"God's Word" - revised a few times.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I always find this argument to be so ridiculous that I wonder why Christians repeat it time and again. Can't you see how ridiculous it is?

What makes it ridiculous that archaeology supports things wriiten in the Holy Bible. Now if it was said to support the theory of evolution, I would consider that ridiculous, because it is the exact opposite in reality.

http://creation.com/archaeologist-confirms-creation-and-the-bible

http://www.equip.org/articles/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/

Originally posted by RJHinds
What makes it ridiculous that archaeology supports things wriiten in the Holy Bible.

1. It is an undisputed fact that some of the Bible contains at least partially accurate historical accounts. That cities mentioned in the Bible exist is no big surprise to anyone.
2. That archaeology confirms the existence of cities mentioned in an account in no way supports the validity of that account further than that the cities mentioned actually exist. Yet the argument by those who bring this up appears to be that if a writer includes a real city in his story then his story is more likely to be true. This is obviously nonsense.
3. Archaeology actually disagrees with many of the Biblical accounts - essentially showing that some of the Biblical accounts are in fact false.

Archaeology has confirmed the existence of some cities mentioned in Homer's epic poem "Odyssey". Does anyone seriously believe that this lends weight to the possibility of the existence of the goddess Athena also mentioned in that account?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You are right again but I used words from the book itself in a paraphrased form.
But archaeology has strongly supported the bible as well. There is much history in the bible that was scoffed at, but discoveries have proved them wrong. Cities have been found, copies of scrolls, the pool of Siloam, and so many others. It is not widely publicized, but neve ...[text shortened]... e "New Testament Documents" by F.F.Bruce? It is a very insightful book about copies of copies.

Yes, I find history generally fascinating. I'd probably find the book interesting. And the Bible has a basis in history, but because places have been discovered does not necessarily mean the details and or interpretations of events are therefore taken as read (as twhitehead has said). Sometimes the Bible is regrettably spoken about as if it and its formation isn't historically conditioned.

That's not to say there is not inspiration for people in it, in different ways. I find the Lord's Prayer, the 23rd and other psalms and the creation story, poetically meaningful, whatever way anyone might think about their provenance or psuedo-scientific correlations. Its a side issue. Unfortunately the dogma of biblical 'revelation' becomes a bit tenuous when held alongside other religion's sacred scriptures. Can they not all contain inspiration for the human spirit?

It appears too often discussions are ABOUT Bible details and their supposed accuracy, as if its naturally fine passages need to be defended. Its this that often distracts and demeans the good stuff , the good values found there. It also dirties the waters by people trying to defend rather primitive ideas of a tribal type Yahweh, knocking off those not on his team, rather than simply arguing for progression in religious thought.

All still has to be interpreted and argued. "Love one another as I have loved you"... stands in clear contradiction to other less wholesome passages, even in supposed words of "Jeshua" whoever the guy was really, under all the additions and 'enhanced' views of him. It happens to all ancient religious leaders.

We can defensively glide over those, but it would be better to clarify the context of passages and times and accept the growth from more primitive religious understandings, and highlight and promote the good stuff, backed up by solid rational theology - from a theist point of view, that is.

I am not a fan of Christian triumphalism. That Way is a Way amongst other Ways. And equally with the values found in different revered scriptures
If we could all think like this the world would be more peaceful, and we could learn from each other.

Originally posted by Taoman
We can defensively glide over those, but it would be better to clarify the context of passages and times and accept the growth from more primitive religious understandings, and highlight and promote the good stuff, backed up by solid rational theology - from a theist point of view, that is.

The problem with this is no solid rational theology could explain why an ancient all intelligent God would be 'primitive' and need modernizing. Accepting that is tantamount to accepting that God is man made.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem with this is no solid rational theology could explain why an ancient all intelligent God would be 'primitive' and need modernizing. Accepting that is tantamount to accepting that God is man made.

I am just happy for some advance on mindless unthinking Bible idolatrous fundamentalism. chessbaiter is not showing that but some on the forum do, as you know. I didn't put it very well. There remain the sorts of questions you raise.

Originally posted by Taoman
I am just happy for some advance on mindless unthinking Bible idolatrous fundamentalism. chessbaiter is not showing that but some on the forum do, as you know. I didn't put it very well. There remain the sorts of questions you raise.

Its quite simple, mindful, thinking non-idolatrous non-fundamentalism leads to atheism. An honest thinking theist is almost a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as a rational theistic position.

Originally posted by twhitehead
1. It is an undisputed fact that some of the Bible contains at least partially accurate historical accounts. That cities mentioned in the Bible exist is no big surprise to anyone.
2. That archaeology confirms the existence of cities mentioned in an account in no way supports the validity of that account further than that the cities mentioned actually exi ...[text shortened]... ght to the possibility of the existence of the goddess Athena also mentioned in that account?

Homer's poem was not meant to be taken as fact, so that comparison is ridiculous. Some things are written as history and other things for entertainment as you well know. A tabloid newspaper is written mainly for entertainment also, so exact factual accounts are not that important as it is to a newspaper that wishes to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its quite simple, mindful, thinking non-idolatrous non-fundamentalism leads to atheism. An honest thinking theist is almost a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as a rational theistic position.

From an endpoint, the start always looks easy. But there is an non-endpoint that is different to yours, and theirs. It is as irrational to be an atheist as it is to be a theist, from a Buddhist perspective. (cf. Nagarjuna, a compassionate, but swordsmanlike Buddhist logician).

Compassion encourages wisdom.
A merciless approach frightens the horses.
A frightened horse does not think very well.

(But sometimes a bit of shouting is required. 🙂)

Originally posted by RJHinds
Homer's poem was not meant to be taken as fact, so that comparison is ridiculous.

Actually the comparison proves the point. The mention of factual entities in a non-factual account is common place and does not lend weight to the validity of any other part of the account.

Originally posted by Taoman
Yes, I find history generally fascinating. I'd probably find the book interesting. And the Bible has a basis in history, but because places have been discovered does not necessarily mean the details and or interpretations of events are therefore taken as read (as twhitehead has said). Sometimes the Bible is regrettably spoken about as if it and its formation ...[text shortened]... ink like this the world would be more peaceful, and we could learn from each other.

The topic in this thread is "God's Word" - revised a few times.

Here is a site that includes part of "The New Testament Documents" argument.
There is little dispute over the history of Aristotle, Caesar,Tacitus and many others, but when it comes to the bible, we seem to dismiss it's authenticity. I don't mean you personally, I mean the world.. this may or maybe not, be of interest to you...

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm

Originally posted by checkbaiter
There is little dispute over the history of Aristotle, Caesar,Tacitus and many others, but when it comes to the bible, we seem to dismiss it's authenticity.

I suspect that there is a lot more dispute than you realize about those other documents and more importantly there would be far more dispute if more people studied them and if they had religious significance.
It is certainly the case that many historical accounts do get disputed and rightly so.
As for the Bible, many Christians do not 'dismiss it authenticity' and many non-Christians accept that some of it is authentic.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The topic in this thread is "God's Word" - revised a few times.

Here is a site that includes part of "The New Testament Documents" argument.
There is little dispute over the history of Aristotle, Caesar,Tacitus and many others, but when it comes to the bible, we seem to dismiss it's authenticity. I don't mean you personally, I mean the world.. this m ...[text shortened]... not, be of interest to you...

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm

I did have a look at the reference. The Robinson dating of earliest manuscripts is not the main scholarly view. However I have little difficulty personally with these dating and authenticity arguments. And you obviously can discuss these matters rationally whatever our agreement or disagreement.

My motivation in the post is to counter irrational attitudes to the New Testament canon that use and talk of the Christian scriptures as an unquestionable legalistic edict direct from the mouth of God, rather than a source of values, inspiration, and Christian theistic theology, via an historically conditioned set of ancient documents.

A canon is chosen by the Church to contain the important and central ideas of the faith. The canon must logically be interpreted and applied for each changing generation and setting, including our present highly scientific one. In this I see there is an important role for any religion or philosophy for its leading interpreters and teachers. If I were a Christian I guess that would mean I am in favor of a important interpretive role for church leadership and theologians, rather than freelance untrained individuals saying and promulgating views of the Christian scriptures that are often false or even idolatrous in nature.

Originally posted by Taoman
I did have a look at the reference. The Robinson dating of earliest manuscripts is not the main scholarly view. However I have little difficulty personally with these dating and authenticity arguments. And you obviously can discuss these matters rationally whatever our agreement or disagreement.

My motivation in the post is to counter irrational attitudes ...[text shortened]... romulgating views of the Christian scriptures that are often false or even idolatrous in nature.

If I were a Christian I guess that would mean I am in favor of a important interpretive role for church leadership and theologians, rather than freelance untrained individuals saying and promulgating views of the Christian scriptures that are often false or even idolatrous in nature.
I agree, that is why I take a lot of heat because I do not attend, what I call, a secular church. There is too much traditional dogma that the masses just accept as truth, and don't question either. I question everything, true faith comes from learning.
I do not love God just because I am told to, I have come to love God and Jesus Christ over years of research and learning for myself.
The churches I learn from are not in my state, but I am thankful for the marvel of the internet.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What makes it ridiculous that archaeology supports things wriiten in the Holy Bible. Now if it was said to support the theory of evolution, I would consider that ridiculous, because it is the exact opposite in reality.

http://creation.com/archaeologist-confirms-creation-and-the-bible

http://www.equip.org/articles/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/

Does archeology purport that Mary was a virgin, in the true sense of being virginal, and do you believe she gave birth without intercourse?

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom
Does archeology purport that Mary was a virgin, in the true sense of being virginal, and do you believe she gave birth without intercourse?

-m.

I don't think that would be possible, but the 2nd part of your question I would say yes.