Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
geo wrote:
I now submit Malleus Maleficarum Part 1.
Question I
Whether the Belief that there are such Beings as Witches is so Essential a Part of the Catholic Faith that Obstinacy to maintain the Opposite Opinion manifestly savours of Heresy.
The topic is Epistemology and Biblical Evidence, not Beliefs of the Catholic Church; on that basis Malleus Maleficarum Part 1 is out of order for this discussion in accordance with FRE Article 1 rule 105, and Article IV Rules 401-403 as well as Booktalk Discussion Rule #4.
_________________ “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
geo wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
The Bible may not be ruled irrelvant as the discussion is about the Bible.
The Bible has been deemed inadmissable. You will have to submit another text.
.
Please cite the rule used to deem the Bible inadmissable otherwise your statement is an opinion and is will not be considered as it fails to meet the requirement of FRE Rule 701(b)
_________________ “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
May we now proceed with some intelligent discussion?
In an earlier post I was asked to connect the dots. Proceeding therefore, may I please get agreement that something which has a 1 in 1,461,501,637,330,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1.461501... x 10^48) has no chance of being an accidental occurance
_________________ “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: 3719 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 747 times in 562 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Quote:
First, the point about the Dawkins and Shermer books being rejected isn't that the material is rejected, it is the form.
You do not have the authority to object to the form(per it's exception via 807). Only the trier of fact does. You initially attempted to reject the evidence based on the fact that they weren't ancient documents, and now you're trying to backpedal to save face.
Quote:
Second you are attempting a diversionary tactic with the year of composition and alteration claim.
Diversionary tactic? No, this crap about you attempting to bypass logic by using the FRE is all a farce, one giant diversionary tactic. You need to refer to 901(b)(8) Ancient documents or data compilation. Your ancient documents do not meet the criteria of subset A) and B) of that rule. Therefore you need additional evidence for the authenticity of the documents.
Quote:
Can we agree that this demonstrates that the simultaneous occurrance could not be by chance?
Yes, I agree. Which leaves the trier of fact with three conclusions.
1) An event happened 2,000 years ago which defied the laws of nature. 2) The witness lied. 3) The ancient text was fabricated.
Quote:
The Bible may not be ruled irrelvant as the discussion is about the Bible.
The bible is fulfilling two roles. One, it is the body of claims you wish to support. Two, it is the body of testimony you're using to support the claims. The bible as a body of testimony may be ruled as irrelevant to supporting it's own claims based on the fact that this is circular reasoning. At the very least, as a foundation, you would need to find contemporary evidence which supports any given witness account, then hope the trust from the true account carries over to the 'entire' account. A pitfall you must avoid is any "account" beyond that supported by contemporary evidence which damages the witnesses reliability. For example, if the witness claims some event happened which had defied the laws of nature, that would cast his entire testimony into a shadow of doubt only reparable by contemporary evidence.
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
First, the point about the Dawkins and Shermer books being rejected isn't that the material is rejected, it is the form.
You do not have the authority to object to the form(per it's exception via 807). Only the trier of fact does. You initially attempted to reject the evidence based on the fact that they weren't ancient documents, and now you're trying to backpedal to save face.
Quote:
Second you are attempting a diversionary tactic with the year of composition and alteration claim.
Diversionary tactic? No, this crap about you attempting to bypass logic by using the FRE is all a farce, one giant diversionary tactic. You need to refer to 901(b)(8) Ancient documents or data compilation. Your ancient documents do not meet the criteria of subset A) and B) of that rule. Therefore you need additional evidence for the authenticity of the documents.
Quote:
Can we agree that this demonstrates that the simultaneous occurrance could not be by chance?
Yes, I agree. Which leaves the trier of fact with three conclusions.
1) An event happened 2,000 years ago which defied the laws of nature. 2) The witness lied. 3) The ancient text was fabricated.
Quote:
The Bible may not be ruled irrelvant as the discussion is about the Bible.
The bible is fulfilling two roles. One, it is the body of claims you wish to support. Two, it is the body of testimony you're using to support the claims. The bible as a body of testimony may be ruled as irrelevant to supporting it's own claims based on the fact that this is circular reasoning. At the very least, as a foundation, you would need to find contemporary evidence which supports any given witness account, then hope the trust from the true account carries over to the 'entire' account. A pitfall you must avoid is any "account" beyond that supported by contemporary evidence which damages the witnesses reliability. For example, if the witness claims some event happened which had defied the laws of nature, that would cast his entire testimony into a shadow of doubt only reparable by contemporary evidence.
