Using the Bible as fact...

I have asked this question before, though not on this forum, and not recieved a real answer. Maybe I'll get on here.

How can anyone argue using the Bible (or any other holy book) as fact when;

a) They can't provide evidence that there is a god of any sort.
b) Even assuming a, they would need to show that this god is the one that they worship
c) Even assuming a and b, they would still need to show that their holy book comes from their god or at least is sanctioned by him/her/it.

Maybe someone can give me an explanation?

------------------
I have conquered worlds...

"Maybe someone can give me an explanation?"
--As a Bible Thumping YEC, I'd like to give some input. Basically if you were to argue with myself, your argument would be greatly flawed. Simply on the basis that I have never found the need to resort to any argument that requires a scientific mind-set. accept ofcourse for the bits and pieces that make the Christian faith a faith such as the ressurection, the universal creation, Noahs Boat (not noahs flood, but his boat that was in the flood requires a biblical based faith), ect. Basically, the way I look at it, is an ancient document that you compair and contrast with todays scientific observations and I myself find that it is amazingly compatable and accurate. Pretty much, its that the bible isn't to complement science, but science is to complement the bible. Hope this helps.

-------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Maybe someone can give me an explanation?"
--As a Bible Thumping YEC, I'd like to give some input. Basically if you were to argue with myself, your argument would be greatly flawed. Simply on the basis that I have never found the need to resort to any argument that requires a scientific mind-set. accept ofcourse for the bits and pieces that make the Christian faith a faith such as the ressurection, the universal creation, Noahs Boat (not noahs flood, but his boat that was in the flood requires a biblical based faith), ect. Basically, the way I look at it, is an ancient document that you compair and contrast with todays scientific observations and I myself find that it is amazingly compatable and accurate. Pretty much, its that the bible isn't to complement science, but science is to complement the bible. Hope this helps.

---

TC,

This then begs the question, what method, if not the scientific method, would be better at finding the most likely theoretical truth? Since you think that your flood "model" is a better model than mainstrean geologies explanations. Something that explains LESS observations? Something that ignores inconvenient observations?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-27-2002]

"This then begs the question, what method, if not the scientific method, would be better at finding the most likely theoretical truth?"
--The scientific method is best in a scientific case, that is, anything where science can have any input.

"Since you think that your flood "model" is a better model than mainstrean geologies explanations."
--Thats my 'opinion'.

"Something that explains LESS observations? Something that ignores inconvenient observations?"
--Something that is in the process of explination is hardly untennable on the basis of coming to the conclusion of being unable to explain something that has not been attempted. (I'm in the process of explaining, basically, I am attempting an explination that mainstream geology has gone through for many years).

-------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"This then begs the question, what method, if not the scientific method, would be better at finding the most likely theoretical truth?"
--The scientific method is best in a scientific case, that is, anything where science can have any input.

"Since you think that your flood "model" is a better model than mainstrean geologies explanations."
--Thats my 'opinion'.

"Something that explains LESS observations? Something that ignores inconvenient observations?"
--Something that is in the process of explination is hardly untennable on the basis of coming to the conclusion of being unable to explain something that has not been attempted. (I'm in the process of explaining, basically, I am attempting an explination that mainstream geology has gone through for many years).

---

What is wrong with using the scientific method on the bible, as an attempt to establish its "factual" accuracy. It could be done, although I doubt you would like the results. My point is, you require a level of "proof" from science that you don't require from the bible. This is hypocritical. Why not have pure, baseless, faith in Odin & blow God out? There's no evidence for either, so I'm questioning the mental integrity of someone who believes something without reason, & disbelieves something else which has as much basis in fact as what they believe.

How, then, can you/anyone attempt to maintain "factual" biblical integrity when a rigorous method is being applied to science, & people deny that science in favour of faith, with no sound basis whatsoever? Do you not find it hypocritical that in every other aspect of christians (or any other religion) lives they require evidence?

