Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Frank 013 wrote:
Stahrwe
The reason that no evidence has been accepted is because no substantial evidence exists to support your claims. Every one of your apologetics has been stripped to its core and exposed as empty.
You see this as us being to hard on your “evidence” when in reality it is the “evidence” that is lacking… its too bad that you cannot see this simple truth.
Try to remember that when the authenticity/reliability of a thing like this is in question you cannot point to it for conformation, you have to look outside of the text for good evidence... And unfortunately in this case you are bound to be disappointed.
Later
That is the lie that you have been told so often that you believe it. The fact is that if the veracity of testimony can be established then it must be accepted. The trick that atheists have been trying to used is two fold. #1 claim that the Bible cannot be used since it is biased, #2 that only material extra Biblical can be used to support Christianity's claims, & #3 that any extra-Biblical evidence in support of Christianity's claims is fabricated. With these conditions one is left with nothing. But, I submit that the who argument presented above is a fraud.
Biased testimony. What evidence do atheists have that the Bible is biased? One would expect such a biased document would present its leading characters as paragons of virtue, courage, integrity and strength, but in both the Old and New Testaments, said heroes are often petty, cowardly, and weak.
Given that the Bible is biased, is that any reason to reject it totally? Testimony is taken in court all the time by people with biases. Bias does not exclude the testimony it is merely another factor which is considered in the evaluation.
Regarding bias, in many instances information presented in discussions as facts against Christianity, when I investigate them using internet tools turn our to be wrong or presented out of context. That was the case in the challenge based on Bible verses a year ago when many of the verses, when read in the framework of surrounding verses made perfect sense. It is true in the case of the Christ Myth Anthology by Murdock where she quotes Christian Evangelicals out of context to support her position, but I hope it is not true of what BT members post of their own thoughts.
The Bible is the most influential book of all times. It has been translated into more languages than any other book in history. In fact, some cultures have a written language now only because Bible translators documented one so the Bible could be published for them. Dont't you think you should read it? The Bible is the story of the God of the Jews and Christians, you find it biased. So what? So it is biased, deal with it. Something can be biased and still be truthful. When bias is dangerous is when it distorts or ignores truth.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Interbane wrote:
Ahh. Your claim is that the entire bible is true?
Easy enough.
Genesis 19: "26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt."
This is an extraordinary claim. Observation then inductive reasoning tells us that such a phenomenon simply doesn't occur. This is also an ontologically positive claim, and goes against conventional wisdom. Therefore the burden of proof on you is enormous. Unless you can supply enough evidence to satisfy this burden of proof, we can dismiss this passage as fabricated.
If this passage is fabricated, there is no reason the rest of the bible is immune to fabrication. I hereby impeach the entire bible until you support each passage individually. The mundane events, such as the birth of a king, will be exceptionally easy to supply evidence for. However, with the dissection of the bible into it's various constituents, we see that each and every claim has a varying amount of the burden of proof which you must fulfill. Many claims do not go against conventional wisdom. However, many do. Some are not ontologically positive, however, most are.
Hoping to consolidate a collection of passages into a harmonized narrative does not fulfil the burden of proof on those passages which are both ontologically positive and go against conventional wisdom.
Quote:
It is clear from discussions, both in this thread and others that the demand for 'evidence' in support of Biblical 'claims' is a ruse as NO one, and I asked repeatedly, would define what evidence was acceptable. In fact, no evidence would be acceptable and the plan is to spring what ever preconstructed trap one has been sold at your first opportunity.
Of course it's a ruse. However, I defined evidence multiple times. Did you miraculously develop cateracts and those presice moments to miss my definition?
I think the truth is, you pretended not to see my definition so you could steer the conversation towards the 'legal' definition. Which wasn't even a definition, it was an arbitrary ruled created long ago in the event trivial facts would be helful in a case, but the author couldn't be found. Such trivial facts include addresses, birthdates, postal addresses, etc. In these cases, they are justly considered exemptions to the hearsay rule since they can be ruled out as fabrications; "For ancient documents the policy justification for removing the hearsay bar is that it is very unlikely that the declarant would have been lying in a way intended to influence the outcome of a trial that occurs 20 years or more after the declarant's statement... Protection from the prohibition of the hearsay rule does not guarantee admissibility. And admissibility does not guarantee that the trier of fact will believe an item of evidence."