Are you reverting to the 'tedious' arguing now? I thought you wanted to advance the discussion. I did that with a discussion of the Talmud and a quetion about probability which I repeat here:
In each of the above cases the probability of the same outcome each year for 40 years is 1 in 1 trillion and the probability of all four outcomes being the same each year as described above is 1 trillion to the fourth power, or 1 in 1,461,501,637,330,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 . Can we agree that this demonstrates that the simultaneous occurrance could not be by chance?
If you answer the question we can move on. If you wish to argue about the legitimacy of rejecting evidence and who is the trier of facts I am perfectly happy to continue that line of discussion as well though I doubt it will lead to anything but frustration on your part.
_________________ “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: 3719 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 747 times in 562 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
I need to ask, why are you so frantic to move on? Perhaps this struck a nerve:
Quote:
You need to refer to 901(b)(8) Ancient documents or data compilation. Your ancient documents do not meet the criteria of subset A) and B) of that rule. Therefore you need additional evidence for the authenticity of the documents.
So, there's no reason to move on until you resolve that. Whatever we conclude with the tangent of your "not by chance" incident is contingent upon your support of that evidence as authentic. But I'm humoring you by responding to the claims in the Talmud:
Quote:
If you answer the question we can move on.
Read slower...
I wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I agree. Which leaves the trier of fact with three conclusions.
1) An event happened 2,000 years ago which defied the laws of nature. 2) The witness lied. 3) The ancient text was fabricated.
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Interbane wrote:
I need to ask, why are you so frantic to move on? Perhaps this struck a nerve:
Quote:
You need to refer to 901(b)(8) Ancient documents or data compilation. Your ancient documents do not meet the criteria of subset A) and B) of that rule. Therefore you need additional evidence for the authenticity of the documents.
On the contrary, it is you who needs to read the rule again. Here it is:
Quote:
(8) Ancient documents or data compilation.—Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form, (A) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity,
This clearly refers to the physical characteristics of the specimen being considered and not to the contents. Sorry, you missed it again.
interbane wrote:
So, there's no reason to move on until you resolve that. Whatever we conclude with the tangent of your "not by chance" incident is contingent upon your support of that evidence as authentic. But I'm humoring you by responding to the claims in the Talmud:
Quote:
If you answer the question we can move on.
Read slower...
I wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I agree. Which leaves the trier of fact with three conclusions.
1) An event happened 2,000 years ago which defied the laws of nature. 2) The witness lied. 3) The ancient text was fabricated.
OK,
1) possible 2) perhaps but not likely as the lot coming to the left hand was considered a bad, as was the cord not turning white, and the Temple door opening. If the circumstances generated a lie it would be that the lot came to the right hand, the cord always turned white and the Door stayed closed and locked. Finally, the failure of the Servant lamp to light was a major problem. The procedure was to light the servant lamp and use it to light the remaining lamps. Technically, since the servant lamp would not light the other lamps should not have been lit. The fact that the servant lamp would not light also defied logic as the same fuel and wicks were used for it and the six other lamps. If they lit, it should have lit. 3) Unlikely that the text was fabricated as the account is found in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds.
Would you agree that the events defy the laws of nature?
_________________ “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: 3719 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 747 times in 562 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Quote:
This clearly refers to the physical characteristics of the specimen being considered and not to the contents. Sorry, you missed it again.
Again? I've missed nothing in any of our discussions. Save the projections for someone else.
Yes, it refers to the physical characteristics. It must either be the original, or a duplicate which hasn't changed from the original(we would need the original to verify that fact, or at least pictures of the original. Otherwise, the witness testimony contained within cannot be considered authentic. Do you have the original document in Sauls or John's or whichever witnesses handwriting?
Quote:
1) possible 2) perhaps but not likely as the lot coming to the left hand was considered a bad, as was the cord not turning white, and the Temple door opening. If the circumstances generated a lie it would be that the lot came to the right hand, the cord always turned white and the Door stayed closed and locked. Finally, the failure of the Servant lamp to light was a major problem. The procedure was to light the servant lamp and use it to light the remaining lamps. Technically, since the servant lamp would not light the other lamps should not have been lit. The fact that the servant lamp would not light also defied logic as the same fuel and wicks were used for it and the six other lamps. If they lit, it should have lit. 3) Unlikely that the text was fabricated as the account is found in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds.
