Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 669 of 2241 (743362)
11-30-2014 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 668 by Faith
11-30-2014 9:52 AM


Re: Knowing God
What someone wrote about what someone else saw is hearsay, not evidence.
What someone wrote they saw or experienced is (in the absence of evidence) an unsupported claim, not evidence.
Phat asked, in essence, how can we know God if the Bible is just an invention of men? The answer I gave is incontestable because it is simple logic. If there are spiritual ways of knowing, then God can be known spiritually. And if God can leave physical evidence behind, then he can actually be witnessed.
Your claim is that God *did* leave physical evidence behind, but that none of that evidence is apparent today. For a creator of worlds his fingerprints are remarkably scarce. There's no evidence he wrote the Bible, nor even that he exists.
My own belief in God is based upon faith, not evidence, and so does not require me to imagine evidence where none exists while chastising others for deficiencies of character.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by Faith, posted 11-30-2014 9:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 670 by Faith, posted 11-30-2014 11:28 AM Percy has replied
 Message 671 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2014 11:45 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 679 of 2241 (743435)
12-01-2014 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 670 by Faith
11-30-2014 11:28 AM


Re: Knowing God
Faith writes:
Amazing how evidence can be so easily dismissed. LOTS of evidence over millennia yet, with multiple witnesses to all of it.
Since the subject of the talking snake came up, tell us about the "LOTS of evidence" and the "multiple witnesses" for the talking snake. You said the snake was actually Satan, so tell us about the "LOTS of evidence" and the "multiple witnesses" demonstrating that Satan exists and was the snake.
You also mentioned Jesus, so tell us about the "LOTS of evidence" and the "multiple witnesses" of his holy conception.
My faith is based on trustworthy witnesses to the evidence.
Faith that is based upon evidence is not faith. You're making up your own word definitions again.
You might as well have faith in the man in the moon, Percy, if you have no evidence behind your "faith."
My faith comes from within.
Because your "faith" is in something conventionally considered to be at least borderline Christian, which you could only get from other people who believe it.
Reflecting my upbringing my internal imagery is Christian, but my religious beliefs are not recognizably Christian nor anything else. I believe in God but have no idea what to believe about God. My faith is in a power and purpose to the universe about which I know nothing.
Am I "chastising" you? Thought I was proving you wrong, isn't that standard debate?
Proving anyone wrong would involve evidence, something you don't have, and you chastise everyone of all faiths and no faith who doesn't believe as you do. Your beliefs seems to drive you toward a hostility to all other belief.
More pertinent to the topic, there is internal and external evidence that the Bible is not inerrant, and no evidence that it was written by God or that he even exists.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by Faith, posted 11-30-2014 11:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 681 by Faith, posted 12-01-2014 12:25 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 684 of 2241 (743473)
12-01-2014 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by Faith
12-01-2014 12:25 PM


Re: Knowing God
Faith writes:
You are wrong about faith, it MUST be based on evidence...But faith in a real God who made real promises can carry me through some pretty hard times because it can be tested...
Looking into this a bit I see that you're using an evangelical definition of faith, one that is not embraced by the rest of Christianity. Wikipedia has a section on evangelical views on faith.
You keep denying the evidence I've given, the Bible is full of it, so what can I do? I haven't failed to provide it, you've failed to recognize it as evidence.
You've never provided evidence. You just make bald claims and then demand others accept it as evidence, as you've just done again. Whenever you're ready, please provide the evidence and witnesses of the talking snake who is Satan, of Jesus's holy conception, and of Biblical inerrancy. That you've been unable to do this is just more proof that you have no evidence for the things you say you believe because of evidence.
You've got a whole other way of construing the meaning of words than is found in the history of Christianity so that you arrive at your own ideas of evidence, faith and so on. There is no fighting that sort of terminological redefinition of everything.
You're making things up again. The definition of faith I've been using is the one that the preponderance of Christianity has used throughout history. Wikipedia has a short section on Christian faith, and also a longer article titled Faith in Christianity.
There is no point then even to having such a discussion, you will always be judging me by some utterly irrelevant system of your own while I'm relying on historical meanings I've learned over years of reading and hearing the teachings of orthodox Christianity, which conform beautifully to reality.
We're not judging you. We're telling you that your claims are unsupported by any evidence, and that in many cases they're actually contradicted by the evidence. You're wasting your time declaring things to be true that anyone can tell are obviously false after just a casual inspection. If you had any evidence you'd be writing about the evidence, instead of spending all your time falsely claiming to have presented evidence.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Wordsmith final paragraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by Faith, posted 12-01-2014 12:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 685 by Faith, posted 12-01-2014 5:18 PM Percy has replied

