and morals and not in matters of history and science (New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1169). Brown supports this claim by appealing to section 11 of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), which reads, "we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." The phrase "for the sake of our salvation" is the key reference used to argue that only those things needed for our salvation (i.e., faith and morals) and not history and science, are free from error...

In regards to the historical elements, in 1905 the Pontifical Biblical Commission stated that at times—with solid arguments and conformity to the sense of the Church—it is possible to conclude that the sacred writers did not intend to give a true and strict account of history. They " proposed rather to set forth, under the guise and form of history, a parable or an allegory or some meaning distinct from the literal or historical signification of the words" (qtd. in John E. Steinmueller, A Companion to Scripture Studies, 33).

For example, although the first eleven chapters of Genesis are history in a true sense, the narratives contained within "relate in simple and figurative language, adapted to the understanding of mankind at a lower stage of development, fundamental truths underlying the divine scheme of salvation" (Pontifical Biblical Commission; qtd. in A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, 75).

Further, the sacred authors were of a different culture and had different patterns of writing than our modern historians, who use critical methods inherited from Greece and Rome. In recording history, ancient authors may omit certain facts, neglect chronological order, or give a mere summary of discourse. Although we may see limitations in this style of writing, that in no way makes these documents false history. The authors did not intend to assert accuracy, for accuracy was not needed to serve the purpose of the message...
-- Is Everything in the Bible True? | Catholic Answers

 

[metis]

Or maybe this:

Archaeologists from Israel’s top university have used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the arrival of domestic camels in the Middle East -- and they say the science directly contradicts the Bible’s version of events.

Camels are mentioned as pack animals in the biblical stories of Abraham, Joseph and Jacob, Old Testament stories that historians peg to between 2000 and 1500 BC. But Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures say camels weren’t domesticated in Israel until centuries later, more like 900 BC. -- http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/06/camel-bones-suggest-error-in-bible/

 

[1robin]

I think it's rather obvious to just about everyone that there's been a great deal of progress that science has brought us, and we could cover item for item but that would be a waste of time. In just one area, look at all the medical technology science has brought us whereas our life expectancy here in the States is roughly double of what it was at the time of American Revolution. Yes, not every item that science has come up with works, but it's the nature of science and scientists to experiment, thus taking hypotheses and seeing if they work. That's the nature of what we do in science, and it seems mind-boggling to me that you don't seem to understand nor appreciate that while calling yourself a scientist.

There has been progress and retardation in just about everything humans do. The problem is there is no yardstick by which to determine if the progress is impressive or embarrassing. Progress alone is not a virtue. Science may have cured a disease but it has also devised enough weapons to destroy all life as we know it. Yes our life expectancy is a better than it was. However 3000 years after the bible gave strict instructions to allow for germ theory science was still killing millions because they did not even know enough to wash the instruments before surgery. I have no idea what you are attempting to show. Science has progressed and digressed, so what. It still contains a majority of wrong answers and devastatingly destructive potential. What is it your trying to prove. This is a theological forum not a physics forum. You need to show how your claims are relevant to theology.

Also, let me just add that the contributions of theists, including many Christians, weren't always positive. How many people have been killed in the name of "God", for example? How have our schools often been dumbed down with teaching faith beliefs as if they were scientific principles?

Far to many have been killed in the name of God. I have no idea what to do with these claims of your. Almost all of the great tragedies committed by Christians have not a single verse to justify them. Those men mangled doctrine and confused simple scriptures in order to justify a goal that God had nothing to do with. In what way is that relevant to God or the Bible? I do not know what to do with this stuff. The problem with our schools is anything but Christian. When Christians did run the school system (which they in fact created in the first place) we were number 1 in the world and were for decades. The secular revolution in the late 50s came instantly with a slide down the hill in our rankings. Even though that today we spend far more per pupil than any nation on earth we are ranked number 9 or 10 in many areas. I can agree than fundamental Christians allowed a little mistaken doctrine to rule over fledgling scientific theories back then but Christianity has done more for science than any other cultural group in history. Even with our mistakes our school systems were ten times better off than since the secularists took control. They kicked God out, scores fell, gangs moved in, shootings increase, teen pregnancy skyrocketed, drugs can be found in a dozen lockers, teachers are sleeping with students and kids are running the classroom because discipline no longer is practiced. If that is your progress you can keep it.

