Religious inconsistency question

[Paul98]

Are you taking about that Document Theory? C'mon, that isn't proof of multiple authors....its just someone disecting the books and looking for any slight inconsistency as if people can't interchange words and phrases while writing something (the words "dad" and "father" come to mind....just because I choose a different word to describe my male parent doesn't mean I didn't write it).

I mean, I don't know if you were referring to the Theory, but it sounded like it.

It isn't that simple, you look at how things are actually written, the language and words used. Just look at speech and writing throughout time and in different areas. It can be obvious that things were written by different authors.

I don't know about more than one flood story...I may have missed something.

Well it is somewhat easy to miss as it seems that the two stories are written together. But you can see it through the inconsistencies throughout the story, one thing is said then near after something different is said.

You're saying that as if you know for sure, or can prove, the Bible stole stories from other places and tried to make them authentic. I don't think you know, or can prove factually. Like I said above, similarties doesn't NOT mean someone stole something.

I will grant you though, that Bible writers did use outside sources to report certain accounts about people who may have been dead at the time of writing...but modern day scholars do the same thing....they use other sources to validate what they're writing about, or researching.

We aren't talking talking small similarities, we are talking the same stories. It would be better to say small differences.

 

[Paul98]

Indeed it is a discussion forum. What is wrong with bringing in supporting evidence/documentation/arguments to buttress one's position? My reasoning may not be as inclusive or complete or clear as I would like so why should I or you or anyone not supplement with those who are experts in the field? Is that not what discussion really is?? And not simply an exchange of opinions?

It's fine to use links to back you up, but you first need to defend or try and explain yourself. Otherwise we don't know what you actually believe or what you are saying. Thus needs to be in your own words, or at least take quotes from the link.

If you want to post links to further the discussion, and as extra to what is being asked that's good also. Especially if you or you think people would find it interesting.

 

[Wardawg1001]

Cerpin Taxt, may I suggest that you stop getting distracted by the name calling and this stupid argument over who is more illogical or who is being more ignorant. It isn't helpful.

Pray To Jesus, can you actually provide an answer to the questions posed here by Cerpin Taxt:

Is there some kind of self-contradiction in the proposition of the creation of a universe with free-will beings unable to accomplish a certain class of actions?

You have claimed that humans have free will. Yet we are unable to choose to see infrared. We cannot choose to levitate. We cannot digest diamonds. We cannot breathe water. Why couldn't a universe creator create a universe where the evil actions are among those humans could not choose to do, while still giving them the freedom to choose ham or jam for breakfast?

Are there not free-will humans in evil-free heaven?

If you believe the answers are in the links you posted, please summarize.

 

[Retro Rob]

It isn't that simple, you look at how things are actually written, the language and words used. Just look at speech and writing throughout time and in different areas. It can be obvious that things were written by different authors.

I've read some examples, and IIRC, they nicpicked Moses as calling God Yahweh in one book, and then referring to the God of Israel as simply "Elohim" in another place and said that's evdience of a different author.

LOL!

Well it is somewhat easy to miss as it seems that the two stories are written together. But you can see it through the inconsistencies throughout the story, one thing is said then near after something different is said.

Another example was the flood account, claiming two different accounts where told. Firstly, the deluge was said to have taken place (rained) over the course of 40 days, which it did, but then they claim that in the same chapter, it is said to have rained 150 days.

Actually, it stated it rained for 40 days, but the waters remained to a total of 150. It's easy to solve this so-called "contradiction" if people remove their prejudice and bias and just read carefully.

At that point, I called the Docuement Theory total bull**** because of that sort of logic and reasoning.

What, I can't call God by his Hebrew name one time, and his title in another time without being "contradictory"?

I can't state that it rained 10 days straight for example, and also state that it stayed flooded for 30 days without being "contradictory"?

I've never heard such asnine reasoning until I looked into the Document Theroy.

 

[Paul98]

I've read some examples, and IIRC, they nicpicked Moses as calling God Yahweh in one book, and then referring to the God of Israel as simply "Elohim" in another place and said that's evdience of a different author.

LOL!

Could you please respond to the argument I made rather than the one you think I made.

Another example was the flood account, claiming two different accounts where told. Firstly, the deluge was said to have taken place (rained) over the course of 40 days, which it did, but then they claim that in the same chapter, it is said to have rained 150 days.

Actually, it stated it rained for 40 days, but the waters remained to a total of 150. It's easy to solve this so-called "contradiction" if people remove their prejudice and bias and just read carefully.