Which makes it painfully obvious that the legal policies as they are written are meant soley for the arbitration of legal disputes. The policy justification does not apply to ancient documents which are concerned with the belief of the people who may potentially read it.
It really is sad. You want to take verse by verse ad hoc but won't do a book by book study which would be much more productive.
OK, here's you lesson for today. After getting involved with BT, I started finding the need to get back to the Hebrew so I took a 20 week basic Hebrew class. Now, I am involved in a second class and am using the Cambridge Introduction to Biblical Hebrew text.
If you go to the net bible on line and look at the Hebrew word for 'salt' in Genesis 19:26 id is Mem Lamech Chet. The original Hebrew Bible was written without vowels. Later the Masorites added vowel points to help with reading. In the cased of Mem Lamech Chet, a segol (inverted triangle of three dots) was placed unter the Mem, a Kamatz(inverted perpendicular sign) was placed under the Lamech and a schwa was put under the chet.
The Mem makes the sound M like the M in mug The Lamach makes the L sound like the l in lint The Chet is a gutteral sound which we don't have a match for in English but it is like clearing your throat and is generally transliterated to Chet in English.
The segol makes the sound eh like the 'e' in met The kamatz makes the sound 'a' like the a in bat The schwa is silent and ends a word.
So the word 'salt' is spelled Mem Lamech Chet
"But his wife looked back behind him, and she became a pillar of MLKH."
But the word MLKH with the vowels patach under the Mem and Kamatz under the Lamach would appear to be spelled the same way in the original Hebrew but it means 'dissipation'
Therefore
"But his wife looked back behind him, and she became a pillar of salt."
Might be translated:
"But his wife looked back behind him, and she became a pillar of dissipation.
We can explore this verse at greater length in a discussion of the Book of Genesis. I would love to do that verse by verse and we would all learn something. You need to remember that translation is not an exact science and often they are the result of a committee decision which might be a compromise that no one person initially presented. Processes like this are a great way, not only to challenge ourselves but to learn more about the Bible.
NEXT.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3676 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 345 Thanked: 735 times in 551 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Quote:
"But his wife looked back behind him, and she became a pillar of salt."
Might be translated:
"But his wife looked back behind him, and she became a pillar of dissipation.
So she's either a pillar of salt or she dissipated? Your 20 weeks of basic Hebrew versus a thousands of men who are experts. I'll trust their interpretation, thanks. It makes more sense anyways.
What of claim #2, which you've been avoiding this entire time?
Quote:
The fact is that if the veracity of testimony can be established then it must be accepted.
Are you going to cast a spell of "increase veracity" rank 10? You can't wish something into truthfulness.
Quote:
#1 claim that the Bible cannot be used since it is biased, #2 that only material extra Biblical can be used to support Christianity's claims, & #3 that any extra-Biblical evidence in support of Christianity's claims is fabricated.
#1) The bible cannot be used because it is the source of the claims themselves. To use it is to commit the Bare Assertion Fallacy. Whatever your claim is, it must be supported by something else. This is basic logic. Quit whining about it!
#2) Correct, the claims must be supported by something other than themselves.
#3) False, a vast amount of extra-biblical evidence can be considered accurate. But that does not mean all extra-biblical evidence can be considered accurate. Unfortunately for you, scholars agree that the parts which are critical to your story are only supported by evidence which is believed to have been forged.
Which means, don't blame the messenger. I didn't go back in time and destroy evidence that would support your story. You act like a child when he can't get what he wants. Maybe... maybe it doesn't exist!!!! Maybe your story is in fact fabricated!! Wow, what a thought.
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 2025 Location: NY Highscores:59 Thanks: 560 Thanked: 169 times in 116 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Stahrwe,
I admit I have not read the Old Testament in a long while but your proposed new translation seems to have some logistic problems for me…
One: If she had transformed into a pillar of dissipation and not salt, why leave her behind?
Two: If this was indeed a mental transformation and not a physical one how was it detected so quickly?
I would think that if a person loved their wife they would have spent years trying to help them through any mental trauma caused by watching god destroy a city.
Three: There is no evidence that supports the claim that god destroyed a city anywhere at any time.
Finally… (and I will admit some ignorance here) from what I know of translation techniques the ancient Hebrew symbols in the Old Testament most probably had a clear cut meaning before they were translated.
It is the word that is carried over… if the meaning of the word is known than its equal in the new language is put in its place. There is no need to sound it out as you have done here.
If the old Hebrew symbols for salt had a dual meaning, you might have some kind of case here, but what you propose (spelling a word out) is never done when the meaning of the original word is known.
I am going out on a limb here but I find it doubtful that the word for “table salt” and “dissipation” are one and the same in the old Hebrew language.
Later
_________________ That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The following user would like to thank Frank 013 for this post: Interbane
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
"But his wife looked back behind him, and she became a pillar of salt."
Might be translated:
"But his wife looked back behind him, and she became a pillar of dissipation.
So she's either a pillar of salt or she dissipated? Your 20 weeks of basic Hebrew versus a thousands of men who are experts. I'll trust their interpretation, thanks. It makes more sense anyways.
What of claim #2, which you've been avoiding this entire time?
Quote:
The fact is that if the veracity of testimony can be established then it must be accepted.
Are you going to cast a spell of "increase veracity" rank 10? You can't wish something into truthfulness.
Quote:
#1 claim that the Bible cannot be used since it is biased, #2 that only material extra Biblical can be used to support Christianity's claims, & #3 that any extra-Biblical evidence in support of Christianity's claims is fabricated.
#1) The bible cannot be used because it is the source of the claims themselves. To use it is to commit the Bare Assertion Fallacy. Whatever your claim is, it must be supported by something else. This is basic logic. Quit whining about it!
#2) Correct, the claims must be supported by something other than themselves.
#3) False, a vast amount of extra-biblical evidence can be considered accurate. But that does not mean all extra-biblical evidence can be considered accurate. Unfortunately for you, scholars agree that the parts which are critical to your story are only supported by evidence which is believed to have been forged.
Which means, don't blame the messenger. I didn't go back in time and destroy evidence that would support your story. You act like a child when he can't get what he wants. Maybe... maybe it doesn't exist!!!! Maybe your story is in fact fabricated!! Wow, what a thought.
I don't intend to take claims one at a time on an ad hoc basis. If you wish to participate in a discussion of the Bible, book by book I am agreeable to that. Otherwise, I shall continue presenting Biblical evidence. Evidently the level of ignorance of the Bible is significant enough to require this process as we move toward the goal of understanding and knowledge. Not acceptance necessarily lest you panic.
The term 'dissipation' may be used in terms of moral rather than physical.
You should not accepta any translation without investigating it for yourself. There are enough tools on the internet to check translations.
As for the credibility of the Bible, you cannot dismiss it just because it makes the claims any more than a victim's tesimony is rejected because they are the accuser in a case. You really aren't making any sense. I understand the problem. For years you have been told that the Bible is not even to be discussed because it is biased. That gives you an out because you can remain uneducated about it without fear. If anyone starts to present a logical argument from the Bible you just hit the buzzer and loudly object. Well, it isn't that easy because in this discussion you will have to consider the evidence in the Bible before rejecting it. Now if you want to keep the volley going I will be happy to do so, on the other hand, if you wish to learn something, I will proceed.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Last edited by stahrwe on Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Frank 013 wrote:
Stahrwe,
I admit I have not read the Old Testament in a long while but your proposed new translation seems to have some logistic problems for me…
One: If she had transformed into a pillar of dissipation and not salt, why leave her behind?
Two: If this was indeed a mental transformation and not a physical one how was it detected so quickly?
I would think that if a person loved their wife they would have spent years trying to help them through any mental trauma caused by watching god destroy a city.