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


(1)
Message 688 of 2241 (743509)
12-01-2014 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 685 by Faith
12-01-2014 5:18 PM


Re: Knowing God
Faith writes:
I meant judging my thinking more than me personally but I guess you're doing that too come to think of it. But judging my thinking is pretty clear from the context if you go review it.
No one's judging you. We're just letting you know when you're clearly in error, as here:
I don't know who wrote that but that's not the Christianity I've learned, Evangelicalism is closer to it but Evangelicalism is just today's name for Christianity. I prefer the term Protestant.
Evangelicalism is *not* just today's name for Christianity.
No point in arguing this further. I believe the historical Christian view of faith is the only one that makes sense,...
I agree that the historical Christian view of Faith is the one that makes sense, but you're in error in believing that Christianity and evangelicalism define it similarly with regard to any need for evidence. Evangelicalism apparently insists that faith be based upon evidence, while traditional Christianity and Protestantism do not.
True faith comes from within. If you have evidence, it isn't faith. If you declare your faith and call it evidence then I guess you're evangelical.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by Faith, posted 12-01-2014 5:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by Faith, posted 12-01-2014 8:00 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 690 of 2241 (743518)
12-01-2014 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 689 by Faith
12-01-2014 8:00 PM


Re: Knowing God
Faith writes:
How sadly wrong you are but I'm leaving it here.
Declarations of belief aren't evidence. When you have evidence for your position you let us know what it is, okay?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 689 by Faith, posted 12-01-2014 8:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 691 by Faith, posted 12-01-2014 8:35 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 696 of 2241 (743540)
12-02-2014 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 695 by Faith
12-02-2014 6:31 AM


Re: Knowing God
Faith writes:
The way evidence is demanded here is just a sort of odd habit,...
Evidence is the foundation of the scientific method.
...or like an irrational cultural practice with regard to the Bible and questions about the supernatural in general.
Claims that the supernatural is an aspect of the real world must be supported with evidence, as must any claim.
You also seem unaware that you've changed your tune. A few messages ago you were insisting that evidence is the foundation of faith ("You are wrong about faith, it MUST be based on evidence"). Now you're arguing that demands for evidence are an odd habit and an irrational cultural practice.
You're much more preachy these days, no longer trying to convince people of what the facts support but instead berating people for not sharing your religious beliefs, which appear inconstant. Is your faith supported by evidence or not? If it is, what's that evidence, which for this thread would be evidence that the Bible is inerrant and is the word of God.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Faith, posted 12-02-2014 6:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 703 by Faith, posted 12-02-2014 3:42 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 721 of 2241 (743673)
12-03-2014 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 703 by Faith
12-02-2014 3:42 PM


Re: Knowing God
Faith writes:
The Bible IS evidence, I haven't changed that tune at all.
I didn't say you had. We were talking about whether faith requires evidence, not whether the Bible is evidence. I noted that first you insisted that evidence is the foundation of faith ("You are wrong about faith, it MUST be based on evidence"), then you later contradicted yourself and denigrated evidence ("The way evidence is demanded here is just a sort of odd habit, or like an irrational cultural practice with regard to the Bible and questions about the supernatural in general."). You also denigrated external evidence ("This external evidence that is demanded is not needed but habit /bias makes them think it is.").
So since you keep changing your mind, let me ask again: Is evidence necessary for faith or not? If it is, then why in the world are you denigrating evidence?
What you've really been saying is, "If you were believers like me you wouldn't be asking these questions."
And our answer would be, "If you had answers to these questions you'd be talking instead of dancing."
Returning to the topic, do you have any evidence that the Bible is the Word of God and is inerrant? Your last answer was "prophecy", then you declined to discuss it (see Message 566). I'm not that interested in discussing prophecy, either, unless you can first draw a connection between correct prophecy and divine and inerrant authorship. How does one imply the other?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 703 by Faith, posted 12-02-2014 3:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 727 by Faith, posted 12-03-2014 3:04 PM Percy has replied

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


(1)
Message 728 of 2241 (743704)
12-03-2014 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by Faith
12-03-2014 3:04 PM


Re: Knowing God
Faith writes:
Evidence is necessary to faith...etc...
Okay, let me briefly summarize your position:
  • Evidence is necessary to faith.
  • Fulfilled prophecy is evidence that the Bible is inerrant (but you're not willing to discuss prophecy).
  • External evidence from outside the Bible is unnecessary.
  • Therefore the Bible is sufficient evidence for evangelical beliefs and no other evidence is needed.
  • In response to challenges to this position you will just repeat this endlessly and not engage in any actual discussion.
Do I have it about right?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by Faith, posted 12-03-2014 3:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Faith, posted 12-03-2014 3:54 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(4)
Message 733 of 2241 (743725)
12-03-2014 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 732 by frako
12-03-2014 5:50 PM


Re: Knowing God
Which is your favorite Quranic fulfilled prophecy? Mine is the one about the restoration of the state of Israel:
Quran writes:
"And after him We said to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people." (17:105)
I think that clinches it. Everyone knows that any book containing a fulfilled prophecy is the inerrant Word of God, so the Quran is it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by frako, posted 12-03-2014 5:50 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 737 by Faith, posted 12-04-2014 10:50 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 744 of 2241 (743785)
12-04-2014 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 737 by Faith
12-04-2014 10:50 AM


Re: Knowing God
Faith writes:
I suppose you know that's a rip-off of the biblical prophets, and are simply indulging in mockery, right?
To prove this claim correct would require external evidence, which you've stated is unnecessary. You told us that a book that contains fulfilled prophecy must be the inerrant word of God, and that no external evidence is necessary to make this judgment. The stories of the Biblical prophets contained in the Bible are external to the Quran and hence not necessary for concluding its divine inerrancy.
Of course, reasoning in this way is absurd, as absurd for the Quran as it is for the Bible. To the rest of the world outside the Faith reality-free zone, excluding evidence and reaching conclusions in the absence of evidence make no sense. Even your fellow evangelicals disagree with you that evidence from outside the Bible is unnecessary and can be ignored. That external evidence is important and significant is the entire reason evangelicals invented creation science. It's why you've argued endlessly in the geology and evolution forums.
Most people would say that accepting a book as true based only on what lies between its covers and with no confirming evidence is faith. Why not just admit that you accept the Bible on faith, not evidence (I'm using the mainstream Christian definition of faith, not the evangelical one).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 737 by Faith, posted 12-04-2014 10:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 746 by Faith, posted 12-04-2014 11:57 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 751 of 2241 (743793)
12-04-2014 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 746 by Faith
12-04-2014 11:57 AM


Re: Knowing God
Faith writes:
Sigh. I said it would be nice if there was external evidence but every time someone brings up Josephus or Tacitus they are told it doesn't count. My rejoinder is that it really isn't necessary anyway because the Bible is a collection of separate documents. And now you are making what kind of hash out of this?
I'm mostly just applying your logic to other contexts to show how poorly it works. For example, if fulfilled prophecy is proof of divine inerrancy, how do you know a prophecy was fulfilled without reference to external evidence? If the Bible said, "The prophet predicted that barren Elizabeth would bear a child, and it came to pass," how would you know the Bible was correct about this fulfilled prophecy without external evidence? There seem to be a great many holes in your logic, and while you doggedly continue to reply to messages in this thread you've made no effort to plug the holes.
My definition of faith comes down the Protestant lineage, which IS Christianity like it or not.
The evangelical interpretation of faith is different from the rest of Christianity. To rebut this statement you have to counter the explanations and references I provided earlier, not just restate your initial premise.
That you've taken to merely repeating your positions is why I said before that you've gone preachy on us. There's no effort on your part anymore to discuss or persuade - you just keep repeating what you believe. You no longer seem like you're here to discuss evolution and creation but to testify for your faith.
The Bible is not "a book," it's a whole library of books.
Is this another requirement for divine inerrancy? That a book actually be a collection of smaller books?
That the Bible is so large is a weakness insofar as inerrancy is concerned. So large a book is bound to contain contradictions, and the Bible contains a great number. I know you say it contains no contradictions, but they're obvious to everyone. Your denials are mere testimonies of faith, not meaningful arguments.
The whole Bible is INTENDED as evidence and it IS evidence. With multiple witnesses yet, not the one lone character Mohammed or that sort of thing.
Just as the Bible describes many more characters and witnesses than just Jesus, the Quran includes many more characters and witnesses than just Mohammed.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 746 by Faith, posted 12-04-2014 11:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 752 by Faith, posted 12-04-2014 1:12 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 756 of 2241 (743800)
12-04-2014 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 752 by Faith
12-04-2014 1:12 PM


Re: Knowing God
Faith writes:
Mohammed is THE sole author of the Koran.
Is it another requirement of divine inerrancy that a book's author(s) be varied and unknown?
And the only other characters IN the Koran that I'm aware of are all from the Bible,...
I'm sure there are characters in the Quran not present in the Bible, but is it a requirement that any non-Bible book not refer to characters from the Bible before it can be considered divinely inerrant?
...and he made qujte a hash of them too, mixing up Miriam from the Old Testament with Mary from the New Testament and other silliness that ought to disqualify the whole miserable religion.
The Quran corrects many Biblical errors.
The Bible doesn't rest on a minor case like Elizabeth's pregnancy, but a reasonable person ought to be able to accept such an account because of its internal reasonableness...
Internal reasonableness? That Zacharias was visited by an angel who told him his prayers would be answered by God? That his prayers were answered? That angels exist? That Zacharias ever existed? And what happened to your requirement for many witnesses?
... and the fact that it's within a greater account of other fulfilled prophecy, the pregnancy of Mary for major instance, which fulfills OLD Testament prophecy, which is EXTERNAL to the New Testament account.
That the Bible writers were just making things up is evidenced by their fulfillment of a mistranslated prophecy. The Quran corrects this error and makes it clear that God cannot have a son.
And you still haven't explained how fulfilled prophecy means a book is inerrant and divinely authored.
Oh brother. The fact that the Bible is a collection of books and not just A book shouldn't need so much discussion.
You brought it up.
Perhaps it would have been better if they had never been bound together for the sake of arguing with determined debunkers. But no, that wouldn't work either. A determined debunker is going to find ways to debunk no matter what.
Things that can be shown true with evidence cannot be debunked. Failed debunking attempts lend confidence. The Bible does not stand up well to scrutiny because of it's many internal and external errors. It's a debunker's paradise.
Every once in a while I guess it would make sense to again ask if you have any evidence for divine authorship and inerrancy for the Bible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by Faith, posted 12-04-2014 1:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 757 by Faith, posted 12-04-2014 4:29 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 764 of 2241 (743825)
12-05-2014 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 757 by Faith
12-04-2014 4:29 PM


Re: Knowing God
Faith writes:
The point about Mohammed is that he's only one guy, why would you trust him over the dozens of Bible writers?
Why would you trust dozens of contradictory writers over one, right, true and divinely inspired writer?
But you're missing the reason for introducing the Qur'an into the discussion. We're holding the Bible and the Qur'an to the same standards by evaluating their truth and error objectively, but you're doing something different, and we're trying to understand what that is.
We want to know your process and criteria for concluding a book is the inerrant Word of God. You said fulfilled prophecy. Well, the Qur'an has fulfilled prophecy, and I provided an example. You claimed it was a corruption of a Bible prophecy, but you never supported this claim, but if a fulfilled prophecy doesn't count if an older book has a prior claim on the prophecy then the Bible is excluded for the same reason, for example, the story of Noah is based upon the older Epic of Gilgamesh.
You also haven't explained why a book that contains fulfilled prophecy must be inerrant and of divine origin. How does one follow from the other? If someone didn't believe that red combined with yellow make orange, we could explain it to them in terms of how different colors are absorbed and reflected. In a similar manner, since we don't understand how inclusion of a tale of fulfilled prophecy in a book makes the entire book inerrant and of divine origin, you need to explain the chain of evidence and logic that makes this true.
I don't think there are any other people mentioned in the Koran except the Bible characters that Mohammed got all out of time and place.
You'd be wrong. Try Idris, for starters.
There is no "mistranslated prophecy." All these accusation of the Bible are the inventions of stupid people who have no sense of history and lived in the last two centuries.
You used the term "stupefyingly senseless" in reference to the Qur'an earlier, but that phrase more appropriately applies to the above. Giving voice to your inner prejudices is the opposite of reasoned argument.
By the way, the only way you could demonstrate whether it is the Bible or Mohammed who got all the characters wrong in terms of time and place is by using external evidence. Still think external evidence is unnecessary?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 757 by Faith, posted 12-04-2014 4:29 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 980 of 2241 (745726)
12-26-2014 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 979 by GDR
12-26-2014 5:01 PM


Re: what is scripture?
GDR writes:
The first is that God is good, loving and just and the second is the physical resurrection of Jesus.
The first seems an important part of any faith, the second seems unrelated and unnecessary.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 979 by GDR, posted 12-26-2014 5:01 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 987 by GDR, posted 12-27-2014 2:04 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 1036 of 2241 (745891)
12-28-2014 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1031 by Faith
12-28-2014 4:42 PM


Re: Tradition
Faith writes:
Faith is always based on evidence, despite what Phat says.
Faith is not based on evidence. You're strange definition is just another a peculiar claim of fundamentalist Christianity. They say their faith is evidence-based, then point to non-existent evidence. Their faith has no more evidence than any other religion. They just like to claim they have evidence.
When you have evidence of the virgin birth you let us know.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1031 by Faith, posted 12-28-2014 4:42 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1037 by jar, posted 12-28-2014 8:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1038 by GDR, posted 12-28-2014 9:55 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024