Quote from: ronkny on Jul 02, 2017, 04:33PMI was being sarcastic when robo answered a question aimed at you. No worries
SO can I assume the entire Bible would have to be true for you to believe? That was my question. At what point?
I'd say the usual skeptical/scientific/critical thinking position would be that any and all verified info in the Bible is accepted as verified, unverified info is accepted as unverified, and unverifiable info is accepted as unverifiable until/unless something somehow happens that changes this. Mundane claims aren't really at issue; may have happened, may just be a fictional part of the narrative--doesn't matter.
God
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 02, 2017, 04:45PM
I'd say the usual skeptical/scientific/critical thinking position would be that any and all verified info in the Bible is accepted as verified, unverified info is accepted as unverified, and unverifiable info is accepted as unverifiable until/unless something somehow happens that changes this. Mundane claims aren't really at issue; may have happened, may just be a fictional part of the narrative--doesn't matter.
Are there any "game changers" that if verified, would change your whole skeptical approach to the Bible as a whole. I somehow don't think so, given your presuppositions-- there I used the word again.
I'd say the usual skeptical/scientific/critical thinking position would be that any and all verified info in the Bible is accepted as verified, unverified info is accepted as unverified, and unverifiable info is accepted as unverifiable until/unless something somehow happens that changes this. Mundane claims aren't really at issue; may have happened, may just be a fictional part of the narrative--doesn't matter.
Are there any "game changers" that if verified, would change your whole skeptical approach to the Bible as a whole. I somehow don't think so, given your presuppositions-- there I used the word again.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Just saw a blurb about this new book on the historicity of the Exodus by a prominent Jewish scholar. Putting it on my bucket list of books to read. Thought a few of you skeptics might like to be challenged because apparently he argues that there is clear evidence for its historicity.
Here's the link:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062565249/ref=cm_sw_su_dp?tag=authorweb-20
Here's the link:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062565249/ref=cm_sw_su_dp?tag=authorweb-20
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 02, 2017, 04:33PMI was being sarcastic when robo answered a question aimed at you. No worries
SO can I assume the entire Bible would have to be true for you to believe? That was my question. At what point?
I can accept as true what can be verified from other sources. I am skeptical about Divine Intervention, though. Why was it more common then than it is now?
SO can I assume the entire Bible would have to be true for you to believe? That was my question. At what point?
I can accept as true what can be verified from other sources. I am skeptical about Divine Intervention, though. Why was it more common then than it is now?
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 02, 2017, 05:00PMAre there any "game changers" that if verified, would change your whole skeptical approach to the Bible as a whole. I somehow don't think so, given your presuppositions-- there I used the word again.
In theory, but oddly enough the whole "supernatural" schtick separates all of the key elements from the burden of evidence and epistemology and sound reasoning and all the means by which we can most seriously and effectively practice honesty by mitigating our strong inclination toward fooling ourselves (of course that only applies human brain owners though), so I doubt it. But it's hard to say.
How about you?
I accept what it means to own a human brain, and acceptance of human limitations tends to put a damper on presuming some seemingly required certainties.
In theory, but oddly enough the whole "supernatural" schtick separates all of the key elements from the burden of evidence and epistemology and sound reasoning and all the means by which we can most seriously and effectively practice honesty by mitigating our strong inclination toward fooling ourselves (of course that only applies human brain owners though), so I doubt it. But it's hard to say.
How about you?
I accept what it means to own a human brain, and acceptance of human limitations tends to put a damper on presuming some seemingly required certainties.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 02, 2017, 03:58PMAs i promised yesterday, I did a little "fact checking" on the text about the 185,000 dead at the "siege of Jerusalem."
Here is what I found, although the historians all admit that there are a number of gaps in the available data...
That is very interesting stuff.
I wonder about the plague theory... how it killed the Assyrian army but not the people in the city they surrounded, especially if we presume it was spread by rats. How did the people of Jerusalem not catch this plague when they ventured out of the city to survey the suddenly dead army? And they must have contacted these bodies somehow if they dug the mass grave for them.
I think it's a better theory than Herodotus' one of gnawed bow strings, however.
Here is what I found, although the historians all admit that there are a number of gaps in the available data...
That is very interesting stuff.
I wonder about the plague theory... how it killed the Assyrian army but not the people in the city they surrounded, especially if we presume it was spread by rats. How did the people of Jerusalem not catch this plague when they ventured out of the city to survey the suddenly dead army? And they must have contacted these bodies somehow if they dug the mass grave for them.
I think it's a better theory than Herodotus' one of gnawed bow strings, however.
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
God
If they were following all the laws in Deuteronomy about handling things they would probably have had little chance to catch plague. Note that Deuteronomy also specifies a rather strict cleanliness code which would have discouraged the mice from infesting the city. They could dig the graves, move the bodies in slings, and bury them without any personal contact.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 02, 2017, 05:53PMIf they were following all the laws in Deuteronomy about handling things they would probably have had little chance to catch plague. Note that Deuteronomy also specifies a rather strict cleanliness code which would have discouraged the mice from infesting the city. They could dig the graves, move the bodies in slings, and bury them without any personal contact.
Just brainstorming here...
"The plague" is actually transmitted by fleas, piggybacking on rats. I think if you were close enough to the dead rotting bodies to carry one in a sling, you'd be close enough get fleas, always seeking out the nearest warm body, on you.
And I don't think the rats would be dissuaded by cleanliness since they're really looking for food, like the stored grain one might have in a city.
Of course, some other contagious disease is possible but... killing all 185,000 in one night? That is the centerpiece of this story. Has that ever happened anywhere with any other disease or poison?
Just brainstorming here...
"The plague" is actually transmitted by fleas, piggybacking on rats. I think if you were close enough to the dead rotting bodies to carry one in a sling, you'd be close enough get fleas, always seeking out the nearest warm body, on you.
And I don't think the rats would be dissuaded by cleanliness since they're really looking for food, like the stored grain one might have in a city.
Of course, some other contagious disease is possible but... killing all 185,000 in one night? That is the centerpiece of this story. Has that ever happened anywhere with any other disease or poison?
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
God
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jul 02, 2017, 07:05PM
Just brainstorming here...
...
Of course, some other contagious disease is possible but... killing all 185,000 in one night? That is the centerpiece of this story. Has that ever happened anywhere with any other disease or poison?