Three: There is no evidence that supports the claim that god destroyed a city anywhere at any time.
Finally… (and I will admit some ignorance here) from what I know of translation techniques the ancient Hebrew symbols in the Old Testament most probably had a clear cut meaning before they were translated.
It is the word that is carried over… if the meaning of the word is known than its equal in the new language is put in its place. There is no need to sound it out as you have done here.
If the old Hebrew symbols for salt had a dual meaning, you might have some kind of case here, but what you propose (spelling a word out) is never done when the meaning of the original word is known.
I am going out on a limb here but I find it doubtful that the word for “table salt” and “dissipation” are one and the same in the old Hebrew language.
Later
Nice try. You might be careful about that limb.
First, I didn't propose that my answer is correct just that Interbane's attempt at a canned criticism of Bible text lacked originality and can be easily answered. That is one problem with 'his' approach. There isn't really any understanding behind it so it can be dealt with. The he comes back with a counter, which I counter, ad infinitum. To really criticize something you need to know what you are talking about and taking you lead from some anti-Christian site is not going to get you very far.
Second, Hebrew words are formed from three letter roots and frequently can lead to unusual translation issues:
Mazzal Tov for example means congratulations but a literal translation is Good Constellation
The root word for mercy in Hebrew is womb.
The root for marriage is holiness.
Why do you mention table salt. Does the Bible say she was turned into table salt? NaCL is what we normally refer to as salt but there are many others as well.
Was Lot's wife left behind? Prove it.
Was the transformation instantaneous? Prove it.
Seems like you are making a large number of assumptions.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Last edited by stahrwe on Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 2025 Location: NY Highscores:59 Thanks: 560 Thanked: 169 times in 116 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Quote:
Stahrwe That is the lie that you have been told so often that you believe it.
Funny no one told me those things above… in fact quite the opposite… in a religious debate people like you always call foul when these rules are expected to be followed.
Just because you appeal solely to authority on your personal belief does not mean that I do.
Look Stahrwe, I am not trying to upset you or make you look bad, but the rules of logic and debate do not change for you because you find them disastrous to your claims. These are common sense/common logic rules of thinking and if you want to make your case to a thinking person you would do well to consider them.
I also find something funny… in one paragraph you want evidence that the bible is biased… in the next you admit it is!!! J
Of course that is why YEC is such a small splinter of Christianity as a whole… it doesn’t appeal to thinking people… most people look at the outrageous claims and realize that those events/materials/stories do not match up with the world they observe day to day and those claims do not hold true for the vast majority of others either.
The answer to how we got here (and other questions like it) are answered by other sources and answered better than the biblical authors could have ever dreamed. You being here is evidence of something… but not that the bible is true.
Later
_________________ That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 2025 Location: NY Highscores:59 Thanks: 560 Thanked: 169 times in 116 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Quote:
Stahrwe Nice try. You might be careful about that limb.
After reading what you wrote below It does not seem necessary to be careful…
Quote:
Stahrwe First, I didn't propose that my answer is correct just that Interbane's attempt at a canned criticism of Bible text lacked originality and can be easily answered.
So what… you just made crap up to try to mess Interbane up? Besides, when you do throw out possible alternate translations you admit that the bible is not inherent… or did you forget that?
Quote:
Stahrwe Second, Hebrew words are formed from three letter roots and frequently can lead to unusual translation issues:
Mazzal Tov for example means congratulations but a literal translation is Good Constellation
The root word for mercy in Hebrew is womb.
The root for marriage is holiness.
So, your claim is that the word for salt is the same as dissipation in old Hebrew?
Quote:
Stahrwe Was Lot's wife left behind? Prove it.
Ill go one better… prove that they ever existed in the first place J
Later
_________________ That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3676 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 345 Thanked: 735 times in 551 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Quote:
As for the credibility of the Bible, you cannot dismiss it just because it makes the claims any more than a victim's tesimony is rejected because they are the accuser in a case. You really aren't making any sense.