You think that a person lying and the fabrication of text is more likely than the laws of nature miraculously altering?
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1872 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 409 Thanked: 466 times in 347 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
stahrwe wrote:
geo wrote:
I now submit Malleus Maleficarum Part 1.
Question I
Whether the Belief that there are such Beings as Witches is so Essential a Part of the Catholic Faith that Obstinacy to maintain the Opposite Opinion manifestly savours of Heresy.
The topic is Epistemology and Biblical Evidence, not Beliefs of the Catholic Church; on that basis Malleus Maleficarum Part 1 is out of order for this discussion in accordance with FRE Article 1 rule 105, and Article IV Rules 401-403 as well as Booktalk Discussion Rule #4.
Apparently in Stahrwe's fantasy he is both litigator and judge.
I have been purposefully vague with these postings because I'm trying to demonstrate how incredibly ineffective it is to post links to texts or walls of texts without also arguing their relevance. I see that my point is lost. However, I will point out that Malleus Maleficarum is completely relevant in a discussion which attempts to put forth the Bible as some kind of credible source. The Bible is not a credible source and In a real court of law, I would submit the Malleus Maleficarum as clear evidence that the Bible can be construed to mean just about anything, including the existence of witches, that witches copulate with devils, and that women are more prone to evil superstition than men. Additionally, if this was real court of law, I would provide evidence for any number of denominations of religions which demonstrate how different interpretations of the Bible lead to wildly different belief systems, many of which bear almost no resemblance to each other—from the Catholic Church's willful and malicious renderings that led to the Inquisition to Creationist's infantile beliefs regarding the origin of earth and creation of life, all derived from the same source material. As we clearly see, the Bible is evidence for nothing. It's a book.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
The following user would like to thank geo for this post: johnson1010
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3719 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 747 times in 562 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Quote:
1) possible
This is a last resort. We would have to rewrite all modern human knowledge to accomodate this conclusion. It is less likely than the sun coming up tomorrow.
Quote:
2) perhaps but not likely
Your speculation on this point says nothing about the likelihood of a person bearing false witness. In either case, it is so much more likely(millions of times more likely, at the very least) than #1 that even with this conclusion we can dismiss #1 outright.
How many millions of people have told a lie today? Out of those lies, how many were difficult to see as a lie, in the same sense that you think it unlikely someone lied about the lights? How many thousands of such similar lies were told today? The most extreme hundred or so lies told this year would likely seem impossible to be anything but true. Do you think this speculation is unfounded? Do you believe men almost always tell the truth, and even then, when they lie, it's easy to distinguish?
Quote:
3) Unlikely that the text was fabricated as the account is found in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds.
This is a false dilemma. Alternatively, the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds could have copied the same parent fabrication. Or one could have copied from the other. Or they could have been rewritten at a later date so the events would better reflect each other.
Of the 3 conclusions our jury would come to, #3 is the most parsimonious. It is the same as #2, except it applies to every person who authored or transcribed the works, not only the original witness.
Quote:
Would you agree that the events defy the laws of nature?
No, based on the likelihood of optional conclusions, I think we both agree that the events were most likely fabricated, and at the very least, lied about.
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
This clearly refers to the physical characteristics of the specimen being considered and not to the contents. Sorry, you missed it again.
Again? I've missed nothing in any of our discussions. Save the projections for someone else.
Yes, it refers to the physical characteristics. It must either be the original, or a duplicate which hasn't changed from the original(we would need the original to verify that fact, or at least pictures of the original. Otherwise, the witness testimony contained within cannot be considered authentic. Do you have the original document in Sauls or John's or whichever witnesses handwriting?
If you wish to pursue this line of argument: 1) I will submit expert testimony in the form of ancient documents (scholarly books) more than 20 years old which will attest to the authenticity of the Bible as we know it today 2) I can also submit the Dead Sea Scrolls which are original autographs. 3) I will submit the King James Translation which qualifies as an ancient document along with the testimony of the committee who prepared the translation. 4) If you wish to continue this I will be happy to start a new thread The History of the Bible/Can we trust our translations, etc.
Quote:
1) possible 2) perhaps but not likely as the lot coming to the left hand was considered a bad, as was the cord not turning white, and the Temple door opening. If the circumstances generated a lie it would be that the lot came to the right hand, the cord always turned white and the Door stayed closed and locked. Finally, the failure of the Servant lamp to light was a major problem. The procedure was to light the servant lamp and use it to light the remaining lamps. Technically, since the servant lamp would not light the other lamps should not have been lit. The fact that the servant lamp would not light also defied logic as the same fuel and wicks were used for it and the six other lamps. If they lit, it should have lit. 3) Unlikely that the text was fabricated as the account is found in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds.
Interbane wrote:
You think that a person lying and the fabrication of text is more likely than the laws of nature miraculously altering?
The likelihood is extremely remote that the Talmud would record the cited information about the Temple oddities if they were not true. I would put the odds at less than the probability I cited for the combination of all of the events. But then you also have to consider that not only did the Jerusalem Talmud but also the Babylonian Talmud recorded the same events. What I find very amusing is that you and your friends claim that the Bible was edited and re-edited with some ultimate goal of promoting Christianity. Well, the same culture which produced the early Church also produced the rabbis who wrote the Talmud. Given that, why didn't they edit the record of the lot, cord, light, and door out so it didn't make them look bad? The reason was that their tradition was to preserve the Bible as it was revealed to them and not to change anything even though it showed them in a terrible light. That is a fact, which is demonstrable by reading the Major and Minor Prophets in the OT and many accounts in the NT where the disciples behaved badly.
_________________ “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
geo wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
geo wrote:
I now submit Malleus Maleficarum Part 1.
Question I
Whether the Belief that there are such Beings as Witches is so Essential a Part of the Catholic Faith that Obstinacy to maintain the Opposite Opinion manifestly savours of Heresy.
The topic is Epistemology and Biblical Evidence, not Beliefs of the Catholic Church; on that basis Malleus Maleficarum Part 1 is out of order for this discussion in accordance with FRE Article 1 rule 105, and Article IV Rules 401-403 as well as Booktalk Discussion Rule #4.
Apparently in Stahrwe's fantasy he is both litigator and judge.
I have been purposefully vague with these postings because I'm trying to demonstrate how incredibly ineffective it is to post links to texts or walls of texts without also arguing their relevance. I see that my point is lost. However, I will point out that Malleus Maleficarum is completely relevant in a discussion which attempts to put forth the Bible as some kind of credible source. The Bible is not a credible source and In a real court of law, I would submit the Malleus Maleficarum as clear evidence that the Bible can be construed to mean just about anything, including the existence of witches, that witches copulate with devils, and that women are more prone to evil superstition than men. Additionally, if this was real court of law, I would provide evidence for any number of denominations of religions which demonstrate how different interpretations of the Bible lead to wildly different belief systems, many of which bear almost no resemblance to each other—from the Catholic Church's willful and malicious renderings that led to the Inquisition to Creationist's infantile beliefs regarding the origin of earth and creation of life, all derived from the same source material. As we clearly see, the Bible is evidence for nothing. It's a book.
You are well versed in the rationalist art of evasion. When someone expresses an opinion contrary to your beliefs demand objective material, when one provides objective material cry walls of text and demand opinion.
This discussion is Epistemology and Biblical Evidence if you wish to discuss the Malleus Maleficarum I suggest that you start a new thread on that subject. Throughout history many people have used and mis-used the Bible to suit thier own purposes. To take time to chase every such rabbit in this thread will result in a frustrating and non-productive exercise. A discussion thread of mis-uses of the Bible would also be an interesting discussion but your attempt to divert this discussion with the Malleus Maleficarum is neither relevant nor clever, in fact it smacks of immaturity and lack of ability to discuss the matter at hand.
_________________ “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
When someone will agree that that something which has a probability of happening of 1 in 1,461,501,637,330,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1.461501... x 10^48) has no chance of being an accidental occurance, please let me know and we can proceed with the proof of the Bible.
_________________ “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: 3719 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 747 times in 562 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Quote:
If you wish to pursue this line of argument: 1) I will submit expert testimony in the form of ancient documents (scholarly books) more than 20 years old which will attest to the authenticity of the Bible as we know it today 2) I can also submit the Dead Sea Scrolls which are original autographs. 3) I will submit the King James Translation which qualifies as an ancient document along with the testimony of the committee who prepared the translation. 4) If you wish to continue this I will be happy to start a new thread The History of the Bible/Can we trust our translations, etc.
Perhaps you misunderