Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts

And ANOTHER omniscient one is heard from. I don't think there's enough room in the universe for so many all-knowing gods.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-27-2005 10:35 PM

No, that's what a person who doesn't want to make the effort to think it through concludes, not a rational person.

The problem is that the word is taken in a different sense than I mean it and that historical Bible-believers mean it, but that would take quite a bit of explanation. I think you are pursuing a false dichotomy here but I'm having trouble pinning it down. Why is this an either/or? In that last post I simply focused on internal evidence for the authenticity of the Sermon on the Mount, saying my faith in all of it is what makes it all work together, but I don't see this as a different KIND of authentication exactly unless I'm just not getting something.When I "got" Original Sin it was like a flash of illumination -- a biggie because it explains so much of life. But there have been many experiences of that same kind but smaller, more over the first few years of learning, but my pastor will still frequently point out something in a sermon that I never knew before that explains things in a completely new way. All I was doing in that last post was pointing out how the Bible authenticates itself on the basis of all its other parts that have authenticated themselves already, and the Sermon on the Mount doesn't need external support.Maybe I have completely lost track of what you were saying but I think that's what my answer was.In any case faith and intellect are not in opposition to my mind and I guess this could be a topic in itself.

---

"...faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology."
---Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 1926, p.19

That is exactly why I suppose Moses may very well have had divine help. However, the line to Abraham was the "righteous" line, back to Shem, back to Seth, and while many other human lines may have succumbed to the distorting factors of the telephone or rumor game, we might suppose that this line, that maintained more of a connection with the true God, did a better job of it.Listen, that is just too much of a post to expect one human being to deal with. Do you suppose you could boil it down to something manageable, like maybe ONE thought? In any case I have to mull over Percy's post before I get to yours.

quote:

---

If at some point you feel you can clarify how you're defining faith and intellect in the context of interpreting the validity of eyewitness accounts we can come back to this point. For now I'll try to continue the discussion by addressing a couple of your comments from your Message 139. I didn't originally reply to it because it seemed to more be drawing a contrast between Bible and Koran than addressing the topic, but since the message it replied to attempted to address the criteria you enumerated in your Message 111 I can use it as an on-topic launching point.

---

However, my Message 139 disagreed with your conclusions in your Message 134. I said I would not myself make those generalizations. I'm not attempting to establish a criterion for all standards of authenticity. There are many teachings in many religions that need no historical context to make their point because they are simply contemplating univeral wisdom, and the teachings may be a very valid understanding of spiritual and moral realities without having anything to do with a historical context.

The reason I keep contrasting the Bible to the Koran is that that's how General Krull set up this topic. He quoted the Koran. That has determined the direction of this thread from the beginning for better or worse and one might say mostly worse. Checkmate now wants to debate the entire Bible vs. the Koran as a result, but the only point was to contrast the two on the point of the Bible's being a historical narrative that makes use of witness testimony for its validation. The Koran is not a historical narrative, which Checkmate has himself stated plainly is the case.The Bible is in fact unique among the religions because it deals with actual history and the history is intrinsic to the message, not mere backdrop -- it spells out God's actions in human history, from which we are to draw inferences for our own lives.I guess if somebody wants to defend the Mahabharata as historical and maybe the Epic of Gilgamesh, that's up to them -- my impression is that they are not understood to be history in the sense the Bible is though they may contain some historical value -- that would have to be presented by someone else as I don't know enough about it. The Book of Mormon is presented as a historical account like the Bible, however, but otherwise, in general, again, other religions are mostly teachings, and make no use of historical events. Checkmate has said that that's what the Koran is as well.That's all just to deal with the first part of your post. I have the rest of it saved to think about later.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-29-2005 03:14 AM

No you can't, not without disconnecting your mind. There is every reason to think it of Moses but not of anything else.

You and others here are demanding this idea of "direct testimony." The fact that it is written down IS testimony. It has not been sworn in a court or signed and notarized but it IS testimony. It is presented as fact. what you find inconsistent and contradictory is just you. Millions don't. Believers don't. As we read it the whole is built from all these parts and it is extremely consistent. Stylistic differences are moot. It doesn't matter. There may have been different writers of different parts, but it is all Moses' story and all attributed to his overseeing authorship. You are straining at a gnat as so many these days do. Once again, you have to simply read it believing it. When you do, it hangs together. Then I ignore it. Blissfully. What I get from taking it as written is indescribable spiritual wealth. Sorry you keep turning this gold into lead but that's the way it goes. Yup, you don't see any reason for any of it. That's your problem with seeing, it's not the problem with the text at all. But this you will never see. I am truly sorry.

Pecos George is right. I've been thinking about it. I should not continue to post here, at this site at all. It has long since reached the point of diminishing returns for any purposes of my own.Thank you all for a very interesting experience, and for putting up with me. Sorry to be leaving any unfinished business.