You don't listen. I've already said that the majority of biblical claims may be easily reinforced. Even the most mundane would be so light on the burden of proof that the testimonial within the bible doesn't need any contemporary evidence to support it. But you must take each claim on it's own, or the list of fallacies you commit skyrockets, starting with the Bare Assertion Fallacy.
Your repeated mistake is that you think all the claims are equal. Perhaps a woman didn't turn into salt. Perhaps she hadn't dissipated either. But that is just one amongst many. How do you support the claim that every thought of every person on Earth was only evil? This is an extraordinary claim, and the bible does not fulfill the burden of proof in this case. We need other sources, due to the nature of the claim. I'm not moving the goalpost nor applying double standards. The burden of proof increases or decreases depending on how mundane or extraordinary the claim is, and whether or not it's ontologically positive.
Quote:
I don't intend to take claims one at a time on an ad hoc basis.
Of course you don't. Such a thorough analysis would vividly display the errors you're attempting to dodge. Please officer, don't shine a spotlight at my pupils.
The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post: Frank 013
Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 3011 Location: Canberra
Thanks: 760 Thanked: 756 times in 567 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Frank 013 wrote:
Look Stahrwe, I am not trying to upset you or make you look bad, but the rules of logic and debate do not change for you because you find them disastrous to your claims. These are common sense/common logic rules of thinking and if you want to make your case to a thinking person you would do well to consider them. I also find something funny… in one paragraph you want evidence that the bible is biased… in the next you admit it is!!! J Of course that is why YEC is such a small splinter of Christianity as a whole… it doesn’t appeal to thinking people… most people look at the outrageous claims and realize that those events/materials/stories do not match up with the world they observe day to day and those claims do not hold true for the vast majority of others either. The answer to how we got here (and other questions like it) are answered by other sources and answered better than the biblical authors could have ever dreamed. You being here is evidence of something… but not that the bible is true. Later
Hello again Frank, thank you for re-joining this discussion. It is great that Stahrwe is able to join in the debate, as a capable and articulate representative of the 40% or so of Americans who believe that the world is less than ten thousand years old. His arguments provide insight into the psychological processes which can enable people to hold to such obviously wrong claims. I hope the discussions here will eventually lead Stahrwe to see the error of his ways, and maybe lead some other deluded creationists to open up to reason and evidence. It is interesting to analyse what the logical framework of Stahrwe's claims might be. The moral blackmail in the Bible that warns that any deviation from dogmatic blinkers will cause you to burn in hell for ever, and that such deviation is invariably caused by the deception of the devil, is important as a circular and self-reinforcing moral system. However, the truth is the reverse: the creationist claim that they are holier than thou has no basis in fact and is the cause of much suffering and waste. Talking about evidence for obviously false claims would be little more than a game, except that millions of people believe the false claims to be gospel truth.
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 2025 Location: NY Highscores:59 Thanks: 560 Thanked: 169 times in 116 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Hey RT, it was comforting to see you were still here!!!
I don't have an issue with Stahrwe except he either can't or won't follow the rules of common sense and basic logic when it comes to his religion.
Of course if he did his views would have to change.
I am not here with the intent to beat up on him, or his flimsy arguments... I just want him to understand why we cannot accept his claims or his "evidence". And I want him to understand why his claims and "evidence" do not pass the basic thinking process.
Alas... it seems hopeless
But at least we can keep him in check from corrupting uninformed minds that visit BookTalk. I see that as a true service to human kind!!!
Later
_________________ That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Frank 013 wrote:
Quote:
Stahrwe That is the lie that you have been told so often that you believe it.
Funny no one told me those things above… in fact quite the opposite… in a religious debate people like you always call foul when these rules are expected to be followed.
Just because you appeal solely to authority on your personal belief does not mean that I do.
Look Stahrwe, I am not trying to upset you or make you look bad, but the rules of logic and debate do not change for you because you find them disastrous to your claims. These are common sense/common logic rules of thinking and if you want to make your case to a thinking person you would do well to consider them.
I also find something funny… in one paragraph you want evidence that the bible is biased… in the next you admit it is!!! J
Of course that is why YEC is such a small splinter of Christianity as a whole… it doesn’t appeal to thinking people… most people look at the outrageous claims and realize that those events/materials/stories do not match up with the world they observe day to day and those claims do not hold true for the vast majority of others either.