Ebola?
Just brainstorming here...
...
Of course, some other contagious disease is possible but... killing all 185,000 in one night? That is the centerpiece of this story. Has that ever happened anywhere with any other disease or poison?
Ebola?
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 02, 2017, 07:24PMEbola?
Even Ebola isn't 100% fatal and it takes one to two weeks to kill you after symptoms appear.
And there have been less than 50,000 cases of Ebola in the 40 years since it was identified.
How could you spread a disease so evenly and simultaneously among 185,000 people who are dispersed over a large area such that it kills them all on the same night?
If it really happened I'm inclined to think it was something like commandos poisoning their water. But how would you even pull that off?
Even Ebola isn't 100% fatal and it takes one to two weeks to kill you after symptoms appear.
And there have been less than 50,000 cases of Ebola in the 40 years since it was identified.
How could you spread a disease so evenly and simultaneously among 185,000 people who are dispersed over a large area such that it kills them all on the same night?
If it really happened I'm inclined to think it was something like commandos poisoning their water. But how would you even pull that off?
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 02, 2017, 05:43PM
In theory, but oddly enough the whole "supernatural" schtick separates all of the key elements from the burden of evidence and epistemology and sound reasoning and all the means by which we can most seriously and effectively practice honesty by mitigating our strong inclination toward fooling ourselves (of course that only applies human brain owners though), so I doubt it. But it's hard to say.
How about you?
I accept what it means to own a human brain, and acceptance of human limitations tends to put a damper on presuming some seemingly required certainties.
Yes, there is one thing that would be a "game changer" for me. If they could definitively prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead-- i.e. produce the body that could actually be proven to be that of Jesus.
I follow Paul's logic in 1 Corithians 15, that if Christ was not risen, we Christians, of all men, are most to be pitied. However, I, like Paul, testify that "now Christ is risen from the dead." 1 Corinthians 15: 10 That reality is the real game changer for me.
In theory, but oddly enough the whole "supernatural" schtick separates all of the key elements from the burden of evidence and epistemology and sound reasoning and all the means by which we can most seriously and effectively practice honesty by mitigating our strong inclination toward fooling ourselves (of course that only applies human brain owners though), so I doubt it. But it's hard to say.
How about you?
I accept what it means to own a human brain, and acceptance of human limitations tends to put a damper on presuming some seemingly required certainties.
Yes, there is one thing that would be a "game changer" for me. If they could definitively prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead-- i.e. produce the body that could actually be proven to be that of Jesus.
I follow Paul's logic in 1 Corithians 15, that if Christ was not risen, we Christians, of all men, are most to be pitied. However, I, like Paul, testify that "now Christ is risen from the dead." 1 Corinthians 15: 10 That reality is the real game changer for me.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jul 02, 2017, 07:56PMHow could you spread a disease so evenly and simultaneously among 185,000 people who are dispersed over a large area such that it kills them all on the same night?
Right! The plague theory is out, regardless of what pathogen is involved. I can't think of a single disease that could wipe out 185,000 people in a single night.
Right! The plague theory is out, regardless of what pathogen is involved. I can't think of a single disease that could wipe out 185,000 people in a single night.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 02, 2017, 03:58PM
Just thought I'd let you know what my "fact checking" unearthed.
Good research John, but you are pulling too much of your justification from the very publication in question. For that which came form elsewhere...
Herodotus came by some 250 years after the fact. His recount was from what source? Possibly the same source that produced the Bible's account?
As pointed out by Robert, the whole plague thing needs to be thrown out. Unless you can come up with a plausible way for it to infect thousands of people such that they all die on or about the same day.
The one thing we agree on is that there was not 185,000 soldiers at Jerusalem. However, even if all these impossible things occurred and somehow, through the help of the supernatural 185,000 Assyrian soldiers were wiped out over an enormously separated area, how did Sennacherib's army re-build itself so quickly to continue his campaigns on the heel of the Jerusalem siege?
Surely if his entire army was wiped out in a short space of time (one night?) wouldn't the Babylonians or the Egyptians, or the Israelite's, etc... have used the opportunity to seek revenge? They didn't though. He continued to reign until his death in 681 BC.
Plausibility is important John.
Just thought I'd let you know what my "fact checking" unearthed.
Good research John, but you are pulling too much of your justification from the very publication in question. For that which came form elsewhere...
Herodotus came by some 250 years after the fact. His recount was from what source? Possibly the same source that produced the Bible's account?
As pointed out by Robert, the whole plague thing needs to be thrown out. Unless you can come up with a plausible way for it to infect thousands of people such that they all die on or about the same day.
The one thing we agree on is that there was not 185,000 soldiers at Jerusalem. However, even if all these impossible things occurred and somehow, through the help of the supernatural 185,000 Assyrian soldiers were wiped out over an enormously separated area, how did Sennacherib's army re-build itself so quickly to continue his campaigns on the heel of the Jerusalem siege?
Surely if his entire army was wiped out in a short space of time (one night?) wouldn't the Babylonians or the Egyptians, or the Israelite's, etc... have used the opportunity to seek revenge? They didn't though. He continued to reign until his death in 681 BC.
Plausibility is important John.
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 02, 2017, 02:19PM[actually, it was falafel...]
In Vietnam, the Viet-Cong with their North Vietnamese support defeated South Vietnam with their US support. We were forced to make an unceremonious withdrawal. Not much different from what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1980. Nobody has invaded the US since Japan in 1942. The Japanese only took two of the Aleutian Islands as well as a bunch of US territories in the Pacific; and they were repulsed.
Keep believing what you want, but understand that only the Truth is true.
Not exactly what happened. BTW, I never said that the US won, just that we did not lose the war.
"It is true that Congress restricted U.S. operations and cut aid to the South, and these moves did indeed facilitate the eventual Northern victory."
With Nixon's resignation, the anti-war peacenicks bullied Congress to restrict our operations, and to cut aid to the South Vietnamese. IOW, the outcome of the war was dictated by Congress, not on the battle field.
American politics is no better today either. In Iraq, when Bush was leaving, we were winning and gaining ground. Obama comes on the scene, pulled out the troops irrationally, and the vacuum was filled by ISIS. Same song as in Viet Nam.