I realized I shouldn't leave without answering your last post at least: Again, the Bible is, at least in its main structure, a historical account. Your word "account" as a matter of fact implies a historical report, but I believe there are many meanings of "authentic" that do not involve historicity. So, again, no, I do not accept this as a statement of any general point I was making. Again, for other religious documents you need other criteria of authenticity.Again, the topic originated with my pointing out that the kind of evidence the Bible has is witness evidence, because it is a historical report. Again, this is not a generalization I made. I merely pointed out that what historical passages do appear in the Koran are not part of an overall historical framework as the Bible is, and therefore they have a different purpose altogether and a different standard of judgment may apply. The point was the Koran is not a historical work, the Bible is. This is also true, I believe, of the Bible in relation to any other religious text. I specifically disagreed with this also. The Bible's being older than the Koran was the specific context, and in that context the point is that passages that are similar between the two certainly originated with the Bible and not the Koran. There are only two other religions that reproduce Biblical passages, the Koran and the Book of Mormon. Both are considerably more recent than the Bible. And once again you have generalized where I did not. I was describing the purpose of the Biblical history.I made no such generalizations as you list. They were specific to the context as I have just explained for the second time above. That is correct. The point was to show Biblical uniqueness. And again, *I* don't agree with point 3 so I don't know what your agreeing with it means. In the absence of any memory of any religion whatever, it is very hard to guess as there would be nothing to compare it with. But here's a thought: Perhaps I would recognize it as the message from God that it is, and just as King Josiah read the Book of the Law after a long period of its having been lost to the people, I'd say that humanity has gone far from this God and needs to repent and return to Him.If we did have some remnants of the many other religions, I think I would be very impressed at how the Bible is such a complete history of events over such a long period of time, some 1500 years, realizing there is nothing else like it. I'd be curious about the fact that it presents a Creator God who made this whole galaxy and the universe itself, as a personality who says he made human beings in his own image and relates to them in actual words and deeds, a God who makes covenants with people for their benefit, like a good king, who makes promises for following his laws and clear warnings of punishments for not obeying them, and who most amazingly has promised a way to save His disobedient subjects from their own disobedience.In any case I think I would recognize it as something very precious, and most likely relevant to our own time as well. But that's just me.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-01-2005 02:40 PM

Last word from me: Absolutely not. As I have said before, where you are now is roughly where I was for most of my life. You could not have read it before as I do now or you would have had a personal relationship with the Living God as I do, and that you could not have given up to pursue such a killing thing as you are doing now. You are trafficking in conjecture and cynicism, not the truth.

Doesn't matter what I write, I'm never making any "progress" toward some goal or other as conceived by largely unspoken EvC forum standards. I think I've answered MANY things, oh many many many all over this website, in keeping with the topic and actually to near-definitiveness in many cases, but the only response I ever get is "wrong wrong wrong." Sorry but I know I'm right about a lot of it, and it's very wearying to take the endless commands to jump through hoops giving proof only to hear it wasn't good enough by some weird standard. Nothing I say will ever suffice here or even be minimally acceptable. You all raise one nitpicking irrelevant objection after another -- not you so much on the nitpicking part but the relentless objections certainly. Since that's your idea of debate, of dealing with a topic, even of simple conversation, I just have to give up.So now I haven't met this hidden requirement of proving the intellectual basis for my faith to your satisfaction? Yes I'm sure there is more I could say, but I've said a great deal on the topic as is and there's just no point. I don't owe you that. What do you want from me anyway? It's hard to leave because I'm interested in the issues under discussion here, but I HAVE to leave because I hate the WAY it is discussed here. It might be interesting to debate some of you on MY turf. I wonder how YOU would survive.But PecosGeorge made me aware of the spiritual down side of continuing here as well.So, it's been interesting. Carry on without me.PS, my offtopic response to Arachnophilia was to his offtopic remark to me in the process of leaving.

The problem is with those who refuse to acknowledge his existence which has been attested to by millions over 3500 years. You can't tell real history from fiction, a genuine witness report from a hoax. You have ridiculous standards for "evidence," absolutely absurd, a recipe for continuing in deepest darkness, but you pride yourselves on this tool of "rationality" which you so abuse.Here's a challenge for you:Prove that Attila the Hun existed.
Prove that Genghis Khan existed.
Prove that Cleopatra existed.
You do believe they existed don't you? Well, then, prove it.

Fine, then don't tell me I am where you once were, which is an imposition on MY personal life.

One CAN tell, but YOU apparently can't if you make the perfectly asinine statement that nobody can tell whether Moses existed or not, the kind of asinine statement that the majority around here seem addicted to.Oh blah blah blah to your sophomoric lecture on evidence. Oh really? Give me an example. You can't come up with ONE record of their existence. Come on, show me. Prove it. They are nothing but mythological figures invented to provide a romance for the peoples involved. Did Attila write anything? Did Ghenghis Khan? Produce their writings! For Moses we have five books of writings. Did Cleopatra write anything? Did somebody who knew them personally write about them? Why should I believe anything anybody wrote anyway? Why should I believe anything anybody says about anyone? These guys were all bigger than life. They simply couldn't have existed. Come on, produce the evidence! FIND JUST ONE record of the existence ANY of those human beings listed that couldn't be shown to be a mere fiction. Come on, prove it. Take your own medicine. Unrelated people? Let me guess that any original records you could conceivably find (and you can't even find one) would be by people who were related, people who claim to have been ravaged by the first two for instance, or people who get a kick out of having a Cleopatra in their tribe, though she's just a fiction they invented. Find me reports from anyone who isn't part of a tribe with a vested interest in maintaining these myths. Come on, prove it. Find us the independent evidence of the three above, Mark. Prove that anybody who wrote about them didn't have ulterior motives. Ignore all the people who merely believed in their existence after their death. After all you discount the bazillions who believe in Moses' existence since his death. Just find an original account of their existence written by someone who doesn't have a vested interest in their existence. Moses has five books to his name, both by him and about him. You'll be lucky to find a scrap of anything from the actual life of the above. PROVE IT! More than 66 INDEPENDENT books written over 1500 years, over half of which refer back to Moses, more than millions who have believed it as fact, more than all the Jews who have believed it, among whom thousands have been named after Moses (How many have been named after Attila the Hun?), more than I don't know how many commentaries on the Pentateuch that treat him as a historical figure. Moses is VERY well attested to, FAR better than Attila the Hun et.al.This "religious book" is predominantly a HISTORY. ALL we are talking about is his existence. Stick to the topic!You cannot even prove the existence of George Washington beyond the kind of evidence we have for Moses! It's all WITNESS evidence, which means NOTHING to anybody here.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2005 01:54 PM

Here's the problem: There ARE no other religious texts than the Bible that even HAVE eyewitness accounts of anything intrinsic to the religion itself - except possibly the Book of Mormon. So there are no "DIFFERING" eyewitness accounts to compare in the first place. Unless, again, you want to get into the Book of Mormon and so far no Mormons have shown up here for the purpose.There is nothing to compare so perhaps the question should really be about the validity of eyewitness accounts AS SUCH, as opposed to other kinds of religious teachings, which is a challenge to the Bible exclusively, which is pretty much how I've been taking it. OK, here's a start:Lots of witnesses.
Lots of witnesses to the witnesses.
A written report by those who were there.
The tone of the writing. Realistic detail in the writing.
The credibility and respectability of those who have found it valid.
Numbers of those who have found it valid. Just ONCE it would be SO nice if somebody just had a CLUE about what's really going on here. I was referring to my entire sojourn here and I have produced all kinds of evidence for many points I've made over the last few months, WAY better evidence than most of my opponents. On this thread too. But NOBODY has ever acknowledged a one of them. Except Crashfrog said he got something out of my first thread. That was nice. The ingenuity with which putative flaws are found in my EXCELLENT reasoning OUGHT to be enough to drive a person for the sake of sanity off this nutfarm altogether. Oh I agree, but the busy little Bible debunkers eliminate the huge numbers of independent witnesses of Moses and of Jesus Christ on the bogus notion that they are not independent. When you are dealing with this kind of madness there is NO rational criterion anyone can establish.Felt to be reliably established by whom anyway? MILLIONS have felt the reality of the Bible reports to have been reliably established by the EVIDENCE GIVEN, the NUMBERS OF WITNESSES, the CHARACTER OF THE WITNESSES, the CREDIBILITY OF THE REPORTS, but this debunker mentality is capable of dismissing with a wave of the hand the certainty of so many people. This is MADNESS. In the case of believing the Bible, if a person doesn't come to a settled personal belief on being personally convinced by the evidence, then their belief is of no value to them. Good preachers are very concerned about those in their congregations who grew up in Christian families very possibly just taking it all for granted and having no defense against the first wind of debunkery that hits them. They MUST come to an independent personal understanding of their own or their belief is worthless. So I do not count those, only those who LIVE IT from personal conviction of its truth.However, for most subjects, most people believe ANYTHING on the basis of other people's believing it. That is the case with evolution too. You won't find one in a hundred thousand who believe in evolution who knows zip about it, they just believe it because it is the accepted dogma of the day. At the moment I don't have a turf. I'll see if I can put one together. I understand where he is coming from completely. I've been fighting the same views myself ever since I came onto this site. Am I merely indulging an addiction to no good end? Could be.EDITED TO EMPHASIZE PARAGRAPH & ADD A SENTENCE OR TWO TO IT.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2005 04:19 PM