Biblical Translation--Eden

To AM. I willrespond to this more simple post first, the other one, 270 will take some time, so dont get ahead of me. Thannk you for you admission about the NT historical facts. That is atleast a start for us. I think at the moment we will have to still disagree about it being a historical document, atleast presently, I will demonstrate why in a moment.Yes your summize about the NT as a PRIMARILIY theolological document in correct. Thanks again. If you are nothing else, you appear to be honest. But they are not theo in content, exclusively. this is where I would make the distinction. Facts are facts and specific knowledge to a subject, is knowledge. Your categorical statement, that they are not a historical document is both true and not true at the same time. Heres why. Certainly they were not given to impart just history, or math, science or any specific field of study. However, if they are facts, historical or otherwise, that would make them accurate historically, correct. As I think you have admitted. Our weakness lies in what you and I would consider a historical definiton. This is a curious statement. It almost appears to mean, that my or someone elses positon may not be correct at all and that yours is the only possible meaning. Assumption is the worst part of argumentation, because it inculcates presuppositions in to arguments that could otherwise be avoided. It is truley sad that you as a person that believes in God would advance such an argument. We seem to be moving backwards here when you try to make the supernatural a complete immposiblity immediatley, by contrasting it with what you consider as demonstratable verses undemonstratable. In other words you analogy is incorrect. It is ofcourse very possible to demonstrate the existence of God beyond any reasoable doubt, by the simple use of an axiom. I argued this point last year on another point, in an effort to show why Creationism should be taught in schools. Absolute truth may not be possible, but the mere fact that that there are only two possibiltes for the existence of all things, is an axiom and it lists an eternal God as one of the only two. This is an anxiom,that has and will not change. The science of Logic, specifically the aspect of dedutive reason, establishes this beyond any reasooable doubt. In other words you can KNOW things without having absolute proof. Unless we are going to change the meaning of the word Science to fit only one group of peoples views. What is this long winded points point.If we redifine history or add to it meanings, or exclude it as history because it might speak of the supernatural, then we will never see them as a reliable source of historical information. Look at your choice of words., "the historian, if he is to be believed", etc. Immediate and absolute exclusion of the supernatural. Further, "focuses on natural world activites that occured in the past". Is it not possible to do both at the same time. What if the supernatural event was a real world event and a NATURAL intervention of the God who created it.More in a minuteD Bertot

I UNDERSTAND what you are saying here. But he statements you are making are convaluted to the fact, that historical accuracy is real, regardless of its source. Aside from the fact that you appear to be tying to exclude the supernatural and implying that it cannot be possible , its a curious attempt. In other words what difference does it make what you CALL or DESIGNATE them. Jesus is a cooroborated historical fact, yet, watch your verbage., "Suggest" and "may well have been". Even the cooboration pricilple which you subscribe to appears not to be good enough.
Yes we do have facual, indisputable evidence, IF we are willing to be objective and not merely continously subjective, "so that they are without excuse", for not believing (acknowledging} Romans 1:20We are making progress nontheless. Thanks again. More in the morning.D Bertot

Bertot,If one were to counter that Romans 1:20 is really about the existence of God as the Creator being perceived by the created universe rather than, say, the resurrection of Jesus, how would you respond?No, I am not a turncoat. Nor has Autumnman convinced me that living and present Jesus is not a "reality" any more than a million people born blind could convince twenty people who somehow had their sight restored, that the color red is not a "reality".But for the sake of fairness to an interesting discussion. Wouldn't Romans 1:20 relate to perceiving without excuse that there is a Creator God rather than a resurrected Lord ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It is curious to me that you use this example. I would expect you to use something like, the appearance of angels to shepherds singing about the birth of a Savior.Nevermind though this is your example of shall we say mere sub-historical "Sacred Text" or at least shaky "history" not passing the test of true history.Let me ask you about the Holocost in World War II. We are noticing that in the days when many witnesses to this event were alive not many people tried to deny that it took place. But as that generation of eyewitnesses slowly passes away you have successive generations who were not eyewitnesses.With this you have more people claiming that the Hitler's slaughtering of six million some Jews did not occur. They dispute that this is history. They say it is not probable. They say that this is some kind of sacred propoganda of the Jews.Does the Holocaust now become questionable propoganda not robust enough to stand the test of real history?I believe it, not because I was there to count six million bodies. However I saw footage of bull dozers plowing through hills of human corpses like what happens at the city dump. So I believe that something horrible occured. And I have heard Ellie Wiesel speak of it.But give us another 50 years will this event also be logged away in your definition as questionable history more appropriately called sacred propoganda?What about the growing tendency for some skeptical people questioning the probability of the slaughtering of six million people in concentration camps? Might future generations dismiss that as you feel to dismiss Herod's slaughter of the Jewish boys two years old and under?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jaywill writes Yes your are correct about the expositonof Romans 1:20 but I believe his argument and implication is that because we cannot demosnstrate to any reasonble degree the exitence of God and that the scriptures are said to be from God, that would somehow cast doubt and for any real intents and purposes invalidate them as reliable, not being strickly from a natural source and composed by human eyewitnesses. Do you see what I am saying and what I believe he is implying. Am I correct AM? Please clarify if I am Not on track.D BertotD Bertot