At that point, I called the Docuement Theory total bull**** because of that sort of logic and reasoning.

What, I can't call God by his Hebrew name one time, and his title in another time without being "contradictory"?

I can't state that it rain, 10 days straight for example, and it also state that it stayed flooded for 30 days?

I've never heard such asnine reasoning until I looked into the Document Theroy.

I totally agree that it said it rains for those 40 days and it said the flood lasted 150 years. I see no contradiction there.

The problem I have is where it clearly says one thing, then next it says something similar but also clearly different. Along with how many animals were supposed to be on the ark. Or what bird he sent to check the flood waters.

 

[Retro Rob]

Could you please respond to the argument I made rather than the one you think I made.

If you look at speech, words, etc... then you have to be willing to take into consideration the audience and context as well, if this is what you're arguing.

I'm no professional in that line of work, but language can change depending on the audience and subject matter too.

Secondly, it seems as if those doing this research are a little worse than skeptical....they seem outright incredulous. This conclusion is drawn off the fact that a simple exchanging of words or phrases means fraud to them, and thus, it HAD to have had several authors apart from the ones credited, intially, with the writings. I don't think the writings are being interpreted fairly and without bias.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cerpin Taxt, may I suggest that you stop getting distracted by the name calling and this stupid argument over who is more illogical or who is being more ignorant.

I am not distracted, and I have addressed what little actual argumentation he has submitted. It isn't my problem that his responses feature a dearth of contributory participation.

It isn't helpful.

With that, I don't much disagree.

Pray To Jesus, can you actually provide an answer to the questions posed here by Cerpin Taxt:



If you believe the answers are in the links you posted, please summarize.

That'd be nice, wouldn't it? The issue is that he doesn't have answers, which is how we ended up here in the first place.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

God is a jealous god.
God is love.
Love is not jealous.

 

[smackababy]

If you look at speech, words, etc... then you have to be willing to take into consideration the audience and context as well, if this is what you're arguing.

I'm no professional in that line of work, but language can change depending on the audience and subject matter too.

Secondly, it seems as if those doing this research are a little worse than skeptical....they seem outright incredulous. This conclusion is drawn off the fact that a simple exchanging of words or phrases means fraud to them, and thus, it HAD to have had several authors apart from the ones credited, intially, with the writings. I don't think the writings are being interpreted fairly and without bias.

If you are saying they are incredulous to the validity of the Bible, that is being biased. Those focusing on the language and validity of the author, should not have any bias (for or against) what the meaning (or truth behind) the text when doing these comparisons.

If seems like you're suggesting only a believer should be doing these comparisons, well you can see how silly that claim would be to make. Dissecting the language itself to determine a common author doesn't have anything to do with what the author wrote about outside of the context of tone and specific language used. There are suggestions Homer didn't write the Odyssey, as previously thought. Does one have to believe all the events of the Odyssey and the Iliad were 100% representative of Odysseus' during the Trojan War and his travels home to determine if the language, tone, and style were likely from the same author?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If you are saying they are incredulous to the validity of the Bible, that is being bias.

Just an off-topic nit-pick, but "bias" can be either a noun or a verb, but it isn't an adjective."Biased" is the adjective you are looking for.

 

[Retro Rob]

If you are saying they are incredulous to the validity of the Bible, that is being bias. Those focusing on the language and validity of the author, should not have any bias (for or against) what the meaning (or truth behind) the text when doing these comparisons.

If seems like you're suggesting only a believer should be doing these comparisons, well you can see how silly that claim would be to make. Dissecting the language itself to determine a common author doesn't have anything to do with what the author wrote about outside of the context of tone and specific language used.

Nope, didn't say that.

Secondly, these theories seem to focus on supernatural events, like prophecies and such and the flood, which are designed to explain away the supernatural claims. Seriously? So, (1) you have people who have already made it up in their minds that mircales CAN'T happen (which doesn't mean they did happen, but that's not what I am arguing), and (2), how can you trust someone who already holds a presumption? That's like trusting someone who is completely credulous.

The Document Theory, for instance, is obviously created by people who are biased based on the silly criteria they use to determine whether or not the Bible is authentic. If people are to take them seriously, particulary people who study the Bible, they have to come with much stronger evidence outside of: "well, he didn't use Yahweh in this verse so it must be fake".

They're putting this heavy burden on themselves by trying to prove none of that happened and the story was fabricated -- sorry if I am not easily convinced.

I'm agnostic toward these studies...and until they actually prove their claims outside of planting seeds of doubt, I won't be convinced. Doubt is all they really have going for themselves.