The answer to how we got here (and other questions like it) are answered by other sources and answered better than the biblical authors could have ever dreamed. You being here is evidence of something… but not that the bible is true.
Later
did I say the Bible is unbiased? Let's be clear, the Bible is biased in that it is supportive of God and Jesus. It is not biased in the sense that it contains anything other than the truth. My argument regarding testimony from biased individuals is that to demand that such testimony be excluded is absurd. Both civil and criminal courts hear testimony all the time from individuals who are biased as t the outcome, and they manage. Based on that model of evidence by what intellectual cheat should the Bible be excluded from consideration merely because you, or anyone esle thinks it might be biased. That argument is ridiculous
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Frank 013 wrote:
Quote:
Stahrwe Nice try. You might be careful about that limb.
After reading what you wrote below It does not seem necessary to be careful…
Quote:
Stahrwe First, I didn't propose that my answer is correct just that Interbane's attempt at a canned criticism of Bible text lacked originality and can be easily answered.
So what… you just made crap up to try to mess Interbane up? Besides, when you do throw out possible alternate translations you admit that the bible is not inherent… or did you forget that?
Quote:
Stahrwe Second, Hebrew words are formed from three letter roots and frequently can lead to unusual translation issues:
Mazzal Tov for example means congratulations but a literal translation is Good Constellation
The root word for mercy in Hebrew is womb.
The root for marriage is holiness.
So, your claim is that the word for salt is the same as dissipation in old Hebrew?
Quote:
Stahrwe Was Lot's wife left behind? Prove it.
Ill go one better… prove that they ever existed in the first place J
Later
Not sure what J 8 is.
I am merely pointint out that all of you think you can sit on your hands, pull in canned comments from: www.atheistagainstthebibledujour.com and you're golden. That is a major dodge because you don't want to actually look at the text.
Inerrancy applies to the autographs.
Resorting to 'prove they ever existed in the first place' is nonsensical and a diversionary tactic. Tell me what evidence you would accept as proof.
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
As for the credibility of the Bible, you cannot dismiss it just because it makes the claims any more than a victim's tesimony is rejected because they are the accuser in a case. You really aren't making any sense.
You don't listen. I've already said that the majority of biblical claims may be easily reinforced. Even the most mundane would be so light on the burden of proof that the testimonial within the bible doesn't need any contemporary evidence to support it. But you must take each claim on it's own, or the list of fallacies you commit skyrockets, starting with the Bare Assertion Fallacy.
Your repeated mistake is that you think all the claims are equal. Perhaps a woman didn't turn into salt. Perhaps she hadn't dissipated either. But that is just one amongst many. How do you support the claim that every thought of every person on Earth was only evil? This is an extraordinary claim, and the bible does not fulfill the burden of proof in this case. We need other sources, due to the nature of the claim. I'm not moving the goalpost nor applying double standards. The burden of proof increases or decreases depending on how mundane or extraordinary the claim is, and whether or not it's ontologically positive.
Quote:
I don't intend to take claims one at a time on an ad hoc basis.
Of course you don't. Such a thorough analysis would vividly display the errors you're attempting to dodge. Please officer, don't shine a spotlight at my pupils.
What would you accept as evidence?
Oh yeach, your canned post about Evidence being anything .....
major dodge.
How am I making a Bare Assertion Fallacy?
_________________ “I think one of [James Hoffmeier’s] most important points is that we have unrealistic expectations for what archaeology can offer us as far as ‘proving’ Exodus: ‘After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt. Archaeology’s ability … is quite limited.’” Jeff Lambert, Editorial Associate, Biblical Archaeological Review. via email January 26, 2010 8:20:58 AM. [email receipiant redacted for privacy reasons. See Thread-The Bible's Buried Secrets for full text.]
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 2025 Location: NY Highscores:59 Thanks: 560 Thanked: 169 times in 116 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Quote:
Stahrwe My argument regarding testimony from biased individuals is that to demand that such testimony be excluded is absurd.
