How is the Bible the Word of God?

[leibowde84]

Hogwash. What do you expect, text messages between John and Jesus to make sure Jesus actually said what He said? A convenience store video? That's ludicrous. Even scholars appreciate the biblical manuscripts (there's something like 5 or 6 thousand of them, anyway). Considering we base most of our historical understanding off of far few sources, you can be pretty confident the teaching expressed in your NKJV or other modern translation is a very fair representation of Jesus' teachings.

You rarely get an exact quote out of history, just as you're not likely to get a live-action dinosaur from a fossil. So what exactly is your beef?

If Robin1 said, "Jesus is thought to have said ...." I would have no problem. It is the difinitive nature of his claims that are by no means difinitive. That is my beef.

I find it extremely disturbing that one can even entertain the idea that the accuracy of the Bible is not up for debate. When this issue is ignorantly claimed to be settled, with nothing more than the opinions of others as evidence, it detereorates the search for truth.

 

[viole]

If you do not see an exception to determinism and freewill then that would explain a lot of this conversation. Compatibilist means that two opposing views do not conflict. If all we have is determinism there are not two views to hold compatible. There is only one view and which needs no term to state it's harmony.

What I think about exceptions to determinism is irrelevant, for the moment, since we are analyzing what other people think, namely compatibilists. You said that this view is pretty common, so maybe they see something I do not.

My thesis, from what I read about them and from them, is that THEY do not see any exception to determinism whatsoever. Not even a little bit. With or without intentional agents. They think determinism and freedom of choice can cohexist, not that determinism is momentarily suspended when someone exercises her free will.

If you think otherwise, then I suggest you really try understanding their position. Or, alternatively, prove me wrong by providing some links or articles that define compatibilism as a position that accepts exceptions, any exception, to the rules of determinism in the world. I could not find any.

Where is this philosophical definition or evidence that goes beyond your (biased) personal opinion about compatibilism?

Ciao

- viole

 

[lovemuffin]

What I think about exceptions to determinism is irrelevant, for the moment, since we are analyzing what other people think, namely compatibilists. You said that this view is pretty common, so maybe they see something I do not.

My thesis, from what I read about them and from them, is that THEY do not see any exception to determinism whatsoever.

In my experience, arguments about compatibilism in debates about "free will" usually come down to semantic misunderstandings. You are correct that compatibilists are determinists, generally speaking, and the way that works is simply that they understand terms like "free will" and "responsibility" in a way that doesn't reference any sort of metaphysical freedom of choice.

A good example with "free will" would be the way courts of law tend to deal with the phrase. In a legal context, "consent" is usually defined in a way that references the voluntary choice of one party, i.e an act made of one's own free will. But that shouldn't be understood as a statement of metaphysics. It means the act wasn't unduly influenced by someone else. It wasn't coerced. Even if the act is entirely determined in a physical way, there is still a meaningful distinction that can be made between the physical processes that constitute the "person" of the one acting "of free will" and the physical processes of other persons. Physically, the boundaries get fuzzy if you look too closely or make them too precise, but it's certainly good enough for the law. The compatibilist definition of free will is essentially that kind of legal definition.

One other example that might be clearer. Lets say you are getting mugged, and your mugger says "hand over your wallet or I shoot you". From a libertarian perspective, you still have a metaphysically free choice as to whether or not to hand over your wallet. When you do, you are still acting of free will in the libertarian sense. In the compatibilist sense you are not, since you have been coerced. That is the difference between the two positions. When both compatibilists and incompatibilists reject libertarianism, they are both agreeing that metaphysical free will doesn't exist. They are just disagreeing about whether or not, given that non-existence, there is some other way of understanding "free will" that is useful.

 

[viole]

In my experience, arguments about compatibilism in debates about "free will" usually come down to semantic misunderstandings. You are correct that compatibilists are determinists, generally speaking, and the way that works is simply that they understand terms like "free will" and "responsibility" in a way that doesn't reference any sort of metaphysical freedom of choice.

A good example with "free will" would be the way courts of law tend to deal with the phrase. In a legal context, "consent" is usually defined in a way that references the voluntary choice of one party, i.e an act made of one's own free will. But that shouldn't be understood as a statement of metaphysics. It means the act wasn't unduly influenced by someone else. It wasn't coerced. Even if the act is entirely determined in a physical way, there is still a meaningful distinction that can be made between the physical processes that constitute the "person" of the one acting "of free will" and the physical processes of other persons. Physically, the boundaries get fuzzy if you look too closely or make them too precise, but it's certainly good enough for the law. The compatibilist definition of free will is essentially that kind of legal definition.

One other example that might be clearer. Lets say you are getting mugged, and your mugger says "hand over your wallet or I shoot you". From a libertarian perspective, you still have a metaphysically free choice as to whether or not to hand over your wallet. When you do, you are still acting of free will in the libertarian sense. In the compatibilist sense you are not, since you have been coerced. That is the difference between the two positions. When both compatibilists and incompatibilists reject libertarianism, they are both agreeing that metaphysical free will doesn't exist. They are just disagreeing about whether or not, given that non-existence, there is some other way of understanding "free will" that is useful.

Cool. So I interpreted it correctly. And that explains also why many staunch determinists and naturalists are compatibists.

At the moment, to me this looks a little bit like cheating though. Like having a cake and eating it too. Maybe motivated by preserving the concept of moral responsability, that, the way I see it, was never in danger anyway, even if we find out that we are mechanical robots.

Maybe what they mean is that we can make sense of things even if, at the very basis, they do not exist. Like the solidity of a stone which is fundamentally (not solid) empty space with a few atoms around.

But I need to ponder more about that. Maybe I am a compatibilist without knowing it. Who knows?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

You need to realize, one scholars opinion, does not make anything true.

I was not the one who posted this:

Why do you post the opposite of what a Professor at Yale teaches??????????????

You were the one who made a single scholars opinion the arbiter of all truth, not me.

You posted 4-5 known apologetically biased scholars, whom you think represent the thousands of other credible scholars who oppose what you posit.

Basically you cherry picked scholars for content that do not reflect the majority, and if you did know the majority, you would understand the weakness of your arguments.

You also have not refuted the credible link I posted that shows MOST scholars do not believe Papias claims of authorship.

You also have not refuted the FACT Yale Teaches the author of Mark is unknown, and claims most scholars follow this.

I am not debating you any longer, not even when you reply to posts I make to others. I am not going to debate anyone who uses arbitrary justifications to reject anyone who makes claims inconvenient for them.

 

[1robin]

I haven't really followed the conversation very closely, I just happened to be skimming and saw a reference to that particular Open Yale course and someone saying they couldn't view the video, and since I read through the transcripts for it a couple months ago I knew where to find them, I thought it might be useful. For what it's worth I enjoyed the course although I thought the professor at times demonstrates a bit of bias in his presentation. It was informative though, and hey, free Yale course! I am not particularly qualified to comment on your sources.

Most of what he said concerns things well established for centuries or things that may or may not be true. I can't defend or reject a presentation within a hundred different points in it. I would have to have a conclusion drawn from a summary of them to evaluate before I can respond in any meaningful way.

With regard to your question, it doesn't seem to me that the reliability (in the sense of truthfulness or correctness) of "core doctrine" in the Bible is the kind of question that could be settled by textual or historical criticism. What the doctrine of the biblical authors was, or how they understood what they wrote might be a question that those methods can shed light on. If the question is about how reliable the authors were at conveying the actual words, experiences, and life of Jesus, it does seem that from an historical or academic perspective the reliability is difficult to ascertain in general. There are specific passages where there are reasonable arguments one way or another, but there's just not enough historical evidence. That doesn't mean that the gospel accounts are wrong per se, it just means you can't establish their general reliability historically.

It has been settled, the bible is about 95% textually accurate with no significant error in core doctrine, and exceeds by a wide margin the textual veracity of any work in ancient history of any kind. IOW it is more than sufficient for core belief. Historical accuracy is another matter but we have mountains of historical claims that can be verified and have been, from those we can easily have confidence in the things that cannot be verified. While the bible will not provide certainty this side of the dirt for it's every claim in every category it exceeds expectations and the demands for informed faith. It's central claim, and it's entire reason for existence is also something that can be verified to a certainty. The Gospels serve as a type of treasure map. If one uses them and finds what they promise (an actual personal and spiritual relationship with the divine) then the Gospels are verified for the person who does so. We can quibble over details, and we all likely will do so for the foreseeable future, but the core promise of the bible can be realized personally and to a certainty.

 

[metis]

It has been settled, the bible is about 95% textually accurate with no significant error in core doctrine, and exceeds by a wide margin the textual veracity of any work in ancient history of any kind.

[but where's the head-butting and face-palming icons?]