Leftist demos have a way of doing that sort of thing. LOL!
In Vietnam, the Viet-Cong with their North Vietnamese support defeated South Vietnam with their US support. We were forced to make an unceremonious withdrawal. Not much different from what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1980. Nobody has invaded the US since Japan in 1942. The Japanese only took two of the Aleutian Islands as well as a bunch of US territories in the Pacific; and they were repulsed.
Keep believing what you want, but understand that only the Truth is true.
Not exactly what happened. BTW, I never said that the US won, just that we did not lose the war.
"It is true that Congress restricted U.S. operations and cut aid to the South, and these moves did indeed facilitate the eventual Northern victory."
With Nixon's resignation, the anti-war peacenicks bullied Congress to restrict our operations, and to cut aid to the South Vietnamese. IOW, the outcome of the war was dictated by Congress, not on the battle field.
American politics is no better today either. In Iraq, when Bush was leaving, we were winning and gaining ground. Obama comes on the scene, pulled out the troops irrationally, and the vacuum was filled by ISIS. Same song as in Viet Nam.
Leftist demos have a way of doing that sort of thing. LOL!
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 02, 2017, 09:51PMBTW, I never said that the US won, just that we did not lose the war.
Yeah, you did. That's what you call it when you pack up and go home because you don't want to play any more. It means you lost.
You have a unique way of creating your reality Mr. Dickerson.
Yeah, you did. That's what you call it when you pack up and go home because you don't want to play any more. It means you lost.
You have a unique way of creating your reality Mr. Dickerson.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 02, 2017, 09:26PMGood research John, but you are pulling too much of your justification from the very publication in question. For that which came form elsewhere...
Herodotus came by some 250 years after the fact. His recount was from what source? Possibly the same account that produced the Bible's account?
As pointed out by Robert, the whole plague thing needs to be thrown out. Unless you can come up with a plausible way for it to infect thousand of people such that they all die on or about the same day.
The one thing we agree on is that there was not 185,000 soldiers at Jerusalem. However, even if all these impossible things occurred and somehow, through the help of the supernatural 185,000 Assyrian soldiers were wiped out over an enormously separated area, how did Sennacherib's army re-build itself so quickly to continue his campaigns on the heel of the Jerusalem siege?
Surely if his entire army was wiped out in a short space of time (one night?) wouldn't the Babylonians or the Egyptians, or the Israelite's, etc... have used the opportunity to seek revenge? They didn't though. He continued to reign until his death in 681 BC.
Plausibility is important John.
The biblical text does not say that his whole army was wiped out and as I already said most historians are quick to point out that 185,000 was far too small an army to carry out a campaign of the size that Senn. did. He claimed to have razed 46 cities in Judah, but never claimed to have taken Jerusalem and returned home without completely destroying the kingdom of Judah. As I said nearly all historians point out that there are gaps in our understanding of all that went on. However, from what most historians that I've consulted say, it is simply misunderstanding the campaigns of Senn. to claim that this was his whole army or even that it was necessarily even the major portion of it. The loss may have been enough to weaken it and we do know that he heard rumors of rebellion at home in Nineveh, so he returned home, possibly because he thought he needed to put down that potential rebellion. Having a significant army would be essential to putting down a rebellion. We do know that he was overthrown a bit later. We just don't have all the info to answer all of our questions.
I have no stake in making the claim that it must be a plague, nor in Herodotus's claim that the mice at the bow strings, etc. H seems to imply that this left them vulnerable so that a large slaughter of Assyrians took place at the hands of the Egyptians. i have no idea if either of these are true and the accuracy of the biblical text in no way depends on them.
My point is that your reading of the text seems to assume a couple of things:
1. That they give the complete information of Senn's campaign-- they don't.
2. That the historical accuracy of the texts depend on our being able to pinpoint the exact cause of the deaths-- nothing in the text demands that.
Herodotus came by some 250 years after the fact. His recount was from what source? Possibly the same account that produced the Bible's account?
As pointed out by Robert, the whole plague thing needs to be thrown out. Unless you can come up with a plausible way for it to infect thousand of people such that they all die on or about the same day.
The one thing we agree on is that there was not 185,000 soldiers at Jerusalem. However, even if all these impossible things occurred and somehow, through the help of the supernatural 185,000 Assyrian soldiers were wiped out over an enormously separated area, how did Sennacherib's army re-build itself so quickly to continue his campaigns on the heel of the Jerusalem siege?
Surely if his entire army was wiped out in a short space of time (one night?) wouldn't the Babylonians or the Egyptians, or the Israelite's, etc... have used the opportunity to seek revenge? They didn't though. He continued to reign until his death in 681 BC.
Plausibility is important John.
The biblical text does not say that his whole army was wiped out and as I already said most historians are quick to point out that 185,000 was far too small an army to carry out a campaign of the size that Senn. did. He claimed to have razed 46 cities in Judah, but never claimed to have taken Jerusalem and returned home without completely destroying the kingdom of Judah. As I said nearly all historians point out that there are gaps in our understanding of all that went on. However, from what most historians that I've consulted say, it is simply misunderstanding the campaigns of Senn. to claim that this was his whole army or even that it was necessarily even the major portion of it. The loss may have been enough to weaken it and we do know that he heard rumors of rebellion at home in Nineveh, so he returned home, possibly because he thought he needed to put down that potential rebellion. Having a significant army would be essential to putting down a rebellion. We do know that he was overthrown a bit later. We just don't have all the info to answer all of our questions.
I have no stake in making the claim that it must be a plague, nor in Herodotus's claim that the mice at the bow strings, etc. H seems to imply that this left them vulnerable so that a large slaughter of Assyrians took place at the hands of the Egyptians. i have no idea if either of these are true and the accuracy of the biblical text in no way depends on them.
My point is that your reading of the text seems to assume a couple of things:
1. That they give the complete information of Senn's campaign-- they don't.
2. That the historical accuracy of the texts depend on our being able to pinpoint the exact cause of the deaths-- nothing in the text demands that.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 02, 2017, 08:08PMYes, there is one thing that would be a "game changer" for me. If they could definitively prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead-- i.e. produce the body that could actually be proven to be that of Jesus.