Is it? Then why are spouses exempt from testifying against each other? The known Bias is why.
Quote:
Stahrwe Both civil and criminal courts hear testimony all the time from individuals who are biased as t the outcome, and they manage.
Yes they do, however when the bias is extreme “purgery” is exercised. We have punishments in place because we know that biased testimony often contains lies and when these lies are exposed people go to jail for obstructing justice!
Now we cannot put the writers of the bible (whoever they might have been) on trial for obstructing justice, there is no fear of punishment so no incentive to tell the truth, so for this reason it is reasonable to dismiss their writings as biased and unacceptable as evidence.
Quote:
Stahrwe Based on that model of evidence by what intellectual cheat should the Bible be excluded from consideration merely because you, or anyone else thinks it might be biased. That argument is ridiculous.
We are not excluding the bible as evidence simply because I and others think of it as biased… that is one of a whole host of reasons… but since you ask I will explain in terms I hope you can understand.
I have a ceramic jar with the word “MAGIC” engraved on it. What you are suggesting is that just because the word magic is on the jar it must be accepted as evidence that it is indeed a magical jar. This might be fine but the jar fails all other attempts to show its “magical” nature. Without that corroborating evidence we can assume that the word “MAGIC” is simply decoration and we do not actually have a magic jar.
Your Bible fails in the same way… it is a book that claims its own inherency, but when external corroboration is sought the bible fails just like the magic jar.
Later
_________________ That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
The 12th Disciple is now being
stocked at Poor Richard's
Bookstore in Colorado Springs.
We're happy to have the
title at such a historic
location in Colorado Springs.
If… more
For most of us, a very big
part of our lives will be a
dark place, we wont realize
it. We live, we eat, we have
some fun, we go to school, we
sleep. But it will come the
time, when… more
The 12th Disciple's
endorsement for a Presidential
Candidate...we'll pass.
If many haven't learned
over the past several decades,
centuries, and millennia, the
gover… more
So I've been looking for
new books to read, but I
haven't found any that
have caught my attention
lately. I want to try and
venture out into a different
genre, but I'… more
For those who constantly gripe
about jobs being sent
overseas, focus your anger on
this. Read about how one of
the most profitable companies
prided by American citizens
offshores t… more
Its January 1945 and British,
Commonwealth, US and POWs from
various other nationalities
are finally awaiting
liberation from the various
camps in Eastern Europe, where
some of the… more
A good friend of mine recently
received a pre-paid credit
card. She went to pay for a
$20.00 gas purchase only to
later find out that over a
$70.00 hold was placed on her
card for… more
While watching the bube tube
(TV) this morning I stumbled
on a motivational speaker
saying today marks a new
year, you now have a blank
canvas to work from.
The 12th Disciple wishes you
and yours a Happy New Year.
Many of us hope and pray that
2012 will bring better
leadership in the government
of the United States, better
leadership i… more
The Cat & The
Nightingale Saga, the docu
drama version of The Weekend
Trippers, also tells Rifleman
Ted Taylors story but in a
slightly different way. It too
tells of the… more
In 2011 I published my book;
in the book I outlined 9 Key
Principles to Prosperity
(happiness). Like
many of you, I walked through
2011 with the Woe is me
attitude. When… more
More and more these days I see
people using social media to
quote what someone else has
said. I see people posting
their favorite rappers lyrics,
lines from movies and what
seems t… more
Im down the school for the
first time today. My friend
visited two weeks ago and said
it was chaos. They must have
heard I was back
because everything is tidy and
orderly today… more
I'm quite positive that
everyone who enters this site
has the same thing in mind:
fear of seeing a world without
books, without literature. We
see it everyday, more people
qui… more
For once in my life I step off
the plane at Banjul, and
dont get a rush of elation.
I went home to see my
daughters twins safely
delivered. They are all well
now, but Im goin… more
Last weekend I witnessed a
couple of family members
literally fall apart at the
seams because of a problem
with a couple of their
employees. They recently
opened a group home, and
… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
Booktalk.org on Facebook
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