Thanks again for you return to this discussion you insights as AM said are nothing less than impressive, especially when you get on a roll. Thanks again.D Bertot

AM writes I see what you are saying here but what relevance does it have to the topic as to wheather one could view the scriptures as a rliable source to believe in the supernatural, other than to point out an OBVIOUS difference. Do you se what I am saying. Good point but is it relevent. If we call one a history book, the other theological,how does it change the verifiability question. Maybe I am not seeing your point. The first part of this paragraph is exacally correct and is what I am saying, but your imposition of God into the mix seems to a little muddled, I am not seeing the relevevance other than, your exact discription or designation of them as this or that. Whats the point? Again, I see your point, and appreciate your addmission, but the argument is a little muddled, due to the the fact that one can demonstrate that beyond any reasonable doubt. It is only when we start redefining terms such as science that we appear not able to. The definiton of Science is "To know, or have knowledge of", I can KNOW and demostrate this. again unless we are going to acknowledge or assert there is no way of knowing anything, to get around this point. 'Belief' is knowledge as well asthings that are not as identifiable like an obvious ascertainable fact, like the existence of God. You are making the definiton of Belief much to narrow and that one cannot KNOW that God exists. Your approach is simply the old SUBJECTIVE methodology.In the same way, if we redefine the word history to suit our purposes, the same result will follow. My contention of the Gospels and Acts would fall well within the definiton of History. Yes there are certain things in them that require a bit of faith, but they are supported by the BEST possible evidence, that is above reproach. Do you see what I am saying. We obtain our knowledge of God from a simple observation of things in existence using our Free Will. If one had no knowledge of the scriptures the same result would follow. Yes the scriptures help us define who and what God is. Cooroborating evidence is of greatimportance. But it is not the defining factor of reliable evidences or sources. Agin, would Josephus and Philo be unreliable due to the fact that may of thier events are not cooborated? Your addmission admit you are somewhat an objective person, and I thank you for that owever, such a satatment as this implies the immediate impossibility of providence, given the RELIABILITY of the source. See what I am saying?thanksD Bertot

AM writes I understand what you are saying in post 270 ,but what are your implications and conclusions, you didnt seem to form an argument from it. In other words what is your argument and direct application to the topic other than this reference above. See my point. I think I know what you are saying but I need you to state it.D Bertot

bertot:You have flooded me with a great deal of input. My mind is reeling.Would you have me answer to each of your specific posts anew or would you rather I cut and paste what I wrote in post #269.Here is a short responce:From my experience historical documents do not express a concern regarding humanity's salvation from sin/death or sin and death.A supernatual event is not regarded as a natural event.Anything may well be possible, but, NOT EVERYTHING IS PROBABLE.There were no supernatural events that I know of historically associated with the Germans killing millions of people. Furthermore, there are billions of corroborating historical documents confirming that the Holocaust of World War II actually occured. If all those documents were somehow destroyed, yes, humanity would indeed forget that the WW2 Holocaust had in fact happened.Regarding the English term "historical" I believe the English Dictionary definition would suffice. The English term "supernatural" is defined:

quote:

---

1. of pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natual laws or phenomena; abnormal. 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or atributed to God or a deity. [3-6 are much of the same]. 7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.

---

If a text describes God influencing earthly affairs in a way that is unexplainable by natual law or phenomena, and is therefore unexplainable, what is written in that text must in fact be "believed." Now, let's add the Dictionary definition of "historical."

quote:

---

having once existed or lived in the real [a.k.a. natural] world ... distinguished from religious belief.

---

I will wait for your reply to this post before I continue.All the best,
Ger

Well with Herod and the children there was only a prophecy, a prediction.I don't think the surroundings of Herod's persecution of male boys three and under was that much more supernatural than Hitler's persecution of the Jewish nation which he hated.Of itself the Messianic hope of a "born king" was repulsive to Herod as a "chosen people" was to Hitler. One was a threat to Herod's kingship. The other was a threat to Germany's concept of an Arian super race. I am not sure that the supernatural played that much a greater part in one case as over the other.Aside from that, let me ask you. If there is a God is that God the God of religion or the God of reality?Think of gravity. If gravity is really true then it is not just true in the science lab. It is true everywhere. Am I right?Similarly, if there is indeed God that is not the religious God who is only in buildings with stain glass windows and steeples. That would be the God of reality everywhere. Do you see what I mean?If there is God that God is not the God of religion but the God of reality.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jaywill, I will give you a fuller explanation of my answer to your question when I get off of work. I would like to know what you think of the response. You really should reply to more of his responses, I am sure you would be able to present things I am missing. Also, I know you are busy on other posts.Thanks D Bertot

To AM, thanks for your patience with my responses. I will get baack to you as soon as possible. I know you are just all a buzz waiting.D Bertot

jaywill:AM wrote

quote:

---

There were no supernatural events that I know of historically associated with the Germans killing millions of people. Furthermore, there are billions of corroborating historical documents confirming that the Holocaust of World War II actually occurred. If all those documents were somehow destroyed, yes, humanity would indeed forget that the WW2 Holocaust had in fact happened.