You generalize constantly, typically making grandiose statements on items that don't directly relate to what's being discussed. Please take your own advice before telling me what I supposedly must do.

Wow, that is exactly hat I have been saying about you. You are evaluating our school system and science in a theological forum and insisting I am off topic.

Here's a whole batch of them, which can be found here: An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense If you want to maybe discuss a couple of items, I am willing to do as such.

Please pick your best claim or two out of that list and I will show you it is their biblical ignorance not any biblical mistakes that are causing the problem. Since you asked first I will give you some issues involving one of them. The flood story being among the few biblical texts that pre-date the historical period is extremely hard to interpret. When I first became a Christian and had experienced God directly I had so much faith I adopted a literal interpretation on those old Genesis teachings. Over the last two decades I have spent considerable time investigating the bible in detail. I have learned the surface literal translation is many times completely wrong. Genesis is especially known for this. The flood story has at least three major interpretations.

1. It was a local flood but written in apocalyptic language. Many times the bible takes the middle east (even Israel proper) to be the world. It is a very common ANE occurrence.
2. It was only an analogy meant to convey moral warnings and the severity of judgment and was a precursor example of Christ.
3. It was perfectly literal.

Only number 3 has problems. I notice your writers only discussed number three, which I have come to regard as a naïve interpretation. This is also a good opportunity for me to mention something else. I have learned that anyone seriously trying to determine the bible's historicity would naturally start with it's most clear claims that were made about events recent enough to have reliable archeological record by which to evaluate them. Anyone who is has an agenda that necessitates dismissing the bible at any cost would go straight to it's most ambiguous teachings about events that occurred before the historical period which are by far the hardest to evaluate due to a insufficiency of evidence. If the first problems a person points to are in Genesis cryptic teachings about events so far removed as to me very hard to evaluate I instantly see they have an agenda not a desire to meaningfully evaluate the bible. My faith is based on much later teachings which do have mountains of historical information by which to evaluate them. I do not have to (fortunately because I consider it impossible) to know the exact intent of the flood story. My faith is based on reliable information that has much corroboration.

If what you said was true, then we would see these supposed "things" being constantly broadcast from every mountain whereas there would be simply no doubt about there being a God, and your number one supporters would be scientists. But neither is true. There simply is no objective evidence for God, and you haven't put forth one piece of direct evidence, which makes it quite obvious that you really don't have any or you would have done it by now. So, why don't you put forth your evidence?

I see no connection between anything I said and anything being broad cast from any mountain. You have a very selective memory. Science in large measure is Christian created. The great scientific period following the dark ages was driven by men of faith who believed that a rational God would create a rational universe. They set out to try and decode the rationality the universe has that has no natural mandate for its' existence. Much of science and many of the actual field of science themselves were Christian created. So science in general has been extremely contributed by men of faith. That is not even counting the addition of Jewish and Islamic scientists. Those three groups have done more for science than all the atheists combined. What you mentioned is only a very recent phenomena and is partially a result of a discrimination against faith by modern culture in general.

You want to put forth my evidence for what exactly?

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

I'm not forcing you to write anything back. But the problem mostly lies with both of us. For one, you keep throwing stuff into the discussion that simply doesn't directly deal with the issue at hand, and then I have the problem of not having the time to spend trying to respond to every single item you throw against the wall. Just one post of yours may have maybe three or four dozen points, so how is it possible that I could adequately respond to them all? I've asked you before to limit your points whereas we could have time to maybe get into a few, but you just keep on throwing stuff in that are totally unnecessary to the discussion at hand.

This is a middle school "I know you are, but what am I" kind of response. I am the one who has constantly asked for less points with more in depth discussion. I tell you what, I will give you one.