For example, you don't have "faith" that crossing a busy road with your fingers in your ears & your eyes shut will get you safely to the other side, because you have evidence that heavy objects kill when they hit you at speed.

You don't have baseless "faith" that you would drown swimming from Java to California, you have evidence based on observations that it would be foolish to attempt such a swim.

You wouldn't want a person accused of a crime to be convicted without reason, or is "faith" reason enough to believe in a persons guilt, since it is allowed in explanations of origins?

So, it seems hypocritical to me that this sound mental attitude, which you use in every other aspect of your life should be suspended because it is inconvenient to a notion of a factually baseless God.

That said, what method would you apply universally to everything to determine its likelyhood, if it isn't the scientific method or something like it? To apply such a method to something, & not something else, is by definition, hypocritical.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"What is wrong with using the scientific method on the bible, as an attempt to establish its "factual" accuracy. It could be done, although I doubt you would like the results. My point is, you require a level of "proof" from science that you don't require from the bible. This is hypocritical."
--Sure, apply the scientific method to the bible, that is perfectly reasonable. Though what I mean when I say "The scientific method is best in a scientific case, that is, anything where science can have any input", is that like I said, should be used when science can apply a test. For example, lets say we wan't to test the flood, lets just say we find it comes out that it is a plausable event (lets just say for the sake of example, no need for a disagreement, just follow me on this) well this was tested using the scientific method, ok. Though the bible says that God caused all this, now where is the scientific method going to go? It cannot apply a test for this. This logic should be followed throughout any biblical test.

"Why not have pure, baseless, faith in Odin & blow God out? There's no evidence for either, so I'm questioning the mental integrity of someone who believes something without reason, & disbelieves something else which has as much basis in fact as what they believe."
--We will always be bumping into walls on this one, because lets just say someone does believe out of baseless faith, well Christians will live off of that faith, and out of that faith, whether science explains it as a bunch of chemical reactions and what-not, it gives them that strengthening feeling of being a christian. Some on the boards may know what I am talking about. My point is, is that it isn't technically 'baseless faith' that most Christians are going to live by, theres always going to be some type of basis for that faith. As for myself, I believe the bible says:

2 Peter 3
4 "And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."
--So as the bible in a quite apparently valid interpretation, shows a to come uniformitarian concept and a deistic belief, I think I can take it should be evident by the next verse:

"5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"
--Odly, this seems to imply that the bible may cooperate with an old universe, though a young Earth, hmmmmm...

"How, then, can you/anyone attempt to maintain "factual" biblical integrity when a rigorous method is being applied to science, & people deny that science in favour of faith, with no sound basis whatsoever? Do you not find it hypocritical that in every other aspect of christians (or any other religion) lives they require evidence?"
--Many go on love and faith alone, though I find it fascinating to take a deep breath of the knowledge and 'intelligent design' of his universe and the systems he set to work to govern its properties.

"For example, you don't have "faith" that crossing a busy road with your fingers in your ears & your eyes shut will get you safely to the other side, because you have evidence that heavy objects kill when they hit you at speed.

You don't have baseless "faith" that you would drown swimming from Java to California, you have evidence based on observations that it would be foolish to attempt such a swim."
--Yes, but of course, for someone to do that, or not to do it, they must either have faith in their reasoning (I think we can agree on this reasoning as valid!), or have faith that this reasoning is either flawed, or have faith in luck or chance.

"You don't have baseless "faith" that you would drown swimming from Java to California, you have evidence based on observations that it would be foolish to attempt such a swim."
--A bit different scenarios, because we can only gather so much information on origins, even more of a descrepancy because it is a historical event, not a current happening, unlike the criminal conviction.

"So, it seems hypocritical to me that this sound mental attitude, which you use in every other aspect of your life should be suspended because it is inconvenient to a notion of a factually baseless God.

That said, what method would you apply universally to everything to determine its likelyhood, if it isn't the scientific method or something like it? To apply such a method to something, & not something else, is by definition, hypocritical.
"
--See my first comment, I think I explain my reasoning behind this question.