I follow Paul's logic in 1 Corithians 15, that if Christ was not risen, we Christians, of all men, are most to be pitied. However, I, like Paul, testify that "now Christ is risen from the dead." 1 Corinthians 15: 10 That reality is the real game changer for me.
Did you witness this John? Do you have any verification of it? I mean verification for a different source than the scriptures?
What if the whole account in which you base your entire faith is apocryphal? All you know is that you were told by somebody during your life that you should believe it and hold it in faith.
Your condition, unfortunately cannot be met. Even if a body was unearthed, what could possibly be told to about that body that would convince you it was Jesus? So, that's it. My bet is that there is nothing that will convince you.
I follow Paul's logic in 1 Corithians 15, that if Christ was not risen, we Christians, of all men, are most to be pitied. However, I, like Paul, testify that "now Christ is risen from the dead." 1 Corinthians 15: 10 That reality is the real game changer for me.
Did you witness this John? Do you have any verification of it? I mean verification for a different source than the scriptures?
What if the whole account in which you base your entire faith is apocryphal? All you know is that you were told by somebody during your life that you should believe it and hold it in faith.
Your condition, unfortunately cannot be met. Even if a body was unearthed, what could possibly be told to about that body that would convince you it was Jesus? So, that's it. My bet is that there is nothing that will convince you.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 02, 2017, 09:59PMThe biblical text does not say that his whole army was wiped out and as I already said most historians are quick to point out that 185,000 was far too small an army to carry out a campaign of the size that Senn. did.
Do you have a link?
185,000 soldiers in an enormous number for an army of the time.
Do you have a link?
185,000 soldiers in an enormous number for an army of the time.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jul 02, 2017, 09:59PM1. That they give the complete information of Senn's campaign-- they don't.
2. That the historical accuracy of the texts depend on our being able to pinpoint the exact cause of the deaths-- nothing in the text demands that.
So, the Biblical text is inaccurate, loose, not an historical account?
2. That the historical accuracy of the texts depend on our being able to pinpoint the exact cause of the deaths-- nothing in the text demands that.
So, the Biblical text is inaccurate, loose, not an historical account?
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 02, 2017, 10:13PMSo, the Biblical text is inaccurate, loose, not an historical account?
Does every document ever written describe every event in minute detail? The answer is no. So why should this one?
Does every document ever written describe every event in minute detail? The answer is no. So why should this one?
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 03, 2017, 05:50AMDoes every document ever written describe every event in minute detail? The answer is no. So why should this one?
Your point is well taken if you consider the Bible similar to every other historical document, particularly those from long ago, where we have no originals but have reconstructed as best we can from multiple sources.
What we see is probably about what we should expect.
But that's a pretty big if. Remember that the claim is the Bible is written by God, protected by God - divinely inspired, protected from error, and the right books chosen by God from a larger number used at the time.
If there were no claim of supernatural intervention with respect to the integrity of the Bible, there would be less nitpicking over some historical inaccuracies.
Your point is well taken if you consider the Bible similar to every other historical document, particularly those from long ago, where we have no originals but have reconstructed as best we can from multiple sources.
What we see is probably about what we should expect.
But that's a pretty big if. Remember that the claim is the Bible is written by God, protected by God - divinely inspired, protected from error, and the right books chosen by God from a larger number used at the time.
If there were no claim of supernatural intervention with respect to the integrity of the Bible, there would be less nitpicking over some historical inaccuracies.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
I'm going to say poison gas.
Some sort of heavy poison gas that would stay near the ground and not waft high into the air. You could deploy that at night, kill the army sleeping outside Jerusalem, but you'd be safe inside the city walls.
By morning the winds would disperse it.
That's the only way you could kill that many people, so silently and simultaneously.
Some sort of heavy poison gas that would stay near the ground and not waft high into the air. You could deploy that at night, kill the army sleeping outside Jerusalem, but you'd be safe inside the city walls.
By morning the winds would disperse it.
That's the only way you could kill that many people, so silently and simultaneously.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jul 03, 2017, 06:16AMI'm going to say poison gas.
Some sort of heavy poison gas that would stay near the ground and not waft high into the air. You could deploy that at night, kill the army sleeping outside Jerusalem, but you'd be safe inside the city walls.
By morning the winds would disperse it.
That's the only way you could kill that many people, so silently and simultaneously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
Some sort of heavy poison gas that would stay near the ground and not waft high into the air. You could deploy that at night, kill the army sleeping outside Jerusalem, but you'd be safe inside the city walls.
By morning the winds would disperse it.
That's the only way you could kill that many people, so silently and simultaneously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jul 03, 2017, 06:16AMI'm going to say poison gas.
Some sort of heavy poison gas that would stay near the ground and not waft high into the air. You could deploy that at night, kill the army sleeping outside Jerusalem, but you'd be safe inside the city walls.
By morning the winds would disperse it.
That's the only way you could kill that many people, so silently and simultaneously.
Interesting idea.
If we allow 50 sq feet per person in the camp (sleeping space + space for tackle + space to walk around - 5'x10') the camp would spread over ~212 acres or a bit under 1 sq kilometer. If you had the right equipment and the camp was in a windless hollow, you might actually do it. Of course you'd need to create approximately a minimum of a million cubic meters of the gas.
Historically, though, gas attacks have not been that effective. In all of WW1 only ~100K people were killed by gas. Out of them 85,000 were killed by phosgene, the most used gas during the war, and it took 36K tons of the gas to do that much. However, none of the gases used (mustard, chlorine, phosgene) killed as quick or silently as we'd need for this example of God's infinite grace.
Some sort of heavy poison gas that would stay near the ground and not waft high into the air. You could deploy that at night, kill the army sleeping outside Jerusalem, but you'd be safe inside the city walls.
By morning the winds would disperse it.
That's the only way you could kill that many people, so silently and simultaneously.
Interesting idea.
If we allow 50 sq feet per person in the camp (sleeping space + space for tackle + space to walk around - 5'x10') the camp would spread over ~212 acres or a bit under 1 sq kilometer. If you had the right equipment and the camp was in a windless hollow, you might actually do it. Of course you'd need to create approximately a minimum of a million cubic meters of the gas.
Historically, though, gas attacks have not been that effective. In all of WW1 only ~100K people were killed by gas. Out of them 85,000 were killed by phosgene, the most used gas during the war, and it took 36K tons of the gas to do that much. However, none of the gases used (mustard, chlorine, phosgene) killed as quick or silently as we'd need for this example of God's infinite grace.
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 02, 2017, 09:56PMYeah, you did. That's what you call it when you pack up and go home because you don't want to play any more. It means you lost.
You have a unique way of creating your reality Mr. Dickerson.
I said "BTW, Vietnam did not defeat the United States."
The liberal demos in congress shut down that war. If you want to say that the US lost the war with Viet Nam, you have to include how the liberal demos actually caused the results.
Gee, the liberal demos are no different today. LOL!
You have a unique way of creating your reality Mr. Dickerson.
I said "BTW, Vietnam did not defeat the United States."
The liberal demos in congress shut down that war. If you want to say that the US lost the war with Viet Nam, you have to include how the liberal demos actually caused the results.
Gee, the liberal demos are no different today. LOL!
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 03, 2017, 07:26AMI said "BTW, Vietnam did not defeat the United States."
The liberal demos in congress shut down that war.
OK, good. What is it we were trying to win?
The only victory we could have there is to kill everyone. And get too many of us killed to do it. They were able to withstand the most withering and capable assault forces we could field and could replace any losses.
There was no way they were going to roll over and accept a US government there any more than they accepted the French government there.
Defeat them this year... they'll be back next year and smarter for it.
Recall how Eisenhower advised to never get involved in a land war in Asia.
And look at Vietnam today. It's communist-in-name, but capitalist-in-practice. It's far ahead of anything we hoped for from the South Vietnamese government we supported and their people are better off.
The liberal demos in congress shut down that war.
OK, good. What is it we were trying to win?
The only victory we could have there is to kill everyone. And get too many of us killed to do it. They were able to withstand the most withering and capable assault forces we could field and could replace any losses.
There was no way they were going to roll over and accept a US government there any more than they accepted the French government there.
Defeat them this year... they'll be back next year and smarter for it.
Recall how Eisenhower advised to never get involved in a land war in Asia.
And look at Vietnam today. It's communist-in-name, but capitalist-in-practice. It's far ahead of anything we hoped for from the South Vietnamese government we supported and their people are better off.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 03, 2017, 07:26AM
The liberal demos in congress shut down that war. If you want to say that the US lost the war with Viet Nam, you have to include how the liberal demos actually caused the results.
Revisionist history at its dishonest finest.
The war with Vietnam was lost because that country never achieved a stable government with the slightest amount of support from its citizens. Therefore the war was unwinnable, from start to finish.
There was no mystery in this. That was explicitly stated multiple times by LBJ, by multiple ambassadors and Sec States, etc.
The mystery is why we spent so much in terms of lives and money on a known lost cause, and why it took so long to abandon it.
Liberals had nothing to do with it, except to point out the same obvious the conservatives had already admitted.
The liberal demos in congress shut down that war. If you want to say that the US lost the war with Viet Nam, you have to include how the liberal demos actually caused the results.
Revisionist history at its dishonest finest.
The war with Vietnam was lost because that country never achieved a stable government with the slightest amount of support from its citizens. Therefore the war was unwinnable, from start to finish.
There was no mystery in this. That was explicitly stated multiple times by LBJ, by multiple ambassadors and Sec States, etc.
The mystery is why we spent so much in terms of lives and money on a known lost cause, and why it took so long to abandon it.
Liberals had nothing to do with it, except to point out the same obvious the conservatives had already admitted.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Back to God.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 03, 2017, 08:13AMBack to God.
Good idea. Otherwise this thread may be moved to PP.
Good idea. Otherwise this thread may be moved to PP.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 03, 2017, 08:38AMGood idea. Otherwise this thread may be moved to PP.
Bingo! Tim?
Bingo! Tim?
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
God
I think a major difference between us is that someone like me can accept that somebody created the laws that govern the way things work and that following the laws for a sufficient amount of time created what we are living on. Others claim that there is an interventionist person watching over. This latter is not much different from the beliefs of the Greeks and Romans, who also had a committee of interventionist Gods. The Greek and Roman Gods were more concerned with this planet while the God of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims is concerned with more than just this planet.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Still waiting for you to an on topic post - 12 pages, and the relevant discussion is by others.
QuoteDoes every document ever written describe every event in minute detail? The answer is no. So why should this one?
No response to those who've addressed this. But it's potentially an important point.
There are a couple of potential positions. One is the BillO position, that a God Inspired document should really be error free. If not, it looses credibility completely.
The ronkny position, although not explained in detail, seems to be that some level of inaccuracy is unimportant. Okay, how much? At what point do we start wondering about the divine credibility?
And is there a difference in inspiration between OT and NT? Between NT and Apocrypha?
I think the inspiration is exactly the same then and now, and has exactly the same amount of uncertainty.
QuoteDoes every document ever written describe every event in minute detail? The answer is no. So why should this one?
No response to those who've addressed this. But it's potentially an important point.
There are a couple of potential positions. One is the BillO position, that a God Inspired document should really be error free. If not, it looses credibility completely.
The ronkny position, although not explained in detail, seems to be that some level of inaccuracy is unimportant. Okay, how much? At what point do we start wondering about the divine credibility?
And is there a difference in inspiration between OT and NT? Between NT and Apocrypha?
I think the inspiration is exactly the same then and now, and has exactly the same amount of uncertainty.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 03, 2017, 09:35AMStill waiting for you to an on topic post - 12 pages, and the relevant discussion is by others.
No response to those who've addressed this. But it's potentially an important point.
There are a couple of potential positions. One is the BillO position, that a God Inspired document should really be error free. If not, it looses credibility completely.
The ronkny position, although not explained in detail, seems to be that some level of inaccuracy is unimportant. Okay, how much? At what point do we start wondering about the divine credibility?
And is there a difference in inspiration between OT and NT? Between NT and Apocrypha?
I think the inspiration is exactly the same then and now, and has exactly the same amount of uncertainty.
Tim... the short answer is most of the above, and none of the above. A religious text is written for religious intent. That text has historical accuracies, yes. It may also not be 100% on matters it cares little about, though you'd be hard pressed to say that some places are 100% wrong either.
The text itself is a collection of primary and secondary sources and documentation of the history of a religious people, and their experiences with God. Hence how it came in to place here... it IS evidence itself.