The majority of NT scholars agree (regardless of what side of faith they are on) that 4 (among a great many) biblical facts are historical.

1. Jesus appeared on the historical stage with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. That he was crucified by Rome and died on the cross.
3. That his tomb was found empty.
4. May people even his enemies sincerely believed they had interacted with a risen Jesus after his death.

The issue is what best explains these facts. My position is that the Gospel explanation of these facts is by far the best explanation.

Here's their website: Bringing the Ancient World to Life – Biblical Archaeology Society Since I gave you another link on scientific errors found within the scriptures, we need not get into BAR.

AS I mentioned above. I cannot argue against the claim there are errors in the bible. You are going to have to pick one or two and we can investigate.

There simply is no "law" that covers whether life may have originated from non-life or whether it has theistic causation. These hypotheses are under experimentation and study as we write here, and at this time there's simply no biological axiom that covers this. See: Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What makes a principle a law is the lack of a single exception. To date life is the only thing that has ever produced life. It is such a rock solid prediction that the entire food industry requires it to always be true. I have read many links on biogenesis. Not a single one has ever included a single example of it ever having occurred. When you can link to that then you let me know. If you can I expect to see you on the cover of time magazine. Until you do it is only one person guess against another. However all known evidence (all of it, every single piece) is firmly and undeniably consistent with me claim not yours. Why are you not going with what science actually knows here?

There is no objective evidence for God, and your repeated claims that there is is simply not true. Matter of fact, how do you know it's not "Gods"? The real answer: there isn't, especially since that it's hypothetically possible that Gods may be able to collaborate much like humans can collaborate at times.

You are incorrect. The definition of evidence is reliable information who's inclusion makes the proposal more likely. The evidence of hundreds of millions of testimonies to supernatural experiences all make God more likely and so are all evidence. The textual integrity of the bible that far surpasses (I mean far) any other work of ancient history of any kind is also evidence. The absence of natural causes for many of realities ingredients is evidence. The universal apprehension of an objective moral realm is evidence. I can go on all day. There is infinitely more evidence for God than for dark matter yet you do not rabidly oppose it. Why the double standard?

The point is that Muslems have reasons and rationale for their beliefs much like Christians and Jews do. Much of what people of faith tend to do is to accept certain foundational beliefs, which generally are not provable, and then build their theology and defenses from there. If you accept those foundational teachings, it can be hard to counter their theology and their arguments. Christianity and Judaism both have foundational beliefs that simply are not in any way provable. However, that doesn't mean they're wrong.

I agree they have rational reasons for faith. Heck half the Quran is biblically based. My point is that Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive. One or neither may by true but both cannot possibly be true. My claim is that while both have reasons to believe in them Christianity by far has better and far more of them in almost every single category. That is how comparative religion works. It does not say "well two faiths exist, we are hopelessly lost without any way to distinguish between their merits, let's give up conclude that all religions are wrong and deny God's existence in totality". My true faith and most Christians I know came about exactly the opposite of what you claim. We met God personally and then started to seriously investigate doctrine. Becoming a Christ unlike a Muslim begins with an event and confirmation. It does not begin with an intellectual consent to a historical proposition.

I was just saying that what you had stated might be true with certain interpretations, but interpretations tend to vary from one person to another.

This is another "well there are disagreements and a lack of absolute certainty so lets give up consider it unresolvable and deny the reality of the entire category of theology". That is not how theology or history works, heck it is not even how science works. You hold at most a single belief that does not have contentions about it. With the exception of we think all other beliefs in anything of any type require a certain level of faith and have contentious aspects to the. If you used the criteria you do concerning faith in the rest of your life you could never make any decision about anything, ever.

 

[1robin]

1robin, you might be interested in this:

Does the Bible contain errors? If those errors are scientific or historical, as opposed to matters of faith and morals, does it even matter?