---

I think you have greatly misunderstood what I was saying. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about the terrible things human beings do to one another. There is nothing supernatural about anything that can be explained by natural law or phenomena. The act of having all the children who are two years old and younger killed in Bethlehem and the coasts thereof would be an act of human brutality and/or madness, but not regarded as a “supernatural” event. Hitler exterminating millions of Jews and others is regarded as an act of human brutality and/or madness, but it is not and was not regarded as a “supernatural” event. Therefore, what is stated in Matthew 2:16 does not conform to the definition of a “supernatural” event. However, the event is only described in Matthew 2:16 and is therefore regarded as an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and unreliable account of an event that may have occurred two thousand years ago. “The supernatural played” no part in either. Please read above.Within the theological Holy Scriptures of the NT there are in fact references to corroborated, substantiated, and therefore reliable historical events. However, because the theological Holy Scriptures of the NT are primarily Sacred Texts describing God’s direct and supernatural influence on earthly human affairs, according to the English definitions of “supernatural” and “historical”, the NT cannot be defined or regarded as a historical text. That is just how the English Language happens to work. You are mixing your terms, but I think I know what you mean. We humans learn of the supreme God through whatever religion we happen to be born into. However, the supreme God, if indeed there is such a God {and I believe there is} is the supreme God of all reality. Let me define “reality”:

quote:

---

reality: the state or quality of being real. real: existing or occurring as fact; being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary

---

There is no such actual thing as “supernatural” reality. The English language does not work that way. The supreme God of reality would be the “Supreme Natural God” of the cosmos and of earth. The “Supreme Natural God” would in fact be the God of all reality. If that “Supreme Natural God” happened to influence the affairs of earth and humans that particular God would not do so in a “supernatural” way. Destroying the natural order that He had put into play would cause only confusion. Furthermore, an individual who was bestowed supernatural powers would be perceived by some as exhibiting the powers of the Devil particularly if that person did not say or do what those superstitious persons thought he should. Right. Gravity is a naturally occurring force on earth and in the cosmos. Gravity is an actual thing that has an objective existence. I see what you mean. And .... The analogy can effectively be used that “The Supreme Natural God” is like “gravity”, but is not “gravity.” “The Supreme Natural God” is He who created “gravity.”All the best,
Ger

Jaywill let me give you a fuller explanation of your question to me and at the same time respond to some of the things Autumnman has said. Maybe I can indirectly address some of the the things in his last post to me as well.Jaywill writes I think (know) that the evidence for the ressurection is the same sort of evidence that characterises the T.E.O God issue. Let me explain.AMs mistake throughout this discussion is that he is EQIVOCATING terms. He is trying to make the words uncooborated and unreliaable the samething. They have two different meanings totally. In other words, even the example in Matt 2 is not applicable as unreliable, because uncoorobetated does not imply unreliable. The lack of another resource as he has said himself does not imply, as he has said himself that the event did not happen. His words though are that if it is uncooroborated, it is therefore unreliable. This is eqivocation of terms and is simply not true.the usual attempt by Humanists here,is to imply that we cannot rely on that author or his book (Matt) because he is relaying faulty information, therefore he is probably unreliable.. Quite the opposite is true though. If there were evidence to suggest that Matt or one of the Gospels was TRULY UNRELIABLE, he or they would have already presented that information. Not being able to so, you are manuvered from the obvious fact of reliability, to an obscure point about cooboration or something else. The example in Matt has to be demonstrated as false, not simlpy unsubstantiated or uncooborated.An example of UNRELIABLE would be if there were other information (sources) that contradicted Matt, or the writers credibility were in question, or there was physical evidence today that could be brought up to contradict Matt. These are the type of things that the skeptic needs to classify the NT as unreliable. It is therefore my contention that the Gospels and other NT books are above reproach in the category of leveling the type of evidence that would be needed to deem them as unreliable. There simply has to be much much more than saying "uncooroberated" or complaining about miracles. Do you and AM see the principle here.Initially from the very outset, the veracity of the arthor, its contents and supporting physical evidence must be removed and shown as unreliable, before you even begin to discuss cooboration or miracles. This simply cannot be done to any degree of accuracy. Matt 2 may be uncooberated but is certainly not unreliable from the source it comes out of. Now truth should be identifiable and real. What is more real (evidental, never having direct evidence brought against it)and identifiable than the NT documents. having this kind of credibilty puts on a par with the obvious evidence that supports the existence of God. They (evidences in both categories)are both real, indentifiable and therefore believable and KNOWABLE, beyond any reasonable doubt.Think about it this way as well. If our soul salvation is at stake, depending on our acceptance of him based only on the scriptures and history, why would he leave us with UNRELIABLE, UNVERIFIABLE information to basethat on. The evidence as we are discussing has to be the same as that which supports his existence. Do you agree.
Romans 1:16-17, "for therein is the righteouness of God revealed from faith unto faith". ITim 3;16-17, "perfect, thoughourly furnished unto every good work"D Bertot

AM writes AM were you drinking while you were writing this? Ha, ha. Just kidding. Ill try to get to your post in the morning.D Bertot