------------------

TC,

Do you find it hypocritical that evidential determinants are sought by us all through our lives in order to make decisions, but this "modus operandi" is suspended where religion is concerned, or not?

Whether it is scienctific deciding how you cross the road is irrelevent. The scientific method is designed to best get at the most likely explanation. This is exactly what we do when we try to decide what gossip to believe, or what newspaper article to believe. You're arguing that a rationale for deciding the most likely explanation is best suited to science, & only science? Nonsense, you apply a similar rationale to every non-religious decision you make.

What, intellectually, allows you to suspend this rationale, in the light that you use an evidence as a determinant for decision making in other areas of life?

Mark

(away 4 weekend)

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I think I'll take a stab at answering the original post.

The Bible is accepted as an historically accurate document by the Smithsonian Institute and others. Parts of it are used in public school textbooks when teaching about Old Testament era peoples or events. I think we can all agree that the bible is HISTORICALLY accurate.

Now, that having been settled, let's move on to a pivotal event in the history of Christianity - the resurrection of Christ from the dead. If this is false, then Christianity itself is false. Jesus's tomb is empty. But people could have stolen the body, right? The Pharisees wouldn't have stolen it, because they wanted to prove him wrong. If they stole the body, they would have then produced it and denounced Jesus. This did not happen. The disciples didn't steal the body because they went on to die often horrible deaths for their faith. Why would they die for something they would know to be a lie? It just doesn't make sense. This all leads to the assumption that the bible is SPIRITUALLY accurate, as well as historically accurate.

Then again how long was Jesus up on the cross for?

A few hours wasn`t it?

And yet crucifiction was a supposedly agonising death that took several days...

And didn`t he allegedly crawl up the curtain immediately after they held a sponge with vinegar on it under his nose? Something that should have revived him?

I think there are enough ambiguities surrounding his putative death to make any discussion on his rising from the grave highly speculative...

Me I reckon that the fix was in....

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by thatstretchyguy:
[b]I think I'll take a stab at answering the original post.

The Bible is accepted as an historically accurate document by the Smithsonian Institute and others.[/QUOTE]

Interesting claim. I am wondering if you can back it up, because I really have some doubts that it is accurate. Can you please provide an explanation, with links, preferably, of why it is that you think that the Smithsonian holds that the Bible is an accurate historical document?

quote:

---

Parts of it are used in public school textbooks when teaching about Old Testament era peoples or events.

---

Well, sure, it can show customs and cultural attitudes of the time, but this is not the same as being a record of actual events.

quote:

---

I think we can all agree that the bible is HISTORICALLY accurate.

---

Hold on! How did you make this leap? There are Biblical scholars who doubt that Jesus was even a real person, and others who believe that the Apostles wrote the gospels with the Torah open beside them, and rewrote the old stories with Jesus in them in order to fulfill the prophecies.

Lastly, there isn't even any good evidence that the Jews even existed at the time that the Pharohs were building the Pyramids, so the Jews couldn't have been enslaved by the Egyptians to build them.

quote:

---

Now, that having been settled, let's move on to a pivotal event in the history of Christianity - the resurrection of Christ from the dead. If this is false, then Christianity itself is false. Jesus's tomb is empty. But people could have stolen the body, right? The Pharisees wouldn't have stolen it, because they wanted to prove him wrong. If they stole the body, they would have then produced it and denounced Jesus. This did not happen.

---

You don't even have evidence that Jesus actually existed beyond the Bible. At least, you haven't provided any.

quote:

---

The disciples didn't steal the body because they went on to die often horrible deaths for their faith. Why would they die for something they would know to be a lie?

---

Again, you cannot provide any evidence that these events happened.

quote:

---

It just doesn't make sense.

---

On this we agree, but for different reasons, I'm afraid.

