Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 286 of 305 (204834)
05-04-2005 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by mark24
05-03-2005 4:41 AM


Re: Prove it
Once again, the bible CANNOT verify itself.
perhaps this is going to found dumb, but why not?
we can tell what books were written with knowledge of other books. so when kings and chronicles say the same thing, no it's not verifaction. neither is it when luke and mark say the same thing. but at the end of the day, the bible is a collection of books, not just one. and the books in it are collections too. and the evidence is that they were NOT rectified against each other in the editorial and redactory process. so the fact that they agree AT ALL is sometimes suprising.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by mark24, posted 05-03-2005 4:41 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by mark24, posted 05-04-2005 3:37 AM arachnophilia has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 287 of 305 (204836)
05-04-2005 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by arachnophilia
05-04-2005 1:43 AM


Re: My Summary
Not too bright there. I meant that YOU, personally, can't, and others of your general mental persuasion, not that ONE can't. I certainly can. I consider it easy to tell, for anybody with the basic smarts, feeling for character, etc.
quote:
not to sound crass, but you can't seem to identify the differences between history and traditions within the bible itself let alone in relation to anything else as already evidenced in this thread.
We have a big disagreement here of course, since I consider your attacks on the Bible to be an example of the same problem I attribute to Mark24, an inability to judge authenticity, and a reliance on inappropriate tools for the job of judging the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by arachnophilia, posted 05-04-2005 1:43 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by arachnophilia, posted 05-04-2005 3:52 AM Faith has replied
 Message 290 by mark24, posted 05-04-2005 4:00 AM Faith has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 288 of 305 (204856)
05-04-2005 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by arachnophilia
05-04-2005 1:51 AM


Re: Prove it
Arachnophopbia,
I was speaking specifically about Moses & the Red Sea parting, rather than the entire bible. We can only conclude that Moses saw the Red Sea part if we accept that Moses saw the Red Sea part. There is no other way of verifying the text. We are forced to accept it on faith.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by arachnophilia, posted 05-04-2005 1:51 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by arachnophilia, posted 05-04-2005 4:01 AM mark24 has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 289 of 305 (204858)
05-04-2005 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Faith
05-04-2005 2:07 AM


Re: My Summary
yeah, but this is a rather simple question of the ability to identify what is and what is not history, and what is and what is not witness testimony.
you claim the bible is authentic. and i agree, it's absolutely authentic for what it is, for the most part. we just disagree on what it is. i think it's what it appears to be: a book collected by hebrew people between the years of about 900bc to 200bc, and from 60 to 100ad by a different group of people, both regarding their traditions, partices, beliefs, and sometimes history.
i'm not sure what you seem to think it is. but it is greivous error to think that what we have on our bed-side tables is an accurate compliation of stories by the people who were there.
this is not an inability to judge authenticity on my part. i'm very familiar with the history, context, and structure of the collection. but you seem to be attributing some kind of false authenticity to it, making it more than it is. so that even (as with the other debate) mistranslations and changed meanings of words are divinely guided so that the things that are so obviously wrong somehow become right.
what sort of inappropriate tools am i using, exactly? reading comprehension and logic? the bible itself? i've only once here held it up to archaeology, in a case that proved a point that should have been obvious from reading the text alone: that kings is biased in favor of judah. you never answered that argument, btw, which rather conclusive showed that bits unfavourable to the bias were left out. but mostly, i'm just looking at what the text itself says. and if the bible is an inappropriate tool for judging the bible... well, i don't know where to begin.
so let's start this whole moses bit over again. tell me, what specifically makes the moses account more of a factual, eyewitness testimony, than say -- goldilocks and the three bears? no, seriously. millions of people can pretty accurately recite both stories. both are told as factual accounts, from non-present third person narration. both are refered to about the same way. amazing stuff happens in both (talking bears that live in houses). both are part of a cultural mythology, and the facts would seem to indicate that both stories are somewhat fictional.
now, i like to believe that moses was a real person, but that goldilocks was not. but, logically, what reason do i have to believe in either?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 05-04-2005 2:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 05-04-2005 11:47 AM arachnophilia has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 290 of 305 (204860)
05-04-2005 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Faith
05-04-2005 2:07 AM


Re: My Summary
Faith,
I attribute to Mark24, an inability to judge authenticity, and a reliance on inappropriate tools for the job of judging the Bible.
So how do I tell "real history" with a genuine eyewitness, from a myth purporting itself to be fact with a fictional eyewitness?
What innappropriate tools of the job am I using, exactly, to judge the authenticity of the Moses account of the Red Sea parting?

