How is the Bible the Word of God?

[outhouse]

I am currently reading four large works:

I have read so much, I have to go back and read them twice or three time to fully comprehend all they have to offer.

That link I gave you from Princeton, if you can retain that knowledge, you can start teaching this tomorrow. I have read it ten times and still don't have it all down.

 

[outhouse]

what exactly are your credentials?

I lecture on the Ethnogensis of Israelites at Sac city, once to twice a year.

Studies the NT at Yale online
Paul at Harvard online

And debate with some very educated people. I fight against mythicism, by debating authors and bloggers such as Doherty, Huller, Verrena, Godfrey.

And Im still a beginner, and do not have a grasp on many topics. You will understand with study, there is too much here for one person to learn well in a lifetime. The more you know overall, limits your areas of expertise. Or you can focus on one or two topics and try and advance the knowledge where others have not been to or expanded. That is the nature of study.

Even the best scholars in the world, if one could even claim that, is not a credible source alone. YOU need to learn the others positions, to even know where you fit in the puzzle.

 

[lovemuffin]

outhouse: have you read Carrier's book? If so, what did you think? I haven't read it and it's not really a priority but collecting reviews is almost like reading a book right?

 

[outhouse]

have you read Carrier's book?

Nope and I wont, it is a waste of time

If so, what did you think?

Having debated some of the finer points of it, its laughable.

Its terrible twofold.

One aspect is the whole cosmic premise he stole from Doherty, it doesn't make sense, and the NT words actually go against it.

Second, when you use a subjective material, the Bayes theorem falls apart, and makes the whole conclusion more opinion based then the people he criticizes.

WE have a current standing hypothesis for all the evidence we possess that fits like a glove and stands firm. His replacement hypothesis in comparison is like that of a kindergarten art work in crayon.

He had tried to separate himself from AcharyaS for years, and now he stands beside her in the quality of their implausible conclusions.

I may be a nobody, but my personal hypothesis stands with the best out there and at least has plausibility.

I haven't read it and it's not really a priority but collecting reviews is almost like reading a book right?

Your time is better spent on credible material.

 

[Harikrish]

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.

How about this list.

"There are thousands of inaccuracies in the Bible. Here are a list of a few scientific errors:

I challenge any Christian on Yahoo Answers! to solve these so-called mysteries/miracles of the Bible that we can't seem to figure out even in modern day!

1. Astronomy: First we deal with Astronomy., The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days.

2. The Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ Genesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day? - It is unscientific.

3. Further, the, Bible says Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses 9 to 13… ‘Earth was created on the 3rd day. How can you have a night and day without the earth ? The day depends upon the rotation of the Earth Without the earth created, how can you have a night and day?

4. Genesis, Ch. No. 1 Verses 9 to 13 says… ‘Earth was created on the third day.’ Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses 14 to 19 says…‘The Sun and the Moon were created on the fourth day.’ Today science tells us… ‘Earth is part of the parent body… the sun.’ It cannot come into existence before the sun – It is unscientific.

5. The Bible says in Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse No. 11 to 13…‘The vegetation, the herbs the shrubs, the trees - they were created on the 3rd day And the Sun, Genesis, Ch. No. 1, Verses. 14 to 19, was created on the 4th day.How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight ?

6. The Bible says in Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses No.16, that…‘God created two lights the greater light, the Sun to rule the day, and the lesser light the Moon, to rule the night. The actual translation, if you go to the Hebrew text, it is ‘lamps’…‘Lamps having lights of its own.’ And that you will come to know better, if you read both the Verses – Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse. 16, as well as 17. Verse No.17 says…‘And Almighty God placed them in the firmament, to give light to the earth… To give light to the earth.’ Indicating, that Sun and the Moon has its own light - which is in contradiction with established scientific knowledge that we have.

7.It is mentioned in the Bible, in the book of Hebrews, Ch. No.1 Verses No.10 and 11, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.102, Verse No.25 and 26, that…‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, and they will perish.’ Exactly opposite is mentioned in the book of Ecclesiastics, Ch. No.1, Verse No.4, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.78, Verse No.69, that… ‘The earth will abide forever.’ Which will take place? The Earth will perish or abide forever? The both can't take place. It's unscientific!

8. In the field of ‘Diet and Nutrition’ lets analyse, what does the Bible say. The Bible says in the book of Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse No.29, that… ‘God has given you all the herbs bearing seeds, the trees bearing fruits - those that bear seed, as meat for you.’ New International Version says… ‘The seed bearing plants, and the trees bearing fruits bearing seeds are food for you, all of them.’ Today, even a layman knows that there are several poisonous plants like wild berries, stritchi, datura, plants containing alkaloid, polyander, bacaipoid - that which if you ingest, if you eat there are high possibilities you may die. How come the Creator of the universe and the human beings, does not know, that if you have these plants, you will die.

9. he Bible has a scientific test how to identify a true believer. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, Ch. No.16, Verse No.17 and 18 - It says that… ‘There will be signs for true believers and among the signs - In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak foreign tongues, new tongues, they shall take up serpents - And if they drink deadly poison, they shall not be harmed - And when they place their hand over the sick, they shall be cured.’ This is a scientific test - In scientific terminology, it is known as the ‘confirmatory test’ for a true Christian believer. There has not been a single true believing Christian that has ever passed this test, because no one's willing to even try.

10. What does the Bible say regarding ‘Hydrology’? Bible says in Genesis, Ch. No.9, Verse No.13 to 17, that… ‘After God, at the time of Noah submerged the world by flood, and after the flood’ subsided, He said… ‘I put up a rainbow in the sky as a promise to the humankind never to submerge the world again, by water. To the unscientific person it may be quite good… ‘Oh rainbow is a sign of Almighty God, never to submerge the world by flood again.’ But today we know very well, that rainbow is due to the refraction of sunlight, with rain or mist. Surely there must have been thousands of rainbows before the time of Noah, peace be upon him. To say it was not there before Noah’s time you have to assume that the law of refraction did not exist - which is unscientific.

11. In the field of medicine, the Bible says in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.14, Verse No.49 to 53 - it gives a novel way for disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy… disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy. It says that… ‘Take two birds, kill one bird, take wood, scale it - and the other living bird, dip it in water… and under running water - later on sprinkle the house 7 times with it. Sprinkle the house with blood to disinfect against plague of leprosy? You know blood is a good media of germs, bacteria, as well as toxins! Unscientific!

12. It is mentioned in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.12, Verse No.1 to 5, and we know medically, that after a mother gives birth to a child, the post-partal period, it is unhygienic. To say it is ‘unclean’, Religiously - I have got no objection. But Leviticus, Ch. No.12 Verse No.1 to 5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. It she give birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days. I would like any Christian to explain to me scientifically, how come a woman remains unclean for double the period, if she gives birth to a female child, as compared to a male child.

13. The Bible also has a very good test for adultery - How to come to know a woman has committed adultery, in the book of Numbers, Ch. no.5 Verse No..11 to 31. I’ll just say in brief. It says that… ‘The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed. A novel method of identifying whether a woman has committed adultery or not. How unscientific!

These are 13 out of the thousands of impossible irreconcilable scientific blunders that are found throughout the Bible! "

-Sinai Disciple

 

[Domenic]

Harikrish,
Very good points, and I am glad you listed them. It is noon here were I am, so after 6:00PM my time I will have time to reply.

 

[Domenic]

Reply to Harikrish # 385

How about this list.

"There are thousands of inaccuracies in the Bible. Here are a list of a few scientific errors:

I challenge any Christian on Yahoo Answers! to solve these so-called mysteries/miracles of the Bible that we can't seem to figure out even in modern day!

1. Astronomy: First we deal with Astronomy., The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days.
Answer:
How does science know God can’t do this?

2. The Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ Genesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day? - It is unscientific.
Answer:
Again, how does science know God can’t do this?

3. Further, the, Bible says Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses 9 to 13… ‘Earth was created on the 3rd day. How can you have a night and day without the earth ? The day depends upon the rotation of the Earth Without the earth created, how can you have a night and day?
Answer:
If the earth blew apart, would light and darkness not be in the universe?

4. Genesis, Ch. No. 1 Verses 9 to 13 says… ‘Earth was created on the third day.’ Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses 14 to 19 says…‘The Sun and the Moon were created on the fourth day.’ Today science tells us… ‘Earth is part of the parent body… the sun.’ It cannot come into existence before the sun – It is unscientific.
Answer:
How can science say the earth is part of the sun, and can’t be made before the sun?

5. The Bible says in Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse No. 11 to 13…‘The vegetation, the herbs the shrubs, the trees - they were created on the 3rd day And the Sun, Genesis, Ch. No. 1, Verses. 14 to 19, was created on the 4th day. How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight ?
Answer
: Crating something, and making it are two different events. Cars are created before they are built.

6. The Bible says in Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses No.16, that…‘God created two lights the greater light, the Sun to rule the day, and the lesser light the Moon, to rule the night. The actual translation, if you go to the Hebrew text, it is ‘lamps’…‘Lamps having lights of its own.’ And that you will come to know better, if you read both the Verses – Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse. 16, as well as 17. Verse No.17 says…‘And Almighty God placed them in the firmament, to give light to the earth… To give light to the earth.’ Indicating, that Sun and the Moon has its own light - which is in contradiction with established scientific knowledge that we have.
Answer:
The sun has it’s own light. God says of the moon, It is there to reflect light.

7.It is mentioned in the Bible, in the book of Hebrews, Ch. No.1 Verses No.10 and 11, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.102, Verse No.25 and 26, that…‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, and they will perish.’ Exactly opposite is mentioned in the book of Ecclesiastics, Ch. No.1, Verse No.4, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.78, Verse No.69, that… ‘The earth will abide forever.’ Which will take place? The Earth will perish or abide forever? The both can't take place. It's unscientific!
Answer:
Yes God will destroy them. He will build a new Heavens, and a new earth that will abide forever.

8. In the field of ‘Diet and Nutrition’ lets analyse, what does the Bible say. The Bible says in the book of Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse No.29, that… ‘God has given you all the herbs bearing seeds, the trees bearing fruits - those that bear seed, as meat for you.’ New International Version says… ‘The seed bearing plants, and the trees bearing fruits bearing seeds are food for you, all of them.’ Today, even a layman knows that there are several poisonous plants like wild berries, stritchi, datura, plants containing alkaloid, polyander, bacaipoid - that which if you ingest, if you eat there are high possibilities you may die. How come the Creator of the universe and the human beings, does not know, that if you have these plants, you will die.
Answer:
Man does know. There are tribes in South America that eat roots that are poisonous. They first treat them.

9. he Bible has a scientific test how to identify a true believer. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, Ch. No.16, Verse No.17 and 18 - It says that… ‘There will be signs for true believers and among the signs - In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak foreign tongues, new tongues, they shall take up serpents - And if they drink deadly poison, they shall not be harmed - And when they place their hand over the sick, they shall be cured.’ This is a scientific test - In scientific terminology, it is known as the ‘confirmatory test’ for a true Christian believer. There has not been a single true believing Christian that has ever passed this test, because no one's willing to even try.
Answer:
The followers of Jesus did those things. In Gods new system we may do it?

10. What does the Bible say regarding ‘Hydrology’? Bible says in Genesis, Ch. No.9, Verse No.13 to 17, that… ‘After God, at the time of Noah submerged the world by flood, and after the flood’ subsided, He said… ‘I put up a rainbow in the sky as a promise to the humankind never to submerge the world again, by water. To the unscientific person it may be quite good… ‘Oh rainbow is a sign of Almighty God, never to submerge the world by flood again.’ But today we know very well, that rainbow is due to the refraction of sunlight, with rain or mist. Surely there must have been thousands of rainbows before the time of Noah, peace be upon him. To say it was not there before Noah’s time you have to assume that the law of refraction did not exist - which is unscientific.
Answer
: It never rained before the flood. Water would raise up out of the ground in the morning like a mist to water the earth…there was no rainbow.

11. In the field of medicine, the Bible says in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.14, Verse No.49 to 53 - it gives a novel way for disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy… disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy. It says that… ‘Take two birds, kill one bird, take wood, scale it - and the other living bird, dip it in water… and under running water - later on sprinkle the house 7 times with it. Sprinkle the house with blood to disinfect against plague of leprosy? You know blood is a good media of germs, bacteria, as well as toxins! Unscientific!
Answer:
If this was commanded by God, It would have worked if the people had faith.

12. It is mentioned in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.12, Verse No.1 to 5, and we know medically, that after a mother gives birth to a child, the post-partal period, it is unhygienic. To say it is ‘unclean’, Religiously - I have got no objection. But Leviticus, Ch. No.12 Verse No.1 to 5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. It she give birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days. I would like any Christian to explain to me scientifically, how come a woman remains unclean for double the period, if she gives birth to a female child, as compared to a male child.
Answer:
If you don’t know, and science don’t know, why would you expect a Christian to know?
13. The Bible also has a very good test for adultery - How to come to know a woman has committed adultery, in the book of Numbers, Ch. no.5 Verse No..11 to 31. I’ll just say in brief. It says that… ‘The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed. A novel method of identifying whether a woman has committed adultery or not. How unscientific!
Answer:
has science tested this? Where, and when?

These are 13 out of the thousands of impossible irreconcilable scientific blunders that are found throughout the Bible! "
Please show the other thousands of things you don’t understand that you call, blunders.
I would suggest you have a Bible study with a Christian.

Domenic


-Sinai Disciple

 

[1robin]

And it is obvious.

And also sufficient.

You need to take a historical class on this at a university. Study the NT at Yale using the video class from the link I provided you, its very informative and will give you a foundation to work from. YOU can take in your spare time.

I have had over 16 hours in college level history. Military history is actually a lifelong study. I already read that link. I get tired of links being insisted upon, I finally read them, and no one comments on them.

But what I learned about Paul at Harvard, was the eye opener. I learned more my first week then the 5 years I have spent here. It is also free through EdX. If you want a link to the class I will provide one.

I have 192 semester hours, I think my days of classes are hopefully behind me. I gave you all the books I am currently reading and have just finished, plus I ma working 60 plus hours a week. What makes you think I have time for course from Yale and Harvard? BTW did you actually go to school for the relevant subjects or has your career been online?

YOU need seat time in front of a professor, if you want to debate this.

No I do not but if you think so I am happy to leave you to think that. I have my hands more than full at the moment.

 

[1robin]

I lecture on the Ethnogensis of Israelites at Sac city, once to twice a year.

Studies the NT at Yale online
Paul at Harvard online

And debate with some very educated people. I fight against mythicism, by debating authors and bloggers such as Doherty, Huller, Verrena, Godfrey.

And Im still a beginner, and do not have a grasp on many topics. You will understand with study, there is too much here for one person to learn well in a lifetime. The more you know overall, limits your areas of expertise. Or you can focus on one or two topics and try and advance the knowledge where others have not been to or expanded. That is the nature of study.

Even the best scholars in the world, if one could even claim that, is not a credible source alone. You need to learn the others positions, to even know where you fit in the puzzle.

There is more than can be learned in a hundred lifetimes, but I do not see any credentials here than give you any automatic advantage over me. From the amount your were alluding to I expected a masters or at least a Baccalaureate. What you have seems to be enough to carry one end of a amateur debate if used correctly, but nothing to claim superiority for even in that context. I read both sides. At least 80% of the sources I study include both sides. I rarely read anything from one side of an argument.

So far my estimation of you is unchanged.

1. You do have a reasonable knowledge base for an informal debate.
2. That knowledge base is not used effectively.
3. You arbitrarily dismiss sources without sufficient justification.

 

[outhouse]

, but I do not see any credentials

I am not here to impress any apologetic person of faith, who refuses credible education and knowledge and cherry picks what he wants to believe.

 

[1robin]

I am not here to impress any apologetic person of faith, who refuses credible education and knowledge and cherry picks what he wants to believe.