 

[lovemuffin]

1robin: what does textual accuracy mean to you? Does it mean accurate in terms of transmission from ancient to modern times, i.e that we know what the original text was? Or does it mean accurate in the sense of conveying beliefs that are correct or historical accounts which are true? Part of my confusion is that when you use the word "textual" to me it implies textual criticism, which is about determining the original text, but you also say "core doctrine", and doctrine to me is a matter of certain beliefs, and the two are not equivalent and I'm not sure what you mean or how you've arrived at the conclusion, or in what way it is "settled"

 

[1robin]

1robin: I went back through the thread a bit and looked up Simon Greenleaf and I think what I would say is that, from what I see (and we're talking skimming a few online sources) the issue is that modern biblical scholarship uses different methods to answer questions about the reliability of the gospels than the "legal apologetics" that Simon Greenleaf advocated. He may have superior credentials in his field at that time, but the consensus of modern scholarship has moved in a different direction. I don't know enough about this legal apologetics to really critique it but it does seem likely to me that the application of legal rules of procedure to evaluating ancient documents is probably inferior as a methodology to more modern historical approaches.

Legal apologetics is simply the defense of the Bible's claims from a legal prospective. Apologetics is to merely say a person who defends a thing. To suggest as another did that apologetic works are somehow biased would make academic study incoherent. It would be to deny the entire class of anyone who actually defended any view. It would be the equivalent of my saying the only group who are disqualified from being scholars in evolution are those who believe in it. What Greenleaf, Lyndhurst and others have done is take a mind as qualified to examine testimony and evidence as any that have ever existed and apply the same methodology to the bible's testimony. That is just one of many ways to investigate the bible's claims, and one of the most appropriate, but I can supply the best scholars from any relevant field of study, from historians, pure mathematicians, to purely textual scholars, and even forensic corners. And I disagree with the modern trends you claim exist. We have found more and earlier manuscripts and fragments in the last 100 years than in the previous 1000 years, the bible's integrity is growing with time. For example the majority of NT historians have formed among many four principle historical probabilities they consent to.

1. Jesus appeared in history with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. That he was crucified by Rome.
3. That his tomb was found empty.
4. That even his enemies claimed to meet him post mortem.

An unexpected bonus is the agreement that his ministry was of the type referred to as exorcism. Keep in mind here that they do not claim whether or not he had divine authority just that he claimed to have it, nor that he actually cast out demons just that that is the label applied to what he practiced.

I have a consensus among those most capable of knowing to the four necessary facts for core Christian belief.

 

[1robin]

[but where's the head-butting and face-palming icons?]

I do not use emoticons to stand in for arguments. Actually I am not even sure what your referring to. I thought you had enough of me.

 

[metis]

1robin: what does textual accuracy mean to you? Does it mean accurate in terms of transmission from ancient to modern times, i.e that we know what the original text was? Or does it mean accurate in the sense of conveying beliefs that are correct or historical accounts which are true? Part of my confusion is that when you use the word "textual" to me it implies textual criticism, which is about determining the original text, but you also say "core doctrine", and doctrine to me is a matter of certain beliefs, and the two are not equivalent and I'm not sure what you mean or how you've arrived at the conclusion, or in what way it is "settled"

And he's been told this over and over again by so many people, but it just doesn't seem to register with him that this 95% figure, and some of his other "facts", are logically impossible to verify.

 

[1robin]

You keep saying that you provide proof for various things, but you have not. You have not provided any proof apart from the opinions of others regarding the reliability of certain passage vs. others. I am all ears as to what this proof is and how reliable it is, but I have only heard the conclusions of others, based mainly on assumptions. One major one being that science's current lack of explanation for something somehow gives proof of the supernatural. But, that is off topic in this discussion.

But, please, provide your proof. And, again, I am asking for your reasoning, not that of others.

I have in fact been saying the exact opposite. Quote any claim I have ever made where I said what you claim I have. I said I have proof but it is personal and subject. I have pointed out over and over that kind of proof is not available for debate. I have even added to that emphatic and clear position that theology and history are never resolved to a certainty or proof. They are always resolved to a probability. That is what I said is available for debate, not what you said I did.

 

[outhouse]

I am not going to debate anyone who uses arbitrary justifications to reject anyone who makes claims inconvenient for them.

You mean you wont debate people who have credible sources.

You providing a few apologetic scholars proves nothing. Your the one who uses arbitrary justifications.


My claims are backed by the majority, and I have provided credible sources that state the same. YOU have not been able to refuted that, nor have you tried, knowing your impending failure.

 

[outhouse]

1. Jesus appeared in history with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.

Which has more probability as mythology, and a literary creation, more so then real history.

History dictates he was a man.

3. That his tomb was found empty.

Which has more probability as mythology, and a literary creation, more so then real history.

History states, we don't know.

2. That he was crucified by Rome.

Just about historical fact, by many scholars.

4. That even his enemies claimed to meet him post mortem.

Which has more probability as mythology, and a literary creation, more so then real history.