[QUOTE]This all leads to the assumption that the bible is SPIRITUALLY accurate, as well as historically accurate.[/b]

---

They are assumptions which are not based upon evidence, which is fine for a religion, but not for historical or scientific accuracy.

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"<FONT SIZE="1" color="#ffffff" face="Verdana, Arial">

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-31-2002]</FONT>

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-31-2002]

"Do you find it hypocritical that evidential determinants are sought by us all through our lives in order to make decisions, but this "modus operandi" is suspended where religion is concerned, or not?"
--This is not exactly true, as I explained above, I explained what should and should not apply the scientific method. You would be correct, however, that pure faith events, concepts, or anything of the like shouldn't be decided by applying the scientific method, simply because it is not applicable on scientific grounds.

"Whether it is scienctific deciding how you cross the road is irrelevent. The scientific method is designed to best get at the most likely explanation."
--Yes, though this 'most likely explination' should take into account any assumptions made to come to the conclusion.

"This is exactly what we do when we try to decide what gossip to believe, or what newspaper article to believe. You're arguing that a rationale for deciding the most likely explanation is best suited to science, & only science? Nonsense, you apply a similar rationale to every non-religious decision you make."
--For the 'You're arguing that a rationale for deciding the most likely explanation is best suited to science, & only science', Of course not.

"What, intellectually, allows you to suspend this rationale, in the light that you use an evidence as a determinant for decision making in other areas of life?"
--See above, if you may need more clarity, don't hesitate.

------------------

"Well, sure, it can show customs and cultural attitudes of the time, but this is not the same as being a record of actual events."
--The bible is used for the origin of Abraham's decendents, the bible doesn't exactly address much other cultural origins so in the first place, I don't know what else it would be used for. Second, they of course would not wan't to touch up on many other religious, let alone many other events given in the old-testament, mostly because it is all God ordained.

------------------

"Then again how long was Jesus up on the cross for?
A few hours wasn`t it?

And yet crucifiction was a supposedly agonising death that took several days..."
--The bodies were taken down because of the passover, and it would have been denouncing.

"And didn`t he allegedly crawl up the curtain immediately after they held a sponge with vinegar on it under his nose? Something that should have revived him?"
--Jesus didn't crawl up a curtain.

"I think there are enough ambiguities surrounding his putative death to make any discussion on his rising from the grave highly speculative..."
--I find it well documented, heck, 4 books are written at the time on the event.

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)The bodies were taken down because of the passover, and it would have been denouncing.

2)Jesus didn't crawl up a curtain.

3)I find it well documented, heck, 4 books are written at the time on the event.

---

1)You are missing the point crucifixion is a process that kills the crucifixee in an agonising manner over several days...

Jesus lasted only a couple of hours...

Alarm bell one...

Jesus shuffled off this mortal coil immediately after they held a vinegar soaked sponge under his nose which should have revived him...

Alarm bell two...

You see what I`m getting at yet?

2)He certainly did otherwise he could hardly rise from his grave...

To paraphrase Cleese...

"'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This prophet is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is father! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to that cross 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, crawled up the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-MESSIAH!!!!!!"

Geddit?

3)Really?

And there was I thinking that they were written after the fact....

Have a peek at this and tell me if you honestly think M, M, L + J were sitting around the bottom of the cross scribbling notes down frantically....

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"Well, sure, it can show customs and cultural attitudes of the time, but this is not the same as being a record of actual events."
--The bible is used for the origin of Abraham's decendents,[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure why this is relevant.

quote:

---

the bible doesn't exactly address much other cultural origins so in the first place, I don't know what else it would be used for.

---

Cultural "origins"? I wasn't talking about the "origins" of culture or customs.

If you read the Bible, you get a pretty good idea of the culture and customs of the time. For example, you learn that slavery was in practice, and that women were considered chattel.

[QUOTE]Second, they of course would not wan't to touch up on many other religious, let alone many other events given in the old-testament, mostly because it is all God ordained.
[/b]

---

Huh, what are you talking about? I don't understand.