These questions came up during the Second Vatican Council when some theologians asserted that Scripture indeed contained such errors. Cardinal Koenig of Vienna attempted to prove it using Mark 2:26, where David "went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions." According to 1 Samuel 21:1, Abiathar was not the high priest, but rather his father, Ahimelech. This scriptural example on the surface appears to support his claim that the Bible contains historical errors.

According to Scripture scholar Raymond Brown, the awareness of these so-called historical errors moved the Church at Vatican II to teach that the Bible is free from error only in matters of faith and morals and not in matters of history and science (New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1169). Brown supports this claim by appealing to section 11 of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), which reads, "we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." The phrase "for the sake of our salvation" is the key reference used to argue that only those things needed for our salvation (i.e., faith and morals) and not history and science, are free from error...

In regards to the historical elements, in 1905 the Pontifical Biblical Commission stated that at times—with solid arguments and conformity to the sense of the Church—it is possible to conclude that the sacred writers did not intend to give a true and strict account of history. They " proposed rather to set forth, under the guise and form of history, a parable or an allegory or some meaning distinct from the literal or historical signification of the words" (qtd. in John E. Steinmueller, A Companion to Scripture Studies, 33).

For example, although the first eleven chapters of Genesis are history in a true sense, the narratives contained within "relate in simple and figurative language, adapted to the understanding of mankind at a lower stage of development, fundamental truths underlying the divine scheme of salvation" (Pontifical Biblical Commission; qtd. in A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, 75).

Further, the sacred authors were of a different culture and had different patterns of writing than our modern historians, who use critical methods inherited from Greece and Rome. In recording history, ancient authors may omit certain facts, neglect chronological order, or give a mere summary of discourse. Although we may see limitations in this style of writing, that in no way makes these documents false history. The authors did not intend to assert accuracy, for accuracy was not needed to serve the purpose of the message...
-- Is Everything in the Bible True? | Catholic Answers

I have no problem if you want to only discuss supposed biblical errors, however your doing exactly what you complained of me doing. In your last few posts you have given me one after the other like some kind of objection Gatling gun. You said you wanted to limit the topics. So have I. Please pick any one or two of your biblical errors and we can see if that claim survives scrutiny. before you do this I need to clarify my position on Biblical error.

1. I am happy to use and routinely do so, Ehrman's numbers for biblical errors. They work out to about 5% meaningful error but even according to him central doctrine is almost completely free of any error. Theologians use the number 99.5% accurate, good atheists scholars usually are around 95%. I believe the truth somewhere in the middle but will grant possibly 5% error. So you can see that I am no scribal inerrant and know no Christian who is.
2. The bible does contain error. It's extraordinary (greater than any work of any kind in ancient history) textual tradition allows for virtually all errors to be known and indicated in all modern bible versions. So even allowing for error they present no serious obstacle. They are usually scribal errors with order of magnitude mistakes, small additions to scripture to accentuate a point, or even common grammar problems like skipping lines in transcribing.
3. Notice that having a mountain of copies, parallel traditions, and prolific and uncontrolled transcription does two opposite things. It mandates more errors will be found and that despite those errors the level of reliability of the finished work is massively increased. If we only had one copy it would have 0 errors but supply no assurance at all it was correct. Get it?

I say all this to get us on the same page. I know of a few historical errors in the bible but they have all been from the 5% of the bible known to have had scribal mistakes. No problem here, that still leaves you with 712,000 words out of 750,000 to find these horrible mistakes in. Just keep this in mind, select a few of your favorites, and lay them on me.

 

[metis]

I'll let you have the last word on most of what you wrote above as I just have to give up again as you keep introducing new elements into the discussion rather than directly sticking to the topic at hand.

So, with that in mind, I'm going to pick out only one part of what you wrote above: "You are incorrect. The definition of evidence is reliable information who's inclusion makes the proposal more likely. The evidence of hundreds of millions of testimonies to supernatural experiences all make God more likely and so are all evidence. The textual integrity of the bible that far surpasses (I mean far) any other work of ancient history of any kind is also evidence. The absence of natural causes for many of realities ingredients is evidence. The universal apprehension of an objective moral realm is evidence. I can go on all day. There is infinitely more evidence for God than for dark matter yet you do not rabidly oppose it. Why the double standard?"

Now, notice that you did not at all introduce any objective scientific information, which is what I asked for. If you asked for scientific evidence for the Big Bang, I can provide scientific links for that. If you asked for evidence for evolution, I again can provide scientific links for that. If you asked for quantum mechanics, I again can provide scientific links for that.

So, your task is very simple: please provide scientific links to there being God. Please no sermons. No linking the price of tea in China to this request. No appeal to numbers of people. No opinions. Just scientific links that objectively establishes that there is one God.

BTW, please don't come back and ask me to prove there isn't a God because I'm not making that assertion.

 

[1robin]

Or maybe this:

Archaeologists from Israel’s top university have used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the arrival of domestic camels in the Middle East -- and they say the science directly contradicts the Bible’s version of events.

Camels are mentioned as pack animals in the biblical stories of Abraham, Joseph and Jacob, Old Testament stories that historians peg to between 2000 and 1500 BC. But Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures say camels weren’t domesticated in Israel until centuries later, more like 900 BC. -- Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say | Fox News

I will await your selection concerning which supposed errors you wish to examine before responding to this. I kind of hope you select this one. I have never heard it before, it seems to be one that would have an easy resolution, regardless of which way it is resolved, and is interesting. Your choice, just narrow this huge amount of material to a manageable level.

 

[metis]

I say all this to get us on the same page. I know of a few historical errors in the bible but they have all been from the 5% of the bible known to have had scribal mistakes. No problem here, that still leaves you with 712,000 words out of 750,000 to find these horrible mistakes in. Just keep this in mind, select a few of your favorites, and lay them on me.

This complete nonsense. In order to know any such number, one would have to be omniscient to know all that is true versus all that is not true, and who could possibly know either?

It would be like me stating that our universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla from the Uno Universe. Prove me wrong.

 

[metis]

I will await your selection concerning which supposed errors you wish to examine before responding to this. I kind of hope you select this one. I have never heard it before, it seems to be one that would have an easy resolution, regardless of which way it is resolved, and is interesting. Your choice, just narrow this huge amount of material to a manageable level.

Please deal with my question first per my request. Or is the above just an evasion tactic of yours?

 

[metis]

No response? No surprise. You and I both know there simply isn't any clear-cut scientific evidence to establish there is a God-- or at least you should know that. So, think of this next time when you start describing in detail what this God of your is like.

Instead, let me recommend you take another approach, and a significant part of that is to maybe include words like "believe", "maybe", "I think...", etc. I don't have one single problem with you believing in God, but what I do have a problem with is when you categorically state there's objective scientific evidence to prove there's a God, along with supposedly listing details of what this God supposedly is like and wants at the expense of other theologies as found in other religions and even within your own. In this arena of religious belief, there's very little "certainty".

 

[1robin]

This complete nonsense. In order to know any such number, one would have to be omniscient to know all that is true versus all that is not true, and who could possibly know either?

It would be like me stating that our universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla from the Uno Universe. Prove me wrong.

I see you have no background or familiarity with textual criticism. The bibles textual tradition meets every requirement in every category necessary to reliably know the original texts and also the total amount of errors (give or take a few) in the textual tradition. Your side constantly quotes numbers and does so more from the scholar I gave than anyone else. His numbers are the worst possible scenario and I was willing to use them anyway. Even that is not enough for you I see. You can even do this your self. Software exists that included every known manuscript known when it was produced. You can get it to point out every discrepancy with every manuscript there is and get very accurate numbers. My comments were on texts we have and have studied extensively. They have absolutely no connection with your cosmic gorilla and the mentality required to equate those two just makes me tired. Have a good one.

 

[metis]

I see you have no background or familiarity with textual criticism. The bibles textual tradition meets every requirement in every category necessary to reliably know the original texts and also the total amount of errors (give or take a few) in the textual tradition. Your side constantly quotes numbers and does so more from the scholar I gave than anyone else. His numbers are the worst possible scenario and I was willing to use them anyway. Even that is not enough for you I see. You can even do this your self. Software exists that included every known manuscript known when it was produced. You can get it to point out every discrepancy with every manuscript there is and get very accurate numbers. My comments were on texts we have and have studied extensively. They have absolutely no connection with your cosmic gorilla and the mentality required to equate those two just makes me tired. Have a good one.

What you posted is not in any way "textural criticism" since that actually involves estimations and not statements of absolute fact, the latter of which is what you posted. And for your information, I taught theology and continue to teach theology on a regular basis for now over 30 years, and I know what the limits of good theology generally are. This is an area where the vast majority of statements cannot be put in absolute terms.

Secondly, good textual criticism is a matter of give-and-take whereas different theologians often have different takes on any given narrative. It involves cross-examination whereas consensus is generally not expected. Therefore, you obviously do not seem to understand how this process actually is conducted.

And I tend to feel that what you posted above is likely just a smokescreen for the simple fact that you cannot link us to any scientific site that objectively proves that there must be a God. This commentary on "textual criticism" is probably just a way for you to walk away from what you said. Therefore, your approach surprises me not.

 

[1robin]

I'll let you have the last word on most of what you wrote above as I just have to give up again as you keep introducing new elements into the discussion rather than directly sticking to the topic at hand.

So, with that in mind, I'm going to pick out only one part of what you wrote above: "You are incorrect. The definition of evidence is reliable information who's inclusion makes the proposal more likely. The evidence of hundreds of millions of testimonies to supernatural experiences all make God more likely and so are all evidence. The textual integrity of the bible that far surpasses (I mean far) any other work of ancient history of any kind is also evidence. The absence of natural causes for many of realities ingredients is evidence. The universal apprehension of an objective moral realm is evidence. I can go on all day. There is infinitely more evidence for God than for dark matter yet you do not rabidly oppose it. Why the double standard?"

Now, notice that you did not at all introduce any objective scientific information, which is what I asked for. If you asked for scientific evidence for the Big Bang, I can provide scientific links for that. If you asked for evidence for evolution, I again can provide scientific links for that. If you asked for quantum mechanics, I again can provide scientific links for that.

So, your task is very simple: please provide scientific links to there being God. Please no sermons. No linking the price of tea in China to this request. No appeal to numbers of people. No opinions. Just scientific links that objectively establishes that there is one God.

BTW, please don't come back and ask me to prove there isn't a God because I'm not making that assertion.

I do not care about the insertion of new requirements that evidence be scientific and objective. That is not what the law considers evidence, not what even science always allows as evidence. It is a irrational caveat invented to narrow restrict what can be considered to allow for plausible denial. You do not even use that same criteria in your own person life. Most of the decisions you make do not require certain objective scientific data. Beyond that God is supernatural and by necessity is not available to scientific scrutiny. Science only deals with the narrow band of natural reality we have been able to study. It by definition does not apply to non-natural events and concepts. That kind of stuff just makes me tired. Also you constant insistence that the person who is constantly trying to get you to narrow and specify in detail what you want to discus as being the one who is hampering that effort is lost on me.

I am content with your reluctance to carry on a debate. Have a good one.

 

[1robin]

Please deal with my question first per my request. Or is the above just an evasion tactic of yours?

It is the same tactic as I have always had with you. Trying to get you to narrow your claims to a point where resolution is practical. You supply a constant barrage or random objections. Far more than I can make meaningful replies to. I keep asking you to select only a few of your best and I get everything and anything in response except that. Your asking for evidence from a field that is restricted to only a small portion of the natural for a supernatural concept leads me to believe your unfamiliar with debates of this type. If you can give me a few simple problems I will answer them, I am not going to waste my time replying with a couple of sentences to several dozen objections in every post.

 

[1robin]

No response? No surprise. You and I both know there simply isn't any clear-cut scientific evidence to establish there is a God-- or at least you should know that. So, think of this next time when you start describing in detail what this God of your is like.

What? I responded. The fact that you ask for evidence from some arbitrary area that does not even have the potential of examining evidence in the area in question has left me exasperated.

Instead, let me recommend you take another approach, and a significant part of that is to maybe include words like "believe", "maybe", "I think...", etc. I don't have one single problem with you believing in God, but what I do have a problem with is when you categorically state there's objective scientific evidence to prove there's a God, along with supposedly listing details of what this God supposedly is like and wants at the expense of other theologies as found in other religions and even within your own. In this arena of religious belief, there's very little "certainty".

I constantly state my claims a beliefs. Well reasoned, well established beliefs based on mountains of evidence. I never said anything about there being scientific evidence that proves God exists. The same way there is no scientific evidence that dark mater exists. You do not seem to be familiar with the history of these arguments as they have existed since the Greeks. Ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments among a great many others simply demonstrate that objective evidence exists that is extremely consistent with God. Faith necessitates there be no proof. I never claimed there was any. I said as every theologian in the past 2000 years has, that the evidence lines up with the existence of God and that alone is more than enough justification for faith. In many cases it is far more evidence than for scientific concepts that require even more faith but are not admitted to be mainly faith and belief. Your really dimming any hope I had that you are familiar with these simple debates. It appears I must start at the very beginning and wade through a thousand years of history and explanation just to get near being on the same page. Simply start by taking what I say as it is stated and not transforming it into what you wish it was so it can be condemned. I never said anything you claim I did above.

 

[1robin]

What you posted is not in any way "textural criticism" since that actually involves estimations and not statements of absolute fact, the latter of which is what you posted. And for your information, I taught theology and continue to teach theology on a regular basis for now over 30 years, and I know what the limits of good theology generally are. This is an area where the vast majority of statements cannot be put in absolute terms.

Secondly, good textual criticism is a matter of give-and-take whereas different theologians often have different takes on any given narrative. It involves cross-examination whereas consensus is generally not expected. Therefore, you obviously do not seem to understand how this process actually is conducted.

And I tend to feel that what you posted above is likely just a smokescreen for the simple fact that you cannot link us to any scientific site that objectively proves that there must be a God. This commentary on "textual criticism" is probably just a way for you to walk away from what you said. Therefore, your approach surprises me not.

Once again you are misstating what I claimed. I never said we know exactly how many errors there are. I said that the absolutely enormous and unparalleled textual tradition of the bible and the fact it has been scrutinized more than any book in human history has left us having great confidence that we know VIRTUALLY all the errors it contains. Virtually is used instead of certainty because it does not equal certainty. It implies we know reliably almost all the errors the bible may have. To make it even more certain I use the highest ranges of errors that exist in scholarship. Ehrman says that not just on bible but the entire textual tradition has between 3 and 4 hundred thousand mistakes. I use the higher range of 4 hundred thousand and do as any 7th grader can do and come up with about 95% accuracy for any single bible. That has never been claimed to be an absolute number though it is certainly a number that is worse than the worse case scenario. Every single number I have posted, every single estimate, and every single conclusion was acquired form some of the greatest textual scholars in history. So much for the bizarre claim that what I claimed wasn't textual criticism. That is where every single thing I said came from. Mater of fact every single thing I said can be found in a single debate between two textual masters. I will give you the link to the transcript if necessary.

Repeating the embarrassing request for thermometer reading for a length measurement is doing you no favors. You do not use that criteria in your own life, law does not use it, history does not use it, even science often does not use it. It is a ridiculous attempt to confine the evidence to only the arena you know is not applicable. I don't know what to tell you. Ask a few simple concise, and applicable question and quit misstating my position and introducing false and arbitrary standards and I may respond but this stuff is just exasperating.

 

[metis]

What? I responded. The fact that you ask for evidence from some arbitrary area that does not even have the potential of examining evidence in the area in question has left me exasperated...

I constantly state my claims a beliefs. Well reasoned, well established beliefs based on mountains of evidence. I never said anything about there being scientific evidence that proves God exists. The same way there is no scientific evidence that dark mater exists. You do not seem to be familiar with the history of these arguments as they have existed since the Greeks. Ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments among a great many others simply demonstrate that objective evidence exists that is extremely consistent with God. Faith necessitates there be no proof. I never claimed there was any. I said as every theologian in the past 2000 years has, that the evidence lines up with the existence of God and that alone is more than enough justification for faith. In many cases it is far more evidence than for scientific concepts that require even more faith but are not admitted to be mainly faith and belief. Your really dimming any hope I had that you are familiar with these simple debates. It appears I must start at the very beginning and wade through a thousand years of history and explanation just to get near being on the same page. Simply start by taking what I say as it is stated and not transforming it into what you wish it was so it can be condemned. I never said anything you claim I did above.

[and]

Once again you are misstating what I claimed. I never said we know exactly how many errors there are. I said that the absolutely enormous and unparalleled textual tradition of the bible and the fact it has been scrutinized more than any book in human history has left us having great confidence that we know VIRTUALLY all the errors it contains. Virtually is used instead of certainty because it does not equal certainty. It implies we know reliably almost all the errors the bible may have. To make it even more certain I use the highest ranges of errors that exist in scholarship. Ehrman says that not just on bible but the entire textual tradition has between 3 and 4 hundred thousand mistakes. I use the higher range of 4 hundred thousand and do as any 7th grader can do and come up with about 95% accuracy for any single bible. That has never been claimed to be an absolute number though it is certainly a number that is worse than the worse case scenario. Every single number I have posted, every single estimate, and every single conclusion was acquired form some of the greatest textual scholars in history. So much for the bizarre claim that what I claimed wasn't textual criticism. That is where every single thing I said came from. Mater of fact every single thing I said can be found in a single debate between two textual masters. I will give you the link to the transcript if necessary.

Repeating the embarrassing request for thermometer reading for a length measurement is doing you no favors. You do not use that criteria in your own life, law does not use it, history does not use it, even science often does not use it. It is a ridiculous attempt to confine the evidence to only the arena you know is not applicable. I don't know what to tell you. Ask a few simple concise, and applicable question and quit misstating my position and introducing false and arbitrary standards and I may respond but this stuff is just exasperating.

You have over and over again posted statements of what are simply your beliefs as if they were facts, and over and over again I have complained about you doing this, and I certainly ain't the only one who has done so. Whenever one uses language such as "God is...", "God wants...", etc, these are not put in terms of maybes but more in terms of absolutes; whereas if one uses terminology such as "I believe God is...", "I think God...", then this indicates one isn't making claims of supposedly knowing with certainty.

Secondly, I asked to a link to a scientific source that substantiates your claim that the existence of God is objectively obvious, and yet you have produced nothing-- just more of the same. One simply cannot jump to a conclusion that there must be a God simply because many items found in the Bible are true.

Thirdly, in order to come up with a number of potential errors, we would have to know with some degree of certainty which verses are erroneous and which are not, and we simply do not have the know-how to do that. If anyone cites a stat, all they are doing is guessing, and there simply is no way of ascertaining what the potential range may be.

So, you say you find my approach "exasperating", and yet how many times have I and so many others said that it is you who write in a manner that is so "exasperating"? Are we all so delusional that we end up pretty much with the same conclusions about your posting style? I think we pretty much know what the problem is, and that's because you simply are so enamored with what you believe that you elevate your beliefs up the the "fact" level. They ain't-- they're beliefs.

OK, let's get back to what you have previously claimed, namely that there's objective scientific evidence to support your assertion that God exists? So far, all I've seen from you is song and dance while avoiding dealing with what you previously have claimed on many similar threads, and your statement near the beginning of your post above simply is not true as you have over and over again claimed that science supports your claims. Now it's time for show-and-tell, and it's your turn. Yes, I know you admit there is no direct proof of their being a God, but what you need to provide is some sort of link to a scientific source that concludes that there must be a God because the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction.