How We Know

[nPeace]

The heart of the Torah is "God love," and "Love your neighbor as yourself." This is the heart of almost all ethics. R. Hillel said, "What is hateful to you, don't do to others. This is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary. Now go study the commentary." And indeed, studying specific laws make you think. For example, I might read "Do not stand idly by your brother's blood," and go "Hmmmm I didn't think of that before, but yeah, standing up against a bully on behalf of someone really is part of loving my neighbor as myself." You get the idea.

Some people think you should not be a "softy", and really "be a man".
That to them, makes one a better person. So to them it's your opinion that the Bible makes you a better person, and it's just your imagination... all in the head - Not objective.

 

[nPeace]

Moving on @IndigoChild5559

2. The Bible makes errors of history and science. It is not a perfect book. For example, the Bible says that a rabbit chews its cud. This is not true. Rabbits chew on their turds.

Cud

Spoiler: Is the hare or rabbit a chewer of the cud

The Scriptural reference to the hare as a cud chewer has frequently been doubted by some critics of the Bible. (Le 11:4, 6; De 14:7) It should not be overlooked, however, that the modern, scientific classification of what constitutes chewing of the cud provides no basis for judging what the Bible says, as such classification did not exist in the time of Moses. Even in the 18th century, English poet William Cowper, who had at length observed his domestic hares, commented that they “chewed the cud all day till evening.” Linnaeus, famed naturalist of the same century, believed that rabbits chewed the cud. But it remained for others to supply more scientific data. Frenchman Morot discovered in 1882 that rabbits reingest up to 90 percent of their daily intake. Concerning the hare, Ivan T. Sanderson in a recent publication remarks: “One of the most extraordinary [habits], to our way of thinking, is their method of digestion. This is not unique to Leporids [hares, rabbits] and is now known to occur in many Rodents. When fresh green food, as opposed to desiccated [dried] winter forage, is available, the animals gobble it up voraciously and then excrete it around their home lairs in a semi-digested form. After some time this is then re-eaten, and the process may be repeated more than once. In the Common Rabbit, it appears that only the fully grown adults indulge this practice.”—Living Mammals of the World, 1955, p. 114.

Certain British scientists made close observations of the rabbits’ habits under careful controls, and the results they obtained were published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1940, Vol. 110, pp. 159-163. Briefly this is the way the hare reingests its food: If a rabbit eats a breakfast of fresh food, it passes through the stomach into the small intestine, leaving behind in the cardiac end of the stomach some 40 or 50 grams of pellets that were already present when the fresh food was eaten. From the small intestine the morning meal enters the caecum or blind end of the large intestine and there remains for a period of time. During the day the pellets descend, and in the intestines the bacterial protein in them is digested. When they reach the large intestine they bypass the material in the caecum and go on into the colon where the excess moisture is absorbed to produce the familiar dry beans or droppings that are cast away. This phase of the cycle completed, the material stored in the dead end of the caecum next enters the colon, but instead of having all the moisture absorbed it reaches the anus in a rather soft condition. It is in pellet form with each coated with a tough layer of mucus to prevent them from sticking together. Now when these pellets reach the anus, instead of being cast away, the rabbit doubles up and takes them into the mouth and stores them away in the cardiac end of the stomach until another meal has been eaten. In this way the special rhythmic cycle is completed and most of the food has passed a second time through the digestive tract.

Read on.

Claimed error debunked. Any more claims of error, or should I move to number 3?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Some people think you should not be a "softy", and really "be a man".
That to them, makes one a better person. So to them it's your opinion that the Bible makes you a better person, and it's just your imagination... all in the head - Not objective.

I don't really care whether a person is a softy, or tough. I care how they treat other people.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Moving on @IndigoChild5559


Cud

Spoiler: Is the hare or rabbit a chewer of the cud

The Scriptural reference to the hare as a cud chewer has frequently been doubted by some critics of the Bible. (Le 11:4, 6; De 14:7) It should not be overlooked, however, that the modern, scientific classification of what constitutes chewing of the cud provides no basis for judging what the Bible says, as such classification did not exist in the time of Moses. Even in the 18th century, English poet William Cowper, who had at length observed his domestic hares, commented that they “chewed the cud all day till evening.” Linnaeus, famed naturalist of the same century, believed that rabbits chewed the cud. But it remained for others to supply more scientific data. Frenchman Morot discovered in 1882 that rabbits reingest up to 90 percent of their daily intake. Concerning the hare, Ivan T. Sanderson in a recent publication remarks: “One of the most extraordinary [habits], to our way of thinking, is their method of digestion. This is not unique to Leporids [hares, rabbits] and is now known to occur in many Rodents. When fresh green food, as opposed to desiccated [dried] winter forage, is available, the animals gobble it up voraciously and then excrete it around their home lairs in a semi-digested form. After some time this is then re-eaten, and the process may be repeated more than once. In the Common Rabbit, it appears that only the fully grown adults indulge this practice.”—Living Mammals of the World, 1955, p. 114.

Certain British scientists made close observations of the rabbits’ habits under careful controls, and the results they obtained were published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1940, Vol. 110, pp. 159-163. Briefly this is the way the hare reingests its food: If a rabbit eats a breakfast of fresh food, it passes through the stomach into the small intestine, leaving behind in the cardiac end of the stomach some 40 or 50 grams of pellets that were already present when the fresh food was eaten. From the small intestine the morning meal enters the caecum or blind end of the large intestine and there remains for a period of time. During the day the pellets descend, and in the intestines the bacterial protein in them is digested. When they reach the large intestine they bypass the material in the caecum and go on into the colon where the excess moisture is absorbed to produce the familiar dry beans or droppings that are cast away. This phase of the cycle completed, the material stored in the dead end of the caecum next enters the colon, but instead of having all the moisture absorbed it reaches the anus in a rather soft condition. It is in pellet form with each coated with a tough layer of mucus to prevent them from sticking together. Now when these pellets reach the anus, instead of being cast away, the rabbit doubles up and takes them into the mouth and stores them away in the cardiac end of the stomach until another meal has been eaten. In this way the special rhythmic cycle is completed and most of the food has passed a second time through the digestive tract.

Read on.

Claimed error debunked. Any more claims of error, or should I move to number 3?

Eating your own turds is NOT the same thing as chewing cud. Sheesh. some people are just desparate.

 

[nPeace]

Eating your own turds is NOT the same thing as chewing cud. Sheesh. some people are just desparate.

So, okay tell that to those scientists, and tell them they lied about the experiment, and they made up stuff dishonestly.
We are discussing chewing the cud.
Does it matter what is being chewed - whether grass, or something else?

I suggest you ask yourself if you are being honest about this. My experience with you... I'm on the side of the research of those guys.
Speak of desperate.

This is no stalemate, indigo.
Your claim is debunked.
Moving on...

3. The Bible has some problems with ethics in that it treats slavery and misogyny as okay. However, it's overriding principle is "Love your neighbor as yourself," which corrects this problem. Therefore one can indeed improve one's virtue by studying the Bible, but it is best to simply be honest about the problems.
Someone allowing something for a time, is only problematic to one if that one thinks they are more righteous than the other person.

Question. Do you think you are more righteous than an all wise being - one far older and far more experienced?
You know the definition of self-righteous I assume.
Self-righteous - having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.

Which returns me to how you know the Bible makes you a better person. Why is that? Who wrote it... the wise, or ignorant?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, okay tell that to those scientists, and tell them they lied about the experiment, and they made up stuff dishonestly.
We are discussing chewing the cud.
Does it matter what is being chewed - whether grass, or something else?

I suggest you ask yourself if you are being honest about this. My experience with you... I'm on the side of the research of those guys.
Speak of desperate.

This is no stalemate, indigo.
Your claim is debunked.
Moving on...

Sorry, but science does NOT consider chewing on turds to be the same thing as chewing the cud. Cud is regurgitated vegetation. It is not fecal matter.

Question. Do you think you are more righteous than an all wise being - one far older and far more experienced?
You know the definition of self-righteous I assume.
Self-righteous - having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.

Which returns me to how you know the Bible makes you a better person. Why is that? Who wrote it... the wise, or ignorant?

I do not consdier myself as righteous as God. And in fact there are people I know of that I would also consider more righteous than I. But do I think I am more righteous than those who have a lifestyle of habitual sin? Yes. Proverbs 24:16 says that the just stumble seven times but rise back up. It's those who never repent who are unrighteous.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry, but science does NOT consider chewing on turds to be the same thing as chewing the cud. Cud is regurgitated vegetation. It is not fecal matter.

There yah go.
You even admit it.
They do not consider it.
The "modern, scientific classification of what constitutes chewing of the cud provides no basis for judging what the Bible says, as such classification did not exist in the time of Moses."

I do not consdier myself as righteous as God. And in fact there are people I know of that I would also consider more righteous than I. But do I think I am more righteous than those who have a lifestyle of habitual sin? Yes. Proverbs 24:16 says that the just stumble seven times but rise back up. It's those who never repent who are unrighteous.

Good.
Therefore you are in no position to tell God when to end slavery among a people he chose to deal with.

I noticed you side stepped my question, but that's okay. It's obvious, why.

 

[Sheldon]

Do you not understand that myths teach deep values? Just because a myth is not historical doesn't make it a lie. Mythology is a very powerful genre of literature.

Read the post I was responding to for the proper context.

 

[AppieB]

I can think of several things that prove the Bible harmonious.
I'll mention one. Genealogy.

If you think the genealogy being harmonious is based on personal opinion, you can point it out.

Well, that wasn't my question. My question was:
What does it mean to be "harmonious"? How can we quantify and qualify these properties in an objective way?

In your opinion. Not mine.
Please get your facts straight. Then you might be able to make truthful statements.

Ok, let's leave this one alone. Appearantly we don't understand each other. Maybe because of my fault. Let's work this out in the other thread.

I'm not aware of anyone who said history alone confirms the Bible as a whole is reliable.
So that's a problem you created, based on a strawman.

Ok, then I fail to see the point of the historical evidence. What is your argument for showing the Bible is realiable by using historical evidence?

 

[firedragon]

The Bible is True
The Bible is a collection of documents (primary source), written by some 40 individuals (some claim more than 50), over a period of 1600 years. Yet it is harmonious from the first dot of ink, to the last, having a message linked by one thread, running through from beginning to end.
Hence, the strongest evidence that the Bible is true, is it's internal evidence... which is then supported by external evidence - historical; scientific... etc.

Never mind the ridiculers, and those who lack understanding. The Bible is a product of a force greater than currently known to the scientific community. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21
Right. The examples...

Historical
One of the most prominent and historically significant Assyrian kings, Tiglath-Pileser is accepted to have written the Nimrud Tablet K.3751, also known as Kalhu Palace Summary Inscription 7, an inscription on a clay tablet dated c.733 BC. The tablet describes the first 17 years of Tiglath-Pileser III's reign, and contains the first known archeological reference to Judah.
It records that he received tribute from "Jehoahaz of Judah". Also identified in royal bullae belonging to Ahaz himself and his son Hezekiah - characters later discovered to have existed, and been associated with the events described, both in the Bible, and extra-Biblical sources.
What this means, is that we have both a primary and secondary source - The later supporting the former, confirming accuracy, and credibility.

Bear in mind, this is only one example of many.
How does Harry Potter compare?
Harry Potter is not written as a true life account, but as fiction.
In mid-1990, [Joanne K. Rowling] was on a train delayed by four hours from Manchester to London, when the characters Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger came plainly into her mind. Having no pen or paper allowed her to fully explore the characters and their story in her imagination before she reached her flat and began to write.

The Bible accounts are written as history, from actual historians and keepers of historical records.
The writers often wrote... "This is a history...", or "This is the history of..."
Take this one example ...
Luke 1:1-4 - Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.

This honesty is evident throughout Luke's record.
(Luke 3:1, 2) 1 In the 15th year of the reign of Ti·beʹri·us Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Ju·deʹa, Herod was district ruler of Galʹi·lee, Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of It·u·raeʹa and Trach·o·niʹtis, and Ly·saʹni·as was district ruler of Ab·i·leʹne, 2 in the days of chief priest Anʹnas and of Caʹia·phas, God’s declaration came to John the son of Zech·a·riʹah in the wilderness.

These detailed historical accounts are confirmed by discoveries made centuries after.
Acts 19:23-28, 33-38

Spoiler: Excerpt

23 At that time quite a disturbance arose concerning The Way. 24 For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought considerable profit to the craftsmen. 25 He gathered them and others who worked at such things and said: “Men, you well know that from this business comes our prosperity. 26 Now you see and hear how, not only in Ephesus but in nearly all the province of Asia, this Paul has persuaded a considerable crowd and turned them to another opinion, saying that the gods made by hands are not really gods. 27 Moreover, the danger exists not only that this business of ours will come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be viewed as nothing, and she who is worshipped in the whole province of Asia and the inhabited earth will be deprived of her magnificence.” 28 Hearing this and becoming full of anger, the men began crying out: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”
33 So they brought Alexander out of the crowd, the Jews shoving him forward, and Alexander motioned with his hand and wanted to make his defense to the people. 34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, they all started shouting in unison for about two hours: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 35 When the city recorder had finally quieted the crowd, he said: “Men of Ephesus, who really is there among men who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is the temple keeper of the great Artemis and of the image that fell from heaven? 36 Since these things are indisputable, you should keep calm and not act rashly. 37 For you have brought these men here who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess. 38 So if Demetrius and the craftsmen with him do have a case against someone, court days are held and there are proconsuls; let them bring charges against one another.

The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was situated in the ancient city of Ephesus, which can be found near Selçuk, a town in modern Turkey.
The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was destroyed and rebuilt at least three times, notably damaged by a flood and by fire, and was finally torched by the Goths in 268 AD and was probably not fully rebuilt after that.

These facts are as grand as the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus
The Bible writers were familiar with the facts, because they were there, and unlike Harry Potter, no fictional characters have been found mixed in with the facts.
To the contrary, those characters that have been claimed by critics to be fictional, have been discovered to be factual, to the dismay of the critic, and the credit of the authors.
City of David Top Finds #1: King Hezekiah's Royal Seal
City of David Top Finds #8: House of David Inscription

The writers of the Bible never said that they made up characters and events in order to make money.

I am telling the truth in Christ; I am not lying, as my conscience bears witness with me in holy spirit
- Paul (Romans 9:1)​

Their Candor is seen throughout. (More on that later)
Coming up too, is the Scientific evidence of the accuracy of the Bible.
Let's discuss what we have so far.
@AppieB Welcome.

Good OP. Ive been waiting to read an OP of this nature.

 

[Sheldon]

modern, scientific classification of what constitutes chewing of the cud provides no basis for judging what the Bible says, as such classification did not exist in the time of Moses.

That's hilarious, the bible is shown to have made an erroneous claim, and you claim to have debunked that assertion, because the people who wrote the bible didn't know it was an error.

You owe me an irony meter I fear.

 

[nPeace]

Well, that wasn't my question. My question was:
What does it mean to be "harmonious"? How can we quantify and qualify these properties in an objective way?

Tell me you are joking.
You don't know what harmonious mean?
I feel you are not serious, so I will ignore this. I'm serious.
From your last question. it seems you don't understand what I said. I'm sorry, but I think that's too much energy you are requiring from me. I truly am sorry. I don't have that energy.
I expect when we sign up on debate forums we take time to read and understand, and avoid certain... what should I say... Man. I'm lost for words.

Ok, let's leave this one alone. Appearantly we don't understand each other. Maybe because of my fault. Let's work this out in the other thread.

Nah. That's incorrect. I understand you. Agendas can't work when facts are laid out, you see.
To get an agenda to work, we need strawman and loaded questions, and a feeling that we can outsmart the other person.

Ok, then I fail to see the point of the historical evidence. What is your argument for showing the Bible is realiable by using historical evidence?

Sigh
Did you read the OP, or rove your eyes over it, just looking for something thing to dismiss?

The opening words of the OP...
The Bible is a collection of documents (primary source), written by some 40 individuals (some claim more than 50), over a period of 1600 years. Yet it is harmonious from the first dot of ink, to the last, having a message linked by one thread, running through from beginning to end.
Hence, the strongest evidence that the Bible is true, is it's internal evidence... which is then supported by external evidence - historical; scientific... etc.

 

[nPeace]

Good OP. Ive been waiting to read an OP of this nature.

Really!? I certainly wasn't expecting to read that in this thread... at least in firedragon's post.
Now my curiosity is peaked. What in particular do you find good about it.

 

[viole]

Bear in mind, this is only one example of many.
How does Harry Potter compare?
Harry Potter is not written as a true life account, but as fiction.
In mid-1990, [Joanne K. Rowling] was on a train delayed by four hours from Manchester to London, when the characters Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger came plainly into her mind. Having no pen or paper allowed her to fully explore the characters and their story in her imagination before she reached her flat and began to write.

Is that really so easy?

look: i met Elvis. Bigfoot and Loch Ness, too. That is not fiction, and many witnesses can confirm they are alive. By the way, I have also been abducted by UFOs. Same thing, existence of UFOs has been confirmed by many eye witnesses. And Believe me, no fiction. I am writing this as a true life account. I swear on my soul that I am not lying.

The Bible accounts are written as history, from actual historians and keepers of historical records.
The writers often wrote... "This is a history...", or "This is the history of..."
Take this one example ...
Luke 1:1-4 - Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.

And I made the above mentioned statements under the following context. While a war rages in Ukraine and while sipping some wine on a cafe in Lucerne. I can go on and on and provide amazing details of Lucerne, Loch Ness’s Scotland, the current historical happenstances, prime ministers, Brexit, you name it, to an arbitrary level of precision.

ergo, either you are forced to accept my testimony of Elvis and co. Or you are forced to accept that your entire arguments that intends to provide evidence of the veracity of the Bible, are based on one non-sequitur after the other. I am afraid.

unless you use special pleading, of course. Probably the most popular fallacy among theists.

ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

Is that really so easy?

look: i met Elvis. Bigfoot and Loch Ness, too. That is not fiction, and many witnesses can confirm they are alive. By the way, I have also been abducted by UFOs. Same thing, existence of UFOs has been confirmed by many eye witnesses. And Believe me, no fiction. I am writing this as a true life account. I swear on my soul that I am not lying.



And I made the above mentioned statements under the following context. While a war rages in Ukraine and while sipping some wine on a cafe in Lucerne. I can go on and on and provide amazing details of Lucerne, Loch Ness’s Scotland, the current historical happenstances, prime ministers, Brexit, you name it, to an arbitrary level of precision.

ergo, either you are forced to accept my testimony of Elvis and co. Or you are forced to accept that your entire arguments that intends to provide evidence of the veracity of the Bible, are based on one non-sequitur after the other. I am afraid.

unless you use special pleading, of course. Probably the most popular fallacy among theists.

ciao

- viole

I'm afraid you just erased all history with your "reasoning". Or rounded them down to myths.

 

[Sheldon]

Tell me you are joking.
You don't know what harmonious mean?
I feel you are not serious, so I will ignore this. I'm serious.
From your last question. it seems you don't understand what I said. I'm sorry, but I think that's too much energy you are requiring from me. I truly am sorry. I don't have that energy.
I expect when we sign up on debate forums we take time to read and understand, and avoid certain... what should I say... Man. I'm lost for words.


Nah. That's incorrect. I understand you. Agendas can't work when facts are laid out, you see.
To get an agenda to work, we need strawman and loaded questions, and a feeling that we can outsmart the other person.


Sigh
Did you read the OP, or rove your eyes over it, just looking for something thing to dismiss?

The opening words of the OP...
The Bible is a collection of documents (primary source), written by some 40 individuals (some claim more than 50), over a period of 1600 years. Yet it is harmonious from the first dot of ink, to the last, having a message linked by one thread, running through from beginning to end.
Hence, the strongest evidence that the Bible is true, is it's internal evidence... which is then supported by external evidence - historical; scientific... etc.

The bible isn't true, it may have some truths in it, but that is not nearly the same claim, and no amount of historically accurate texts will come close to being sufficient to qualify as objective evidence for anything supernatural, why would they?

 

[Sheldon]

I'm afraid you just erased all history with your "reasoning". Or rounded them down to myths.

Not really, since credible historians don't make supernatural claims, it's the fundamental difference here, that you and other apologists don't seem to want to address.

Or we could tackle the fact that the Exodus myth has been falsified, by decades of archaeology that were trying to validate it.

Or the fact that the creation myth in Genesis is errant nonsense, even as allegory it makes little sense, the idea it came from an omniscient deity is simply risible.

Yes some historical facts can probably be found in the bible, but then the Spiderman film depicts accurately a real city, New York, this doesn't remotely mean Spiderman is real.

 

[viole]

I'm afraid you just erased all history with your "reasoning". Or rounded them down to myths.

Well, lol. How do you know? Apparently, your requirements are (based on the OP), or the very reason you know, are

1) not a self declared work of fiction. Check
2) provides reliable historical accounts. Check

so, according to your standards, my account of Elvis and Loch Ness are as reliable as the accounts of your Yahweh, Allah, Apollo, or Whomever you believe in.

so, please give me one reason why I should not dismiss your claims as pure mythology, too. And with exactly the same justification.

ciao

- viole

 

[AppieB]

Tell me you are joking.
You don't know what harmonious mean?
I feel you are not serious, so I will ignore this. I'm serious.

I'm serious. I know what the word generally means, but I don't know what you mean by the word in this context. If it's so easy and obvious, why not give your definition?
And what is harmonious for you might not be harmonious for me. Therefore my follow up question which you totally ignored: How can we quantify and qualify these properties in an objective way?

Sigh
Did you read the OP, or rove your eyes over it, just looking for something thing to dismiss?

The opening words of the OP...
The Bible is a collection of documents (primary source), written by some 40 individuals (some claim more than 50), over a period of 1600 years. Yet it is harmonious from the first dot of ink, to the last, having a message linked by one thread, running through from beginning to end.
Hence, the strongest evidence that the Bible is true, is it's internal evidence... which is then supported by external evidence - historical; scientific... etc.

Therefore my questions about the word "harmonious" and therefore my questions about the external evidence like history.

If the internal evidence is the strongest, what is this evidence? If you point to it being "harmonious'' then please answer my questions and make an argument for why this is evidence for the reliabilty of the Bible.

 

[Sheldon]

The "modern, scientific classification of what constitutes chewing of the cud provides no basis for judging what the Bible says, as such classification did not exist in the time of Moses."

Indigo's point, is clearly that science does not agree with the biblical claim, you seem to be agreeing with him, but are still claiming some sort of win, baffling?

Yes the people who wrote the bible were likely ignorant of most scientific facts we have today, this doesn't mean they were "sort of right for the period" though.