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 05-04-2005 2:07 AM Faith has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 291 of 305 (204861)
05-04-2005 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by mark24
05-04-2005 3:37 AM


Re: Prove it
I was speaking specifically about Moses & the Red Sea parting, rather than the entire bible. We can only conclude that Moses saw the Red Sea part if we accept that Moses saw the Red Sea part. There is no other way of verifying the text. We are forced to accept it on faith.
well, it's recorded as moses being part of the cause. it would be a little more convincing as wtiness testimony if perhaps, i dunno, moses had chosen to write the story himself in first person.
however, in this instance, you are correct. after something like this becomes part of the cultural mythology, it's absolutely impossible for anything that refers to the cultural mythology to be considered verification of the factuality.
for instance, if i were to write that "the last song the string quartet played on the titanic as it sunk was 'nearer my god to thee,'" i'm not verifying that fact. i'm repeating the cultural mythology. maybe at one point i even watched the movie "titanic" or any number of other titanic movies that feature this commonly told myth. did it happen that way?
*shrugs* nobody really knows, apparently. and i'm pretty sure there are still some eyewitnesses alive too.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-04-2005 04:01 AM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by mark24, posted 05-04-2005 3:37 AM mark24 has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 292 of 305 (204944)
05-04-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by PaulK
05-03-2005 4:09 AM


Re: Prove it
Given a document of unclear age or provenance giving descriptions of events that cannot be matched to other knowledge how can we take it as repesenting "witness testimony" when it could easily have been written centuries after the real events, if it was indeed based more than loosely on any actual events ?
The fact that so many have testified to the authenticity of this document for 3500 years, starting with those who were THERE at the TIME, means NOTHING to you, does it? You won't find anything like that for any other document in existence but you think your ponderings at such a great distance trump everything that came before, and this despite the fact that such ponderings don't have a great record of surviving archaeological discoveries that so often validate the Bible instead. The INTELLIGENT thing to do would be to distrust your PRESENT historical knowledge or put it on hold because of this massive testimony to the contrary, rather than putting such paltry current investigations on such a high pedestal.
This message has been edited by Faith, 05-04-2005 11:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2005 4:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2005 11:41 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 293 of 305 (204946)
05-04-2005 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by mark24
05-03-2005 4:41 AM


Re: Prove it
Just a reminder. Faith is not being held to the forum guidelines as long as she only posts in one thread at a time, which for now is this one. Please do not run afoul of the guidelines by responding in kind. --Admin
You can't tell real history from fiction, a genuine witness report from a hoax.
quote:
Given that you think the bible is a historical account, it would be difficult to catch you out in such a colossal contradiction.
Just found this other record of your inability to read. YOU can't tell real history from fiction OR read a post apparently. Some of us CAN read and CAN tell real history from fiction etc. I hope you learn how, some day. Meanwhile it would behoove you to stop accusing people of hypocrisy based on your own stupidity.
This message has been edited by Admin, 05-04-2005 12:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by mark24, posted 05-03-2005 4:41 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by mark24, posted 05-04-2005 12:38 PM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 294 of 305 (204947)
05-04-2005 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Faith
05-04-2005 11:32 AM


Re: Prove it
quote:
The fact that so many have testified to the authenticity of this document for 3500 years, starting with those who were THERE at the TIME, means NOTHING to you, does it?
I do not accept your fabrications as fact. The real fact is that you have no evidence to indicate that Exodus even existed 3500 years ago, nor do you have any testimony which can be reliably identified as coming from anyone who was there at the time.
Let me also add that it would not be "INTELLIGENT" to set aside the evidence in favour of unquestioningly accepting your assertions. And that is true regardless of how little evidence we have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 05-04-2005 11:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 05-04-2005 11:54 AM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 295 of 305 (204948)
05-04-2005 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by arachnophilia
05-04-2005 3:52 AM


Goldilocks
i'm not sure what you seem to think it is. but it is greivous error to think that what we have on our bed-side tables is an accurate compliation of stories by the people who were there.
Well, but that's how I read it, and that's how it is taken by all the people I trust and admire, and that's how it has been taken throughout history. You've simply made it impossible to recognize the truth with all that studying you do about it.
What is it that makes it possible to distinguish the history of Moses from Goldilocks? Basic intelligence would go a long way. Common sense. The ability to read. Or maybe it's just one of those things where the ordinary human mind is SO fallen it can't cope with such obvious stuff, in which case we must rely on God's help. If you can't recognize the stuff of reality when you read it, God help you indeed.
Again, C.S. Lewis did a great job of discussing how the Bible is so far from anything like myth it takes a special kind of blindness to have such an idea.
This message has been edited by Faith, 05-04-2005 11:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by arachnophilia, posted 05-04-2005 3:52 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by arachnophilia, posted 05-04-2005 3:34 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 296 of 305 (204949)
05-04-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by PaulK
05-04-2005 11:41 AM


Re: Prove it
I do not accept your fabrications as fact.
Nor I yours. We're even then.
The real fact is that you have no evidence to indicate that Exodus even existed 3500 years ago, nor do you have any testimony which can be reliably identified as coming from anyone who was there at the time.
Sure I do. Moses himself, Joshua too. Again, testified to by the ages.
Let me also add that it would not be "INTELLIGENT" to set aside the evidence in favour of unquestioningly accepting your assertions. And that is true regardless of how little evidence we have.
3500 years of serious Biblical study by great men is not "my assertions." Putting your tentative stuff at 3500 years remove up against that is outrageous nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2005 11:41 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2005 12:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 05-04-2005 12:36 PM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 297 of 305 (204951)
05-04-2005 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Faith
05-04-2005 11:54 AM


Re: Prove it
No, we're not even. I have presented evidence - you simply demand that I accept your unfounded opinions.
quote:
3500 years of serious Biblical study by great men is not "my assertions."
Since you don't HAVE "3500 years of serious Biblical study by great men" I can hardly be going against it, can I ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 05-04-2005 11:54 AM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 298 of 305 (204957)
05-04-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Faith
05-04-2005 11:54 AM


Re: Prove it
Faith writes:
The real fact is that you have no evidence to indicate that Exodus even existed 3500 years ago, nor do you have any testimony which can be reliably identified as coming from anyone who was there at the time.
Sure I do. Moses himself, Joshua too. Again, testified to by the ages.
We've gone over this, Faith. You're repeating your original argument and ignoring the objections. Moses saw Joshua who saw Aaron who saw Jethro who saw Hur who saw Moses who saw Zipporah and they all saw each other. And in Gone with the Wind Scarlett saw Rhett who saw Melanie who saw Ashley and they all saw each other. What is there about the story of Moses that ties it to the real world?
That many people accept and have accepted the story of Moses as true is not evidence. Many people have believed many things over the course of history, and this includes the beliefs of religions other than Christianity. Your standards bear no resemblance to those of real history.
The criteria you have described, that many people of faith whom you trust have accepted the story as true, is a religious argument, not a historical one. No scholar of history would ever advance such arguments in support of a historical interpretation.
Your problem is that you think your religious beliefs have objective support, and what you have demonstrated over and over again by your own arguments is that they do not. Despite all your bluster about intellectualism, you accept the Biblical stories because of your faith in the truth of the Bible and also of your faith in the many people who have accepted the truth of the Bible over the centuries. And there's nothing wrong with this belief. But don't come into this site, which is dedicated to examining all claims as analytically and objectively as possible, demanding that we accept your arguments based upon your faith. Your arguments must stand or fall upon their merits, not upon your faith.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 05-04-2005 11:54 AM Faith has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 299 of 305 (204958)
05-04-2005 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Faith
05-04-2005 11:37 AM


Re: Prove it
Faith,
Meanwhile it would behoove you to stop accusing people of hypocrisy based on your own stupidity.
My apologies, I misread your post.
Some of us CAN read and CAN tell real history from fiction
So I will ask you for the second time:
mark writes:
So how do I tell "real history" with a genuine eyewitness, from a myth purporting itself to be fact with a fictional eyewitness?
What innappropriate tools of the job am I using, exactly, to judge the authenticity of the Moses account of the Red Sea parting?
It is, after all what this thread is about.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 05-04-2005 11:37 AM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 300 of 305 (204972)
05-04-2005 1:27 PM


Faith Discussions
Many people have found discussions with Faith difficult. I think if we all better understand Faith's position that it will make discussions go much more smoothly. In this message I summarize Faith's position so that we may better understand where she is coming from.
I'm going to use a visual aid in this discussion that I'll refer to as Figure 1:
Figure 1. You're an Idiot!
  1. Opinions. Faith has lots of opinions. So many, in fact, that it would take the staff of 10 Libraries of Congress just to keep track of all of them. So many that it will make your head spin just figuring out which one's don't contradict each other. Don't like a Faith opinion? Well, you're an idiot, see figure 1.
  2. Assumptions. Faith has lots of assumptions. Faith has put lots of thought into her assumptions, and she likes them. Keep you cotton-picking hands off her assumptions. Don't touch. Consider them mandatory. "Mandatory assumptions" has a nice ring to it. Don't agree with a Faith assumption? See figure 1.
  3. Faith's tolerance. Faith is very tolerant. If you think you're a victim of Faith's tolerance then you are mistaken. Don't even think of complaining, you'll just get more "tolerance". Faith likes how tolerant she is just fine. Don't like how tolerant Faith is of your views? Too bad, see figure 1.
  4. Faith's views of geology. Faith has lots of new ideas about geology. There were floods and sediments and dinosaurs with birds on their noses and land animals leaving tracks while under water. Think her ideas are silly? Well, then, you're just wasting your time, see figure 1.
  5. Faith's views on the Bible. The Bible is absolutely true. Don't worry your little head questioning this truth. Why give yourself an ulcer? Faith is absolutely right in all things and never makes a mistake, and if you think otherwise, see figure 1.
With apologies to See Figure 1...
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 05-04-2005 01:29 PM

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024