 

[smackababy]

Just an off-topic nit-pick, but "bias" can be either a noun or a verb, but it isn't an adjective."Biased" is the adjective you are looking for.

Sorry, didn't proof read. Juggling goofing off on AT and actually working. >_>

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Sorry, didn't proof read. Juggling goofing off on AT and actually working. >_>

Not a problem at all, and I didn't mean to put you on the spot. It is just a common mistake I've seen, and a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

Now back to your regularly scheduled bickering...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Secondly, these theories seem to focus on supernatural events, like prophecies and such and the flood, which are designed to explain away the supernatural claims. Seriously? So, (1) you have people who have already made it up in their minds that mircales CAN'T happen (which doesn't mean they did happen, but that's not what I am arguing), and (2), how can you trust someone who already holds a presumption? That's like trusting someone who is completely credulous.

Generally-speaking, when critically analyzing claims about miracles, it is sufficient to describe a conceivable natural pathway that reasonably explains the observations of those that report the alleged "miracle." This isn't because the analyzer has a complete presupposition that miracles are impossible, but it should at least go without saying that they are so extraordinarily improbable that any natural explanation should have a greater a priori probability of correctness.

This is simply exercising good parsimony.

After all, if we have several billion data points that all form a perfect regression line, should we automatically assume a single outlier is a "miracle," or isn't it more reasonable to suppose there has been an error in its measurement? Your contention seems to imply that anyone that comes down on the side of "measurement error" must have "made it up in their minds that miracles CAN'T happen."

Are you sure it isn't YOU that has made up YOUR mind that it MUST HAVE BEEN a miracle?

 

[Paul98]

The Document Theory, for instance, is obviously created by people who are biased based on the silly criteria they use to determine whether or not the Bible is authentic. If people are to take them seriously, particulary people who study the Bible, they have to come with much stronger evidence outside of: "well, he didn't use Yahweh in this verse so it must be fake".

They're putting this heavy burden on themselves by trying to prove none of that happened and the story was fabricated -- sorry if I am not easily convinced.

I'm agnostic toward these studies...and until they actually prove their claims outside of planting seeds of doubt, I won't be convinced. Doubt is all they really have going for themselves.

How many writers and over what time period do you think the bible was written?

 

[Retro Rob]

Generally-speaking, when critically analyzing claims about miracles, it is sufficient to describe a conceivable natural pathway that reasonably explains the observations of those that report the alleged "miracle." This isn't because the analyzer has a complete presupposition that miracles are impossible, but it should at least go without saying that they are so extraordinarily improbable that any natural explanation should have a greater a priori probability of correctness.

I understand, but conversely, David Hume would have said the same thing if you told him that you and I would be able to send letters to one another in a matter of seconds while being thousands of miles apart.

There would be no way for Hume to prove he'd be right or wrong....he would just be going off of what was possible in his day.

After all, if we have several billion data points that all form a perfect regression line, should we automatically assume a single outlier is a "miracle," or isn't it more reasonable to suppose there has been an error in its measurement? Your contention seems to imply that anyone that comes down on the side of "measurement error" must have "made it up in their minds that miracles CAN'T happen."

See my Hume example.

My contention is simple: Anyone either totally believing without examining the evidence or presuming something cannot happen, will likely have his work adversely influenced.

Are you sure it isn't YOU that has made up YOUR mind that it MUST HAVE BEEN a miracle?

I've examined the Bible, and still do -- so I do believe they did happen...not afraid to admit that.

 

[smackababy]

How many writers and over what time period do you think the bible was written?

I think the more important question is: where any of these writers detailing first hand accounts of the events or stories told by someone else years later?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How many writers and over what time period do you think the bible was written?

Duh. It was written by 1 writer: God. He wrote it all at once when the universe was created. He simply revealed it to us through certain "authors" a little bit at a time over the course of several centuries.

Simple.

 

[smackababy]

Duh. It was written by 1 writer: God. He wrote it all at once when the universe was created. He simply revealed it to us through certain "authors" a little bit at a time over the course of several centuries.

Simple.

I thought he wrote everything down on tablets and sent an angel down with a special rock that allowed only him to translate it. Oh wait, that is the new New Testament.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I understand, but conversely, David Hume would have said the same thing if you told him that you and I would be able to send letters to one another in a matter of seconds while being thousands of miles apart.

There would be no way for Hume to prove he'd be right or wrong....he would just be going off of what was possible in his day.

Is it your belief that the alleged miracles described in the Bible are simply advanced technological performances, completely naturalistic in their methodology, and possible in principle to be accomplished by an ordinary human being?