1. You have been constantly stating how knowledgeable you are.
2. My constant complain against you is one of denying scholarship without justification, that is what a biased person does. I have not been doing similar things in return. In fact I almost never ever write of a source it's self. I always post what is actually wrong with the sources claim. Biased people dismiss sources, those who desire proper debate show what is wrong with the claim.
3. If you are not here to debate against biased apologetic claims. Then one of two things are true. You have been doing so anyway, or I am not among that group.

You kept insinuating your credentials. I asked you for them, they are about what I thought. I saw nothing in them that gives you any superiority over my research. Let's let the personal commentary rest at this point.

BTW why are you quoting fragments of what I say then accusing me of cherry picking. With the rest of the sentence what I said has a radically different meaning than the fragment you posted does alone. That was insincere.

There is more than can be learned in a hundred lifetimes, but I do not see any credentials here than give you any automatic advantage over me.

 

[outhouse]

2. My constant complain against you is one of denying scholarship without justification,

This is known as an argument from ignorance though. Most all credible scholars disagree to some extent.

This is also known as challenging honesty, as I have provided credible sources that factually justified every statement I made.

Not only that you disagree with most of them, so I ask, are you looking in a mirror?


No matter how YOU slice it, you cannot provide ENOUGH credible sources that state the gospel authors are known .


I have provided Yale, Encylopedias, videos that ALL JUSTIFY MY POSITION

Burkett, Delbert (2002). An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00720-7.

Right around the 14 minute mark, the professor at Yale will tell you the current state of scholars on the authorship of Mark.

Nativity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most mainstream scholars do not see the Luke and Matthew nativity stories as historically factual.[2][3][4][5][50

1. 
   
   
   • ^ Jump up to: abThe Gospel of Matthew by Daniel J. Harrington 1991 ISBN 0-8146-5803-2 p. 47
   • ^ Jump up to: abcVermes, Géza (2006-11-02). The Nativity: History and Legend. Penguin Books Ltd. p. 64. ISBN0-14-102446-1.
   • ^ Jump up to: abcdefSanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Sanders discusses both birth narratives in detail, contrasts them, and judges them not historical on pp. 85–88.
   • ^ Jump up to: abcdJeremy Corley New Perspectives on the Nativity Continuum International Publishing Group, 2009 p. 22.
   • ^ Marcus Borg, 'The Meaning of the Birth Stories' in Marcus Borg, N T Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (Harper One, 1999) page 179: "I (and most mainline scholars) do not see these stories as historically factual."

Sample Chapter for Levine, A., Allison, D., Jr., Crossan, J.D., eds.: The Historical Jesus in Context.

 

[outhouse]

With you, I am not addressing education and knowledge, as you just refuse it, no matter the qualifications or credibility.

I am fighting levels of fanaticism that stop people from accepting what is actually known.

Why are you fighting education and knowledge?


Why do you think you know more then Yale professors?

Why do you think you know more the Encyclopedias?

Why do you think you know more then what Princeton teaches?


Why do you not believe two scholars you actually quoted?????????????

 

[1robin]

Most all credible scholars disagree to some extent.

With which of the 750,000 words in the bible?

This is also known as challenging honesty, as I have provided credible sources that factually justified every statement I made.

No you did not. When you dismissed Greenleaf by merely stating he was not a biblical scholar (even though he is as good a scholar on testimony and evidence as history has ever produced), you had instantly lost me. That is not justification, it is not even a good excuse.

Not only that you disagree with most of them, so I ask, are you looking in a mirror?

Most of who about what? I have already given the consensus view of most NT historians for my the four historical claims I made for example. I gave credible scholars who agree with my original claims and your dismissal of that one was based on the general conclusion of one of the authors, not on the consensus view, and did not even mention my original four claims but picked on one I did not make, and even that one came without any evidence of any kind. Just the same unjustifiable dismissal.

No matter how YOU slice it, you cannot provide ENOUGH credible sources that state the gospel authors are known .

Now it's authorship. Any one of these issues would take days to properly discuss but you give 3 or 4 subjects like this in a single post. I do not care if care if you have a PhD and two masters your not making disciplined and practical debates.

I have provided Yale, Encylopedias, videos that ALL JUSTIFY MY POSITION

I gave 4 scholars to every one you have for my claims. I read the link to that single scholar you keep bringing up and even asked which part of that link was under discussion. I know you did not read the first link I gave because you did not have a fraction of the time necessary from my posting it to your unjustifiable denial of the entire source.

I am running short of time and your all over the place, Everything from your online course work, scholarship credibility, to the authorship of the bible cannot be discussed in a single post. It's not a debate, it is a rant. As you said this subject is so huge it takes more than a lifetime to conclude, so back up, post a single clear and emphatic claim with the evidence and I will respond to it. No personal commentaries, no half dozen very in-depth issues at once, no open ended claims I can't even figure out what they are about, no instant dismissals of any source you find inconvenient. Just a single claim with the evidence, please.

 

[outhouse]

No you did not. When you dismissed Greenleaf by merely stating he was not a biblical scholar

How true is that? are you being honest?

I dismissed him for using hearsay as evidence, which I provided credible sources for. Which you could not, nor did not, refute in any way.


I did quote that he was not a biblical scholar. Thus he had no education in biblical studies to even address what he did.


He is known for apologetic work. He carries no credibility today in any sense for his biblical work.

 

[outhouse]

? I have already given the consensus view of most NT historians for my the four historical claims I made for example

How honest is that?

Could you go back and provide your own quotes to show us this is true?

Because I happen to know you posted a few scholars personal opinions, that were apologetically quote mined out of context .

Not one of your links showed a credible consensus view.

 

[outhouse]

Now it's authorship.

That's has been the debate all along.

The gospel authors are all unknown at this time. Most scholars factually state this.

The gospel authors were not eyewitness to Jesus ministry in Galilee.

 

[viole]

I think this discussion is getting way of track. The issue was whether pure determinism was true, not what compatibilists believe. The former is easy, the latter confusing. There are all manner of flavors of positions to be had, Hard determinists, libertarian compatibilists, incompatabalists, classical compatibilists, etc....

I don't think it is confusing at all. All compatibilists I spoke to and read from are determinists. Period. No exception for free will. The decision act and what follows from it are still physically determined.

As "well named" expressed in much better English than mine in post #323, their concept of freedom has nothing to do with it not being determined by physics, but just involves being able to choose, without being constrained or coherced in some way. So, even if there is physical determination for every choice we make, we can still be free by, for instance, not being in prison or being forced to do something under the threat of a gun.

In this respect, I agree with their position. Renouncing moral responsability, because our choices are physically determined, would be odd and a failure in applying the right conceptual level to things. It would be like saying that statistical physics is useless because the single particles of a gas can be studied without statistics.

So, I am not sure what you are attacking now. That free will is physically determined by the blind forces of nature at the basic level, as compatibilists still believe?

You can, I guess, but the position held by compatibilists, and what they really mean with freedom, would render my own position not so on the fringe, anymore, would it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

I don't think it is confusing at all. All compatibilists I spoke to and read from are determinists. Period. No exception for free will. The decision act and what follows from it are still physically determined.

How many compatibilists did you actually speak to?

Lets say determinism = X and that freewill = Y.

Compatibility says that while X and Y seem to have a surface contradiction there actually exists no underlying contradiction. Note that the only reasons you would ever need to say that is if X and Y and not equal. Your basically saying freewill is equal to determinism which makes a mockery out of the terms to begin with. Freewill implicitly assumes freedom for something, determinism being what it is free from. However lets leave aside the meaning of that term for a minute. What your saying would result in the freewill being equal to determinism. IN that case we do not have an X and a Y but only an X. There is no reason to talk about the compatibility of X with X because there is not surface or any other incapability between a things and it's self. Among the very few things that are incompatible with themselves are some atheistic conclusions and you point here. Who in the world would create a category of people who believe trees are compatible with trees, rocks with rocks, or any other Xs with Xs. You do not need to write books about why X is compatible with X. If X is all we have there is nothing to be compatible with. Only if we also have Ys which appear to contradict the Xs do we need classification for people who believe they are compatible. Only if they believe that both freewill exists and freewill is not determined would anyone need to insist they believe they are compatible after all.

BTW the subject was is determinism true, not what is the definition of compatabalism. Why has the former been forgotten in order to obsess on the latter? What your actually defining is incompatabalism. It is the idea that since X and Y cannot both be true then either X or Y does not exist, since we know X exists then Y cannot.

As "well named" expressed in much better English than mine in post #323, their concept of freedom has nothing to do with it not being determined by physics, but just involves being able to choose, without being constrained or coherced in some way. So, even if there is physical determination for every choice we make, we can still be free by, for instance, not being in prison or being forced to do something under the threat of a gun.

If it is not determined by antecedent natural events then it violates determinism. Being out of jail is not to be free from physics, and even being in jail does not constrain what decision we can make. I don't know what your talking about but it seems to only effect what we can accomplish not what we can chose and it does not have any effect on compatabalism or the original subject under discussion.

In this respect, I agree with their position. Renouncing moral responsability, because our choices are physically determined, would be odd and a failure in applying the right conceptual level to things. It would be like saying that statistical physics is useless because the single particles of a gas can be studied without statistics.

In what respect, I did not see anything in that statement that was a true description of anything? Jail does not free anyone from physics not does it restrict what I might chose.

It would be much more odd to take away a man's freedom and even his life if he had no choice in his actions nor had any choice about his future actions. But then again you decision at the trial, a lawyers decisions, the legal scholars from humanities past, etc.... were just dancing at the end of their strings and could not have chosen differently. Initial condition put that man in the electric chair not his choices. What a wonderful world determinism has produced. Doomed at the big bang, what a lovely idea this is.

So, I am not sure what you are attacking now. That free will is physically determined by the blind forces of nature at the basic level, as compatibilists still believe?

I do not know what some compatibilists may believe but that is not what compatabalism suggests. It suggests that freewill and determinist do not conflict. There is no reason to hold that position of determinism is al there is. Here AGAIN the definition of compatibles from Stanford:

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

This however is not what your saying. What your defining is incompatabalism. Here is it's definition or "proof".

1. Any agent, x, performs an act a of x's own free will iff x has control over a.
2. x has control over a only if x has the ability to select among alternative courses of action to act a.
3. If x has the ability to select among alternative courses of action to act a, then there are alternative courses of action to act a open to x (i.e., x could have done otherwise than a).
4. If determinism is true, then only one future is possible given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature.
5. If only one future is possible holding fixed the actual past and the laws of nature, then there are no alternative courses of action to any act open to any agent (i.e., no agent could have done otherwise than she actually does).
6. Therefore, if determinism is true, it is not the case that any agent, x, performs any act, a, of her own free will.

That is what pure determinism means, what you believe, and is not what compatibilists believe.

To show this even more emphatically the argument I am quoting from is a moral responsibility one. One which compatablists grant moral responsibility because we are at times free to make decisions not determined by physics. Please read it. The argument that brings all this into relevancy is called the problem of freewill and it goes like this:

Call it the Classical Formulation:

1. Some agent, at some time, could have acted otherwise than she did.
2. Actions are events.
3. Every event has a cause.
4. If an event is caused, then it is causally determined.
5. If an event is an act that is causally determined, then the agent of the act could not have acted otherwise than in the way that she did.

Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

That is the very incompatibility that incompatabalists affirm and which compatabalists deny. You have it perfectly backwards.

You can, I guess, but the position held by compatibilists, and what they really mean with freedom, would render my own position not so on the fringe, anymore, would it?

I am pretty much rejecting every claim you made. You incorrectly define what compatablism means, and none of your examples shed light on either world view.

 

[viole]

How many compatibilists did you actually speak to?

Lets say determinism = X and that freewill = Y.

Compatibility says that while X and Y seem to have a surface contradiction there actually exists no underlying contradiction. Note that the only reasons you would ever need to say that is if X and Y and not equal. Your basically saying freewill is equal to determinism which makes a mockery out of the terms to begin with. Freewill implicitly assumes freedom for something, determinism being what it is free from. However lets leave aside the meaning of that term for a minute. What your saying would result in the freewill being equal to determinism. IN that case we do not have an X and a Y but only an X. There is no reason to talk about the compatibility of X with X because there is not surface or any other incapability between a things and it's self. Among the very few things that are incompatible with themselves are some atheistic conclusions and you point here. Who in the world would create a category of people who believe trees are compatible with trees, rocks with rocks, or any other Xs with Xs. You do not need to write books about why X is compatible with X. If X is all we have there is nothing to be compatible with. Only if we also have Ys which appear to contradict the Xs do we need classification for people who believe they are compatible. Only if they believe that both freewill exists and freewill is not determined would anyone need to insist they believe they are compatible after all.

BTW the subject was is determinism true, not what is the definition of compatabalism. Why has the former been forgotten in order to obsess on the latter? What your actually defining is incompatabalism. It is the idea that since X and Y cannot both be true then either X or Y does not exist, since we know X exists then Y cannot.


If it is not determined by antecedent natural events then it violates determinism. Being out of jail is not to be free from physics, and even being in jail does not constrain what decision we can make. I don't know what your talking about but it seems to only effect what we can accomplish not what we can chose and it does not have any effect on compatabalism or the original subject under discussion.

In what respect, I did not see anything in that statement that was a true description of anything? Jail does not free anyone from physics not does it restrict what I might chose.

It would be much more odd to take away a man's freedom and even his life if he had no choice in his actions nor had any choice about his future actions. But then again you decision at the trial, a lawyers decisions, the legal scholars from humanities past, etc.... were just dancing at the end of their strings and could not have chosen differently. Initial condition put that man in the electric chair not his choices. What a wonderful world determinism has produced. Doomed at the big bang, what a lovely idea this is.

I do not know what some compatibilists may believe but that is not what compatabalism suggests. It suggests that freewill and determinist do not conflict. There is no reason to hold that position of determinism is al there is. Here AGAIN the definition of compatibles from Stanford:

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

This however is not what your saying. What your defining is incompatabalism. Here is it's definition or "proof".

1. Any agent, x, performs an act a of x's own free will iff x has control over a.
2. x has control over a only if x has the ability to select among alternative courses of action to act a.
3. If x has the ability to select among alternative courses of action to act a, then there are alternative courses of action to act a open to x (i.e., x could have done otherwise than a).
4. If determinism is true, then only one future is possible given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature.
5. If only one future is possible holding fixed the actual past and the laws of nature, then there are no alternative courses of action to any act open to any agent (i.e., no agent could have done otherwise than she actually does).
6. Therefore, if determinism is true, it is not the case that any agent, x, performs any act, a, of her own free will.

That is what pure determinism means, what you believe, and is not what compatibilists believe.

To show this even more emphatically the argument I am quoting from is a moral responsibility one. One which compatablists grant moral responsibility because we are at times free to make decisions not determined by physics. Please read it. The argument that brings all this into relevancy is called the problem of freewill and it goes like this:

Call it the Classical Formulation:

1. Some agent, at some time, could have acted otherwise than she did.
2. Actions are events.
3. Every event has a cause.
4. If an event is caused, then it is causally determined.
5. If an event is an act that is causally determined, then the agent of the act could not have acted otherwise than in the way that she did.

Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

That is the very incompatibility that incompatabalists affirm and which compatabalists deny. You have it perfectly backwards.

I am pretty much rejecting every claim you made. You incorrectly define what compatablism means, and none of your examples shed light on either world view.

Sorry, wrong.

Compatibilists do not reject physical determination of our actions. I wonder where you read that. S.Carroll and D. Dennett are compatibists: do you really think they believe our will, and what follows, is not determined by previous initial coditions of the Universe and it is not subject to the laws of physics? As you said, this position has no metaphysical components, and what is not metaphysical? Either metametaphysical or physical, ... Your call.

Incompabilism simply claims that free will is not possible with physical determination. Compatibists say it is. While they both believe that our actions are physically determined.

I think you are confusing compatibilists with libertarians.

Have you read "well named" post #323? It is all there, in much better English than mine, or ours, lol.

Ciao

- viole