That said, the topic is about God, or a god... and not the technicalities of scripture, or a continuation of an "open-minded" rant against religion that certain members have been going on about for far too long to be called open minded.
So... maybe away from the anti-religious pedantry, and back to the topic at hand?
No response to those who've addressed this. But it's potentially an important point.
There are a couple of potential positions. One is the BillO position, that a God Inspired document should really be error free. If not, it looses credibility completely.
The ronkny position, although not explained in detail, seems to be that some level of inaccuracy is unimportant. Okay, how much? At what point do we start wondering about the divine credibility?
And is there a difference in inspiration between OT and NT? Between NT and Apocrypha?
I think the inspiration is exactly the same then and now, and has exactly the same amount of uncertainty.
Tim... the short answer is most of the above, and none of the above. A religious text is written for religious intent. That text has historical accuracies, yes. It may also not be 100% on matters it cares little about, though you'd be hard pressed to say that some places are 100% wrong either.
The text itself is a collection of primary and secondary sources and documentation of the history of a religious people, and their experiences with God. Hence how it came in to place here... it IS evidence itself.
That said, the topic is about God, or a god... and not the technicalities of scripture, or a continuation of an "open-minded" rant against religion that certain members have been going on about for far too long to be called open minded.
So... maybe away from the anti-religious pedantry, and back to the topic at hand?
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 03, 2017, 09:35AMStill waiting for you to an on topic post - 12 pages, and the relevant discussion is by others.
No response to those who've addressed this. But it's potentially an important point.
There are a couple of potential positions. One is the BillO position, that a God Inspired document should really be error free. If not, it looses credibility completely.
The ronkny position, although not explained in detail, seems to be that some level of inaccuracy is unimportant. Okay, how much? At what point do we start wondering about the divine credibility?
And is there a difference in inspiration between OT and NT? Between NT and Apocrypha?
I think the inspiration is exactly the same then and now, and has exactly the same amount of uncertainty.
Error free/accuracy, whatever you want to call it does not mean that every possible detail we might want to know is included nor does it mean that every question is answered nor that one's personal understanding of plausibility is met. There are many things that have happened historically that some have claimed were not plausible, yet we have documentation that they did happen.
We need to make sure exactly what we're discussing here: accuracy or plausibility? The 2 are different issues.
There are also issues that could be brought up in some cases: i.e. is that account giving generalizations or specifics, are the numbers intended to be round numbers or very specific numbers, is there a possibility of a textual transmission error in the numbers-- Hebrew uses letters for the numbers in a fashion similar to Roman numerals. The latter touches on a different issue that often gets corrected when another manuscript is found. That doesn't at all seem to be the issue here, but it happens sometimes.
This is not "fudging," but simply looking carefully at what the text is really saying or implying.
No response to those who've addressed this. But it's potentially an important point.
There are a couple of potential positions. One is the BillO position, that a God Inspired document should really be error free. If not, it looses credibility completely.
The ronkny position, although not explained in detail, seems to be that some level of inaccuracy is unimportant. Okay, how much? At what point do we start wondering about the divine credibility?
And is there a difference in inspiration between OT and NT? Between NT and Apocrypha?
I think the inspiration is exactly the same then and now, and has exactly the same amount of uncertainty.
Error free/accuracy, whatever you want to call it does not mean that every possible detail we might want to know is included nor does it mean that every question is answered nor that one's personal understanding of plausibility is met. There are many things that have happened historically that some have claimed were not plausible, yet we have documentation that they did happen.
We need to make sure exactly what we're discussing here: accuracy or plausibility? The 2 are different issues.
There are also issues that could be brought up in some cases: i.e. is that account giving generalizations or specifics, are the numbers intended to be round numbers or very specific numbers, is there a possibility of a textual transmission error in the numbers-- Hebrew uses letters for the numbers in a fashion similar to Roman numerals. The latter touches on a different issue that often gets corrected when another manuscript is found. That doesn't at all seem to be the issue here, but it happens sometimes.
This is not "fudging," but simply looking carefully at what the text is really saying or implying.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 02, 2017, 10:13PMSo, the Biblical text is inaccurate, loose, not an historical account?
If you are telling a story about surprising a little girl with cancer for her birthday, and maybe bringing someone famous she always admired... Say Johnny Depp in pirate costume hobbles up.
How much does the color of the curtains in the kitchen matter? If you don't specify that, does it make sure story inaccurate?
If you are telling a story about surprising a little girl with cancer for her birthday, and maybe bringing someone famous she always admired... Say Johnny Depp in pirate costume hobbles up.
How much does the color of the curtains in the kitchen matter? If you don't specify that, does it make sure story inaccurate?
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Jul 03, 2017, 10:05AM
That said, the topic is about God, or a god... and not the technicalities of scripture, or a continuation of an "open-minded" rant against religion that certain members have been going on about for far too long to be called open minded.
So... maybe away from the anti-religious pedantry, and back to the topic at hand?
There is no anti-religious pedantry here. But you know that.
The topic is specifically about the nature of God.
If you assert anything about that nature, then the question any honest person asks is how we know. Where does our information come from?
Some of it for sure simply comes from the definition. I reject that. That is information that applies only if there isn't really a God.
That which is deduced from evidence or revelation is a different matter.
That said, the topic is about God, or a god... and not the technicalities of scripture, or a continuation of an "open-minded" rant against religion that certain members have been going on about for far too long to be called open minded.
So... maybe away from the anti-religious pedantry, and back to the topic at hand?
There is no anti-religious pedantry here. But you know that.
The topic is specifically about the nature of God.
If you assert anything about that nature, then the question any honest person asks is how we know. Where does our information come from?
Some of it for sure simply comes from the definition. I reject that. That is information that applies only if there isn't really a God.
That which is deduced from evidence or revelation is a different matter.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Jul 03, 2017, 06:15AMMostly what the nit-picking shows is that if something can't be all things to all people... then some people think it should be worth nothing.
It's interesting how incurious you suddenly get when it comes to many religious matters.
It's interesting how incurious you suddenly get when it comes to many religious matters.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 03, 2017, 09:35AMStill waiting for you to an on topic post - 12 pages, and the relevant discussion is by others.
No response to those who've addressed this. But it's potentially an important point.