I doubt that you believe that, but it is a material difference between describing email to Hume and walking on water.

My contention is simple: Anyone either totally believing without examining the evidence or presuming something cannot happen, will likely have his work adversely influenced.

Ok, great. Now, who do you believe is guilty of this, and what is your evidence?

I've examined the Bible, and still do -- so I do believe they did happen...not afraid to admit that.

Will you admit you believe their veracity on faith?

 

[Retro Rob]

Is it your belief that the alleged miracles described in the Bible are simply advanced technological performances, completely naturalistic in their methodology, and possible in principle to be accomplished by an ordinary human being?

I doubt that you believe that, but it is a material difference between describing email to Hume and walking on water.

No, my point is that explaining something to someone involving something no one has any concept of is extremely difficult, no matter the cause albeit miraculous or natrualistic, and is tough to accept.

Ok, great. Now, who do you believe is guilty of this, and what is your evidence?

I didn't say anyone was....it was more a hypothetical statement.

Will you admit you believe their veracity on faith?

You ever hear the term "I have faith in my Quarterback to go win us the game!!"? Is that belief without evidence? This is the kind of faith I have.

I don't care how you define it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, my point is that explaining something to someone involving something no one has any concept of is extremely difficult, no matter the cause albeit miraculous or natrualistic, and is tough to accept.

Marvelous. What does that have to do with the fact that it is more reasonable to believe alleged miracles are measurement errors rather than violations of natural law?

I didn't say anyone was....it was more a hypothetical statement.

And to what was that "hypothetical statement" relevant?

You ever hear the term "I have faith in my Quarterback to go win us the game!!"? Is that belief without evidence?

No. Quarterbacks do win games. They exist. Games actually happen, naturally. To win a game is not nearly as improbable as the exceptions to natural laws which are proposed by the miraculous allegations in the bible. They are not nearly the same.

This is the kind of faith I have. I don't care how you define it.

That doesn't really make sense. Your faith is arbitrary because it is without evidence, and abdicates the reliability of rational inference.

 

[PowerEngineer]

You ever hear the term "I have faith in my Quarterback to go win us the game!!"? Is that belief without evidence? This is the kind of faith I have.

I don't care how you define it.

Is this really the kind of faith you have when it comes to god and the bible?

Experience has certainly demonstrated to even the most ardent fans that their quarterback often fails to win the game for them. That their predictions of certain victory can often be wrong. That the faith of the opposing team's fans turns out to be vindicated. That there comes a point in most seasons when talk has to turn toward "next year".

This "faith" allows for doubt. It is more of a fervent desire for a particular outcome rather than a belief in the absolute certainty of an outcome.

This doesn't seem to be what you have at all.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Is there some kind of self-contradiction in the proposition of the creation of a universe with free-will beings unable to accomplish a certain class of actions?

You have claimed that humans have free will. Yet we are unable to choose to see infrared. We cannot choose to levitate. We cannot digest diamonds. We cannot breathe water. Why couldn't a universe creator create a universe where the evil actions are among those humans could not choose to do, while still giving them the freedom to choose ham or jam for breakfast?

Are there not free-will humans in evil-free heaven?

If I accept the explanations offered up, it amounts to more of a choose your own adventure free will. You are stuck within the framework provided, with access to only those limited options. In this adventure book, you only have 2 endings, heaven or hell. All of the provided options lead you to one or the other ending. And hell is the default ending if you choose any other path. I.E. quit early (suicide) refuse to play (not believe) Pick a different CYOA (another religion)

 

[Retro Rob]

Marvelous. What does that have to do with the fact that it is more reasonable to believe alleged miracles are measurement errors rather than violations of natural law?

Who's to say Hume would have accepted something as absurd (in his day, anyway) as sending letter thousands of miles in second as "natural"?

You make a lot of assumptions.

And to what was that "hypothetical statement" relevant?

To anyone who fits.

No. Quarterbacks do win games. They exist. Games actually happen, naturally. To win a game is not nearly as improbable as the exceptions to natural laws which are proposed by the miraculous allegations in the bible. They are not nearly the same.

I don't have to see miracles to believe they happened. I do, however, need to have reason to trust those who reported them -- and I do. The Bible can be historically verified, and has been (not on every front, but many thus far) to this day.

It holds credibility with me.

That doesn't really make sense. Your faith is arbitrary because it is without evidence, and abdicates the reliability of rational inference.

I've just shown you how faith carries more than one definition, depending on its usage, and yet, you're forcing your definition on me.