How is the Bible the Word of God?

[viole]

Why?



Her lately you been asking tings I could not understand the context for. Your questioned assumed something I never claimed nor believe is true. I can't answer a question with an incorrect assumption. I never said freewill or intent rules out determinism as a general principle so I can answer a question that assumes I did.



They are usually impediments to certainty, and do not make good grounds for argumentation. For example I rarely debate the Trinity because if true it is a compete mystery.
BTW by mystery I meant having no way to link X to Y, but to claim X is the result of Y anyway.


Your as bad a speller as me. I assume you meant philosophical, and yes it does represent a break with strict determinism. I had already amnswered your question with the actual definition. Here it is again:

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.

Compatibilist is a break with pure determinism but that does not mean every compatibilists would hold that view. I don't know the personal interpretations of all compatibilists, just what compatibilist means.

The only evidence necessary is to show determinism does not explain all reality. I have given the best possible examples of that, anything additional would be a more complex and less obvious example. The ability of us to actualize desires billions of times a day is the best possible evidence and more than sufficient to show determinism does not govern all reality. I don't think I can provide stronger evidence against anything than that or evidence of any greater amount against a thing. It does not even seem to allow for debate of any kind.

I think it a horrible explanation to suggest that determinism resulted in anyone having a coherent plan to do something like build a house, but it is no explanation at all to suggest determinism was so obliging as to perform the trillions of necessary functions to produce that house, which it never cared about in the first place. A thing cannot have any better or more contradictory evidence than pure determinism. What more can you possibly ask for?

I don't know. Ants build complex colonies and constructions. i doubt each ant knows what it is doing. Who is the designer of their nice buildings? So, it could be that are neuronal colonies work the same way. Who can say? We have no clue, as you said.

However, your explanation of compatibilism does not say that they see exceptions to determinism. And i mean, any exception. So, your rebuttal of determinism is a rebuttal of compatibilism, as well, for you are stll failing to provide evidence that they see exceptions to the rule of determinism at all. Do you relly think that compatibilists like Sean Carrol would accept the acquisition or loss of physical information in the Universe that would be entailed by a slack of deterministic rules, including (physical) intentional agents? I doubt it.

It is actually obvious. If they saw an exception, they would be called exceptionalists, instead. And there is not such a thing as strict or soft determinism. Either determinism is true or it isn't. Exceptions to it, deny it as a whole.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Your spiritual world view is the primary business of a theological debate. I have attempted time after time to end any talk of your theological status and you have obsessed upon on. Don't pretend to be coy at this point.

My definition is irrelevant nor has it been the focus of any discussion. It is Christ's criteria that matter. Christ actually said "born from above", which emphatically means that it is an act of God or a supernatural event. Not a product of man's knowledge, so there is no such thing as being philosophically or scientifically born again in the context of Christ's words. You may think that unfair but that is another subject all together.


Well at least we finally have a definition of your faith. Let's take this statement as what your faith is based upon for now.

No you don't know that, even if it was true you have no possible way to know it.

Not really, more like herding cats. All I asked for was a yes or no to three questions. I did not really get either one for any one of them. I was trying to see if getting another poster who was born again as traditionally defined to share their experiences with you would clarify the issue, but I get the impression that anything they would say would do no good so I will not bother with it unless you want to discuss it with them.

My problem is that you keep saying stuff like "Christ said ..." We DO NOT KNOW WHAT CHRIST ACTUALLY SAID. Passages from the Bible should not be used in this way. It bothers me tremendously that you actually try to use "the words of Christ" to strengthen your point, when you are literally (possibly at least) putting words into Christ's mouth. To me, that is a disgusting practice. If you are going to make a theological point, stand it up on its own merits. Don't disrespect my intelligence by hurling Biblical passaages at me that I obviously already know of. They do not prove what God wants or what Jesus actually said.

I would love to have a conversation about this with you, but if you assume to know what Christ said simply because of what was written in the Gospels, you are going to have to provide backing for them, not just citations. It's frustrating that you actually think that you can prove me wrong about what Christ wants by quoting heresay which may or may not be completely accurate.

 

[catch22]

My problem is that you keep saying stuff like "Christ said ..." We DO NOT KNOW WHAT CHRIST ACTUALLY SAID. Passages from the Bible should not be used in this way. It bothers me tremendously that you actually try to use "the words of Christ" to strengthen your point, when you are literally (possibly at least) putting words into Christ's mouth. To me, that is a disgusting practice. If you are going to make a theological point, stand it up on its own merits. Don't disrespect my intelligence by hurling Biblical passaages at me that I obviously already know of. They do not prove what God wants or what Jesus actually said.

I would love to have a conversation about this with you, but if you assume to know what Christ said simply because of what was written in the Gospels, you are going to have to provide backing for them, not just citations. It's frustrating that you actually think that you can prove me wrong about what Christ wants by quoting heresay which may or may not be completely accurate.

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?

 

[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?

Not referring to the teachings in general, just the quotes. It is "ludicrous" to use quotes from the Gospels as proof for what Jesus actually said. That is a clear use of circular logic. I am not saying that the Bible can't be seen as reliable. Only that, when it comes to quotes of Jesus, many of them have been shown to have been added after the fact. The quote "forgive them father, for they know not what they do" is a great example of a quote that was added in later versions of the Gospel it is contained in.

 

[lovemuffin]

I have said a hundred times I can't watch videos on this DOD server. It actually did not even come up, it said it was incorrectly encrypted a it deleted it anyway. I have said quite a few times I am no interested in this debate. What's the confusion?

I think you can find a transcript of that here, along with the video and the other class sessions

the transcript

 

[catch22]

Not referring to the teachings in general, just the quotes. It is "ludicrous" to use quotes from the Gospels as proof for what Jesus actually said. That is a clear use of circular logic. I am not saying that the Bible can't be seen as reliable. Only that, when it comes to quotes of Jesus, many of them have been shown to have been added after the fact. The quote "forgive them father, for they know not what they do" is a great example of a quote that was added in later versions of the Gospel it is contained in.

That last statement is likely false. I can't say for sure, but scholars tend to lean toward it being removed, rather than inserted. First, in quantity, there are more for the long reading. The caveat here is quantity does not necessarily trump quality (for example, the short reading probably pre-dates the long reading in quantity). So on this point, there's solid evidence for both short and long readings (overall). In other words, it's a mixed bag.

However, Jesus taught this act of praying for one's enemies, despite if they hate and persecute you (not contested). Logically, one must weigh the reasons for keeping it versus the reasons for simply omitting it. Neither it being present or not significantly alter the Christian faith or the actual teaching of Christ. However, does insertion or omission have implications beyond faith?

In all that, you'll most likely find most scholars tend to follow the position of omission, rather than inserting. Bart Ehrman, for example, in his publications, among many others. Dr. Nathan Eubanks of Duke University writes,

(source: http://www.nathaneubank.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/A-Disconcerting-Prayer.pdf)

...Moreover, intrinsic probability suggests that the prayer belongs in the text of Luke: the prayer matches Luke’s preferred way of addressing God; its structure resembles that of the Lukan Lord’s Prayer; it resembles Stephen’s prayer for his killers without having a single word in common; and the link between ignorance and mitigated culpability matches a motif running throughout Luke-Acts.

Regarding transcriptional probability, it is now clear that Luke 23:34a was a problem passage in early Christianity. We may, therefore, conclude that Harnack and others who suggested that the prayer was omitted for anti-Jewish reasons were on the right track. Note, however, that early Christian consternation with Luke 23:34a stemmed not from anti-Judaism alone but also from the fact that Jesus’ prayer seemed to have gone unanswered, and from a sense that the Jews had been punished unjustly. The discomfort with the prayer explains why the external evidence for both readings is early and widespread; in all likelihood, Luke 23:34a was omitted fairly early, possibly by multiple scribes, while other scribes corrupted the text by changing ἄφες to συγχώρησον

 

[outhouse]

Hogwash. What do you expect, text messages between John and Jesus to make sure Jesus actually said what He said?

No, but we are not in a position to over attribute what was said either.

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.

First of all, the gospels are all rhetorical and contain mythology in theology.

They were all written by Hellenist in the Diaspora by people far removed from any actual event.

How can you separate which teachings originated with John who taught Jesus his Aramaic sayings?

How do you know these were not just Aramaic sayings common in most villages?

Jesus did not just make up all this theology, he learned and repeated what was taught to him.


He did not become famous because his teachings were original, he became famous because of his martyrdom after his death at Passover.

You rarely get an exact quote out of history

And we don't have any evidence of direct quotes here either.

All we can do is hope they came from him, and even then they are probably Johns parables.

 

[outhouse]

That last statement is likely false. I can't say for sure, but scholars tend to lean toward it being removed, rather than inserted. First, in quantity, there are more for the long reading. The caveat here is quantity does not necessarily trump quality (for example, the short reading probably pre-dates the long reading in quantity). So on this point, there's solid evidence for both short and long readings (overall). In other words, it's a mixed bag.

However, Jesus taught this act of praying for one's enemies, despite if they hate and persecute you (not contested). Logically, one must weigh the reasons for keeping it versus the reasons for simply omitting it. Neither it being present or not significantly alter the Christian faith or the actual teaching of Christ. However, does insertion or omission have implications beyond faith?

In all that, you'll most likely find most scholars tend to follow the position of omission, rather than inserting. Bart Ehrman, for example, in his publications, among many others. Dr. Nathan Eubanks of Duke University writes,

Despite this it has little historicity as coming from Jesus lips.

His real followers, his inner circle, are portrayed as cowards who more then likely fled back to Galilee after his arrest. Its not likely there were any witnesses to this event or words from this event.

I have heard some scholars tend to follow Mark and Matthews as more historical due to the Aramaic used. But even then its a guess.

 

[1robin]

My problem is that you keep saying stuff like "Christ said ..." We DO NOT KNOW WHAT CHRIST ACTUALLY SAID. Passages from the Bible should not be used in this way. It bothers me tremendously that you actually try to use "the words of Christ" to strengthen your point, when you are literally (possibly at least) putting words into Christ's mouth. To me, that is a disgusting practice. If you are going to make a theological point, stand it up on its own merits. Don't disrespect my intelligence by hurling Biblical passaages at me that I obviously already know of. They do not prove what God wants or what Jesus actually said.

I would love to have a conversation about this with you, but if you assume to know what Christ said simply because of what was written in the Gospels, you are going to have to provide backing for them, not just citations. It's frustrating that you actually think that you can prove me wrong about what Christ wants by quoting heresay which may or may not be completely accurate.

If we cannot know what Christ said on what basis can we claim to be following him? I have tried over and over to show we go about establishing what sayings are reliable and which are not. No force on earth seems to be able to carry out that attempt. In fact we could get beyond the first step. We can in fact with great reliability what Christ said, but if you want to retina the idea we can't then what is it you want to discuss. If we cannot establish what Christ said in at least it's most central doctrines then we should shut the bible, turn out the lights, and go to sleep. I cannot debate what he said if you if you seem to desire to retain the ability to deny them at will. If you actually care about what reliability we can have for any particular saying then we have to go through the steps by which we can have that reliability but this is what you refuse to do. There is nothing to discuss with anyone who denies the ability to know the thing to be discussed. I ma not sure what you want from me. The evidence agrees with strong confidence in knowing Christ's claims, and BTW I don't merely assume to know what Christ claimed from the bible, I claim to have also lived it. I claim also that what I have experienced and what is in the bible about being born again is the mainstream conclusion and part of most and the earliest of Christian creedal statements. I have also been a councilor for years and have built up quite a data set on what Christians believe and what they claim to have experienced. Every line of inquiry and experience leads me to the same conclusion.

 

[1robin]

I think you can find a transcript of that here, along with the video and the other class sessions

the transcript

I am not debating this with the original poster. All I get is rejection of counter scholarship because my sources are to tall, too short, not an expert in some field, or despite their being scholars in that same field. However you are not that person and have not claimed those silly excuses for deny competent scholarship so I will see what you have to say. I looked over that link but I need to know what part your arguing from or for. I don't know what your saying that links concludes. So can you copy what part of it your affirming. I have given scholars in relevant fields who deny the claims made at that link and who's credentials have no superior. Short of scholar wars I am unclear how to proceed. Is your sole interest in the authorship of Mark? What is your position in this context? Mine is that the bible is in general and especially in core doctrine very reliable. My information is to support that conclusion, what is your conclusion?

 

[outhouse]

If we cannot know what Christ said on what basis can we claim to be following him?

Faith.

An Apologetic faith based basis.

I have tried over and over to show we go about establishing what sayings are reliable and which are not.

But you carry no credibility as a historian or a scholar, it Is their job to determine such things.

And most disagree with you.

We can in fact with great reliability what Christ said,

No, with great faith, you determine what you will and will not believe.

Can you tell what John the Baptist taught Jesus? What Jesus learned from other Galileans as he grew up?

With no eyewitnesses to a single word in the NT, we can only and at best hope, and keep our fingers crossed, some of the words actually go back to the man himself. And of those words, we will never know how much originated with John the Baptist.

 

[1robin]

I don't know. Ants build complex colonies and constructions. i doubt each ant knows what it is doing. Who is the designer of their nice buildings? So, it could be that are neuronal colonies work the same way. Who can say? We have no clue, as you said.

Are you denying ants freewill? Were you determined to determine they are governed by determinism? BTW what does determinism do to the concepts of justice, responsibility, moral duties. Why do we have jails if we have no choice about what we do. I would love to see a nation actually governed by some of the principles atheists affirm. What a bizzaro world it they would make.

BTW it is not necessary to know how a thing works to know what could not produce it. I do not have to know how a jet engine works to know one won't spit out a functional toaster at some point. Having no clue usually results in a lack of belief not an affirmation of a contradictory philosophy like determinism.

However, your explanation of compatibilism does not say that they see exceptions to determinism. And i mean, any exception. So, your rebuttal of determinism is a rebuttal of compatibilism, as well, for you are stll failing to provide evidence that they see exceptions to the rule of determinism at all. Do you relly think that compatibilists like Sean Carrol would accept the acquisition or loss of physical information in the Universe that would be entailed by a slack of deterministic rules, including (physical) intentional agents? I doubt it.

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.

It is actually obvious. If they saw an exception, they would be called exceptionalists, instead. And there is not such a thing as strict or soft determinism. Either determinism is true or it isn't. Exceptions to it, deny it as a whole.

No, it is called compatibilist because some schools of classical thought have thought the two incompatible. That if one was true the other could not be. It is a statement of no-exclusivity between two things that some have thought to have surface incompatibility. Your really stubborn on this issue, but then again I guess you had no choice.

 

[outhouse]

All I get is rejection of counter scholarship because my sources are to tall, too short, not an expert in some field, or despite their being scholars in that same field

That just is not true. You need to realize, one scholars opinion, does not make anything true. YOU need to learn the collective accounts of many scholars.

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.

 

[outhouse]

However you are not that person and have not claimed those silly excuses for deny competent scholarship

You posted a law professor with sources over a hundred years old who has been completely refuted for his incompetence.

This professor of law, had no biblical education and no historical education.


And you sir, have not been able to refute a single word.

 

[outhouse]

Short of scholar wars I am unclear how to proceed.

If you had the education some of us actually do. YOU would understand the scholars you posted hold a minority position, and there is no debate on this topic. Thus, there is no war.

There are however apologetic based people that refuse what is being taught in credible universities as common knowledge. How long you choose to stay in this category is up to you.

Mine is that the bible is in general and especially in core doctrine very reliable.

Read as scripture, and for your personal faith that is fine. If you kept it to yourself there would be no argument or debate.

But you decided to jump in uneducated in historical aspects, against what is being taught in the best educated circles.

 

[lovemuffin]

I am not debating this with the original poster. All I get is rejection of counter scholarship because my sources are to tall, too short, not an expert in some field, or despite their being scholars in that same field. However you are not that person and have not claimed those silly excuses for deny competent scholarship so I will see what you have to say. I looked over that link but I need to know what part your arguing from or for. I don't know what your saying that links concludes. So can you copy what part of it your affirming. I have given scholars in relevant fields who deny the claims made at that link and who's credentials have no superior. Short of scholar wars I am unclear how to proceed. Is your sole interest in the authorship of Mark? What is your position in this context? Mine is that the bible is in general and especially in core doctrine very reliable. My information is to support that conclusion, what is your conclusion?

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.

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.

 

[lovemuffin]

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.

 

[outhouse]

I thought the professor at times demonstrates a bit of bias in his presentation.

He does. But he tells you in the beginning it is a historical course, and not apologetic in any way.

The course is not for theology other then a historical look at it, and why the authors wrote what they did.

For what it's worth I enjoyed the course

Me too, loved it. Despite him providing one opinion, he did a good job balancing everything in the middle of modern scholars opinions.

free Yale course

That's the best part.

No one in this forum who debates Christianity should be allowed to do so, until they watch this historical course.

it does seem that from an historical or academic perspective the reliability is difficult to ascertain in general

Which does not detract from any aspect of Christianity, unless you let it detract. Most scholars I know that are theist and tow the historical lines, have a greater understanding and know the importance of the original authors intent better then most theist.

As an atheist, I have more priest and pastors as friends and we can debate for hours. I think there is a level of education one gets to, where one enjoys the freedom of others different opinions. There is a group of us here that are similar.

 

[leibowde84]

That last statement is likely false. I can't say for sure, but scholars tend to lean toward it being removed, rather than inserted. First, in quantity, there are more for the long reading. The caveat here is quantity does not necessarily trump quality (for example, the short reading probably pre-dates the long reading in quantity). So on this point, there's solid evidence for both short and long readings (overall). In other words, it's a mixed bag.

However, Jesus taught this act of praying for one's enemies, despite if they hate and persecute you (not contested). Logically, one must weigh the reasons for keeping it versus the reasons for simply omitting it. Neither it being present or not significantly alter the Christian faith or the actual teaching of Christ. However, does insertion or omission have implications beyond faith?

In all that, you'll most likely find most scholars tend to follow the position of omission, rather than inserting. Bart Ehrman, for example, in his publications, among many others. Dr. Nathan Eubanks of Duke University writes,

(source: http://www.nathaneubank.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/A-Disconcerting-Prayer.pdf)

I agree with all of this, but it does not change the fact that specific quotes cannot be considered 100% reliable, so quoting the Biblical Jesus shouldn't provide absolute proof for any argument.

Can you provide a citation for your claim regarding Bart Ehrman? I ask because he is in agreement with the assumption that the "forgive them father ..." quote, as it is stated in the Gospel, was added after the fact and probably never stated by Jesus. His book is what made me aware of it in the first place. There are many other scholars who feel the same way too, and not about just that quote.

My point is that every passage in the Bible requires interpretation and skepticism. Without these, the risk of bind faith, the most dangerous tendancy in history, is increased.

 

[leibowde84]

If we cannot know what Christ said on what basis can we claim to be following him? I have tried over and over to show we go about establishing what sayings are reliable and which are not. No force on earth seems to be able to carry out that attempt. In fact we could get beyond the first step. We can in fact with great reliability what Christ said, but if you want to retina the idea we can't then what is it you want to discuss. If we cannot establish what Christ said in at least it's most central doctrines then we should shut the bible, turn out the lights, and go to sleep. I cannot debate what he said if you if you seem to desire to retain the ability to deny them at will. If you actually care about what reliability we can have for any particular saying then we have to go through the steps by which we can have that reliability but this is what you refuse to do. There is nothing to discuss with anyone who denies the ability to know the thing to be discussed. I ma not sure what you want from me. The evidence agrees with strong confidence in knowing Christ's claims, and BTW I don't merely assume to know what Christ claimed from the bible, I claim to have also lived it. I claim also that what I have experienced and what is in the bible about being born again is the mainstream conclusion and part of most and the earliest of Christian creedal statements. I have also been a councilor for years and have built up quite a data set on what Christians believe and what they claim to have experienced. Every line of inquiry and experience leads me to the same conclusion.

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.