It's curious when believers suddenly want the Bible to be held only to the standards of your average Bronze Age historical document for sure ...
No response to those who've addressed this. But it's potentially an important point.
It's curious when believers suddenly want the Bible to be held only to the standards of your average Bronze Age historical document for sure ...
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
God
There are alternate (and sometimes wacko) explanations for a lot of the things in the Bible. Remember, we are talking about a document that was created between 500 BC and 200 AD. There were no internal combustion engines; no flight; no steam powered machinery.
Suppose we were visited by an alien race from another planet. Suppose these aliens were humanoid in form (maybe a little odd). Wouldn't a Stone Age person think they were angels descended from heaven? The chief of them might have been called God. Suppose they had a nuclear weapon and used it to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot's wife didn't follow fast enough and she got fried.
Sure it's whacko. But it does explain one of God's actions.
I understand that when somebody tried to build a replica of the Ark of the Covenant as described in the Bible it started generating high voltage. I wish I could find that one.
Just remember who is putting down the observations and their level of sophistication.
Suppose we were visited by an alien race from another planet. Suppose these aliens were humanoid in form (maybe a little odd). Wouldn't a Stone Age person think they were angels descended from heaven? The chief of them might have been called God. Suppose they had a nuclear weapon and used it to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot's wife didn't follow fast enough and she got fried.
Sure it's whacko. But it does explain one of God's actions.
I understand that when somebody tried to build a replica of the Ark of the Covenant as described in the Bible it started generating high voltage. I wish I could find that one.
Just remember who is putting down the observations and their level of sophistication.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 03, 2017, 11:04AMThere is no anti-religious pedantry here. But you know that.Of course not... just claims of if people had intellectual integrity, they would see that basically all religion is a false construct only there to provide an imaginary safety blanket.
Oh wait, that's anti-religious pedantry...
Huh. Go figure.
Oh wait, that's anti-religious pedantry...
Huh. Go figure.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 03, 2017, 01:41PMIt's interesting how incurious you suddenly get when it comes to many religious matters.
I'm still curious, but after what, 15 years here... where you continue to incessantly chant the same chant... it's pretty obvious your claims are not of curiosity, nor are they open minded.
Do we have evidence God exists? Yes. Do you like it? Nope.
So the conversation quickly becomes attacking the evidence to then attack God, rather than the actual topic of what are the composite aspects of God(s) across religions?
I'm still curious, but after what, 15 years here... where you continue to incessantly chant the same chant... it's pretty obvious your claims are not of curiosity, nor are they open minded.
Do we have evidence God exists? Yes. Do you like it? Nope.
So the conversation quickly becomes attacking the evidence to then attack God, rather than the actual topic of what are the composite aspects of God(s) across religions?
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Since today is Independence Day Celebration, it's appropriate to hear and read what the Declaration of Independence says about God:
It is Self Evident.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
1) - that all men are created equal,
2) - that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
3) - that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This is what we are celebrating today!
It is Self Evident.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
1) - that all men are created equal,
2) - that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
3) - that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This is what we are celebrating today!
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 03, 2017, 09:35AMStill waiting for you to an on topic post - 12 pages, and the relevant discussion is by others.
QuoteDoes every document ever written describe every event in minute detail? The answer is no. So why should this one?
No response to those who've addressed this. But it's potentially an important point.
There are a couple of potential positions. One is the BillO position, that a God Inspired document should really be error free. If not, it looses credibility completely.
The ronkny position, although not explained in detail, seems to be that some level of inaccuracy is unimportant. Okay, how much? At what point do we start wondering about the divine credibility?
And is there a difference in inspiration between OT and NT? Between NT and Apocrypha?
I think the inspiration is exactly the same then and now, and has exactly the same amount of uncertainty.
It is an interesting and important question.
I try to keep my understanding of scripture (which refers to the writing) informed by scripture. I am aware that this is somewhat circular/recursive so you don't need to point this out. You don't need to stress about this because I'm not trying to prove what I think to you just to set out what I think. (I find it useful to think about what I think and to have to explain it.)
I think:
- it is infallible, which I take to mean that it can't fail to acheive its purpose of convicting, converting, correcting, guiding and training those who are called, and repelling those who aren't
- (excuse the implicit Calvinism there)
- the intent of the bible is limited. It explains what we need to know and what we need to do to follow The Lord and the pertinent details of what he's done.
- God ensures that the Bible does what he wants by means of The Spirit. So God works in us using the words of the bible but they are effective because he is working and he is creating the effect he wants. So the same words and information can have different effects in the different people. Some take them as the words of life, others as the stink of death.
- that God is truth so I take words as being true and do my best to work out what the text means.
- (My approach to this is to treat the passage as a comprehension exercise
- look at the meaning of the words
- look at the context which tells me about the intent of the writer and tells me what he was talking about
- try and work out the historical context and how the original readers would have understood it
- look at where the book fits in the biblical scheme of things
- look at the genre of the text)
- this and our current knowledge affects my understanding of what the words mean.
- then I've got to work out how all this applies to my situation
- but also that it is not useful to argue over words (you may have noticed that I am not always good at this)
- that this is not a good set of rules to use if your trying to decide whether the bible is credible or not.
- but that's alright because God will make it clear to you. Or not.
These is my unofficial thoughts, they are not binding on anyone else individually or in general.
And to answer Tim's questions:
- is there a difference in OT and NT inspiration? I actually think that there is a difference in how individuals were inspired. Some of the OT prophets were given specific words to record, but other passages are without that specification and may have been a result of the person writing without knowing that he was writing 'scripture' In the NT we have some smaller pieces of text that were explicitly words of God or Jesus, other books were written to inform (eg Luke and Acts) without any obvious knowledge that they were scripture. About a third of the NT is made up of letters written by apostles to churches or people. There are indications that Paul wrote other letters that aren't in the Bible. I don't think that the apostles knew which were going to be in or not, ie which were inspired or not.
- I don't think that the apocrypha is inspired. That's probably because they are not in my protestant bible and because they don't have the same impact on me when I read them. So far in read da book they deuterocannonical books have been pretty uninspiring.
QuoteDoes every document ever written describe every event in minute detail? The answer is no. So why should this one?
No response to those who've addressed this. But it's potentially an important point.
There are a couple of potential positions. One is the BillO position, that a God Inspired document should really be error free. If not, it looses credibility completely.
The ronkny position, although not explained in detail, seems to be that some level of inaccuracy is unimportant. Okay, how much? At what point do we start wondering about the divine credibility?
And is there a difference in inspiration between OT and NT? Between NT and Apocrypha?
I think the inspiration is exactly the same then and now, and has exactly the same amount of uncertainty.
It is an interesting and important question.
I try to keep my understanding of scripture (which refers to the writing) informed by scripture. I am aware that this is somewhat circular/recursive so you don't need to point this out. You don't need to stress about this because I'm not trying to prove what I think to you just to set out what I think. (I find it useful to think about what I think and to have to explain it.)
I think:
- it is infallible, which I take to mean that it can't fail to acheive its purpose of convicting, converting, correcting, guiding and training those who are called, and repelling those who aren't
- (excuse the implicit Calvinism there)
- the intent of the bible is limited. It explains what we need to know and what we need to do to follow The Lord and the pertinent details of what he's done.
- God ensures that the Bible does what he wants by means of The Spirit. So God works in us using the words of the bible but they are effective because he is working and he is creating the effect he wants. So the same words and information can have different effects in the different people. Some take them as the words of life, others as the stink of death.
- that God is truth so I take words as being true and do my best to work out what the text means.
- (My approach to this is to treat the passage as a comprehension exercise
- look at the meaning of the words
- look at the context which tells me about the intent of the writer and tells me what he was talking about
- try and work out the historical context and how the original readers would have understood it
- look at where the book fits in the biblical scheme of things
- look at the genre of the text)
- this and our current knowledge affects my understanding of what the words mean.
- then I've got to work out how all this applies to my situation
- but also that it is not useful to argue over words (you may have noticed that I am not always good at this)
- that this is not a good set of rules to use if your trying to decide whether the bible is credible or not.
- but that's alright because God will make it clear to you. Or not.
These is my unofficial thoughts, they are not binding on anyone else individually or in general.
And to answer Tim's questions:
- is there a difference in OT and NT inspiration? I actually think that there is a difference in how individuals were inspired. Some of the OT prophets were given specific words to record, but other passages are without that specification and may have been a result of the person writing without knowing that he was writing 'scripture' In the NT we have some smaller pieces of text that were explicitly words of God or Jesus, other books were written to inform (eg Luke and Acts) without any obvious knowledge that they were scripture. About a third of the NT is made up of letters written by apostles to churches or people. There are indications that Paul wrote other letters that aren't in the Bible. I don't think that the apostles knew which were going to be in or not, ie which were inspired or not.
- I don't think that the apocrypha is inspired. That's probably because they are not in my protestant bible and because they don't have the same impact on me when I read them. So far in read da book they deuterocannonical books have been pretty uninspiring.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Jul 04, 2017, 06:48AMI'm still curious, but after what, 15 years here... where you continue to incessantly chant the same chant... it's pretty obvious your claims are not of curiosity, nor are they open minded.My position's changed a good deal, actually, particularly as I've learned a bit more about how human brains work (and don't work)--not to those with a much more rigid two-dimensional perspective though, I'm sure.
Quote from: B0B on Jul 04, 2017, 06:48AMDo we have evidence God exists? Yes. Do you like it? Nope.Heh ... well there's a pretty ironic comment.
Quote from: B0B on Jul 04, 2017, 06:48AMSo the conversation quickly becomes attacking the evidence to then attack God, rather than the actual topic of what are the composite aspects of God(s) across religions?It is best to go with technical objections when you have nothing of substance.
Good strategy--revealing, but only to those paying attention.
...
Actually that's not good in this case I guess--would work the other way around, but the tactical inclinations don't line up ... and of course neither does the need.
Quote from: B0B on Jul 04, 2017, 06:48AMDo we have evidence God exists? Yes. Do you like it? Nope.Heh ... well there's a pretty ironic comment.
Quote from: B0B on Jul 04, 2017, 06:48AMSo the conversation quickly becomes attacking the evidence to then attack God, rather than the actual topic of what are the composite aspects of God(s) across religions?It is best to go with technical objections when you have nothing of substance.
Good strategy--revealing, but only to those paying attention.
...
Actually that's not good in this case I guess--would work the other way around, but the tactical inclinations don't line up ... and of course neither does the need.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 03, 2017, 02:30PMI understand that when somebody tried to build a replica of the Ark of the Covenant as described in the Bible it started generating high voltage. I wish I could find that one.I'd guess. Do let us know if you have any luck.
Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 03, 2017, 02:30PMJust remember who is putting down the observations and their level of sophistication. ... and the full implications, yeah.
Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 03, 2017, 02:30PMJust remember who is putting down the observations and their level of sophistication. ... and the full implications, yeah.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jul 05, 2017, 06:02AMI'd guess. Do let us know if you have any luck.
... and the full implications, yeah.
The ark of the covenant thing probably comes from von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods.
The claim was that it was a giant capacitor. Of course it doesn't make sense and never did, but he sold a LOT of books.
... and the full implications, yeah.
The ark of the covenant thing probably comes from von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods.
The claim was that it was a giant capacitor. Of course it doesn't make sense and never did, but he sold a LOT of books.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 05, 2017, 06:10AMThe ark of the covenant thing probably comes from von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods.
The claim was that it was a giant capacitor. Of course it doesn't make sense and never did, but he sold a LOT of books.
Not to mention a strange sort of film tour.
Don't think I've seen one of those film tour type deals in decades ... of course it was never exactly common. Or maybe that's a regional thing ... ?
Anyway ... awesome.
The claim was that it was a giant capacitor. Of course it doesn't make sense and never did, but he sold a LOT of books.
Not to mention a strange sort of film tour.
Don't think I've seen one of those film tour type deals in decades ... of course it was never exactly common. Or maybe that's a regional thing ... ?
Anyway ... awesome.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
It's easy to sneer at those who cater to the least common denominator.
But the other side of that is genius.
It really isn't true that anyone can get rich that way. You have to have an extreme form of insight into what people will want, and a high degree of skill in producing it.
But the other side of that is genius.
It really isn't true that anyone can get rich that way. You have to have an extreme form of insight into what people will want, and a high degree of skill in producing it.