 

[outhouse]

I have a consensus among those most capable of knowing to the four necessary facts for core Christian belief.

Appealing to popularity is a fallacy.

Appealing to apologetics is as well.


YOU DO NOT have a consensus within scholars for what happened historically.

 

[metis]

I do not use emoticons to stand in for arguments. Actually I am not even sure what your referring to. I thought you had enough of me.

I have long learned that debating someone who cites his opinions, or the opinions of carefully-selected others, as facts, is pretty much impossible. The "95%" figure, for just one example, is literally impossible to justify academically, because one would have to know what the 100% is in order to come up with the 95%. This isn't exactly rocket science, and yet you seemingly just ignore the fact that it cannot in any way be verified, and you just keep on repeating it ad nauseum.

But you're right about one thing, namely that I've had more than enough of your bigoted approach of demeaning of other religions and the fabrication of all your imaginary "facts".

 

[lovemuffin]

What Greenleaf, Lyndhurst and others have done is take a mind as qualified to examine testimony and evidence as any that have ever existed and apply the same methodology to the bible's testimony.

One of the questions I have is: to what extent does their methodology rely on subjectively gauging the reliability of supposed eyewitnesses? Greenleaf and Lyndhurst were writing over 100 years ago, and just in the most recent few decades the vast increase in sophistication of forensic science, including DNA, have made clearer how problematic eyewitness testimony often is. This is a consideration they could not have made. Do you take this into account?

Also, it's certainly not a question of deciding a priori what methodologies may be used or that only certain scholars have a say, but it is possible to evaluate methodologies and decide that some seem more promising than others.

And I disagree with the modern trends you claim exist. We have found more and earlier manuscripts and fragments in the last 100 years than in the previous 1000 years, the bible's integrity is growing with time.

I'm not sure I understand you here. It seems again like some confusion between establishing the correct text and establishing that what the text says is true. If by 95% you refer to the modern understanding of the biblical texts being about 95% accurate in comparison to what the originals were, that figure seems reasonable enough to me. When I wrote that the reliability of the texts in general were difficult to establish, I meant their reliability as historical accounts of (for example) the life of Jesus, not their reliability in reflecting what the original authors wrote. The disconnect between the two is the possibility that what the authors wrote is not what actually happened. It is true that the body of manuscripts we have to work with has vastly improved in the last 100 years, but that doesn't establish the reliability of texts as historical accounts.

The majority of NT historians have formed among many four principle historical probabilities they consent to.

1. Jesus appeared in history with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. That he was crucified by Rome.
3. That his tomb was found empty.
4. That even his enemies claimed to meet him post mortem.

Unless you are forming the set "NT historians" in a very particular way, I doubt that this claim is true as to what the majority of historians believe can be demonstrated as a matter of history. To be clear, I recognize in Jesus a divine authority, his crucifixion and resurrection. I am not sure who you are referring to when you say that his enemies claimed to have met him post-mortem. So this shouldn't be a question of bias on my part, but I do not consider those claims to be demonstrated historically and doubt that most historians do. And the "historically" is very operative, I don't doubt that there are Christian historians who believe these things, the question is whether they can be demonstrated with much probability using historical methods.

 

[outhouse]

You were the one who made a single scholars opinion the arbiter of all truth, not me.

Yet had you listened to the professor who knows a thousand times more then you do, HE stated the position of all scholars not one.

YOU have posted nothing in regards to all scholars.

You posted a few scholars that will admit most scholars do not agree with them. They posted their own personal view, not the consensus view.

 

[outhouse]

to what extent does their methodology rely on subjectively gauging the reliability of supposed eyewitnesses?

Hearsay.

Which Robin is forced to ignore out of desperation

 

[Domenic]

The bible cannot be the word of God. There isn't enough science in the Bible to pass a grade 6 science test.

I love your comment. many believe as you.
No science in the Bible? Here are just a few:

This past year science has said they know for sure what the universe is made of: Time, space, and matter.

The first words in the Bible: God created (Time) the heavens (space) and the earth.(matter.)

When NASSA tested the rocks from the moon, they said, "It appears the moon in nothing but a big reflector of light."

The Bible says: "The moon is there to reflect light upon the earth."

The Bible says, "Nothing can move the earth."

NASSA says; When we make calculations to send a space ship to the moon, or Mars, etc, we make the calculation with the earth not moving, and the universe moving around the earth."

The bible is full of science. I love science...God is very good at it.
Has man ever done anything God has not done?
Radar...the bat.
Aircraft...birds.
Computer...the brain.
etc, etc, etc.
Men use, and seek material to make things. God create everything from the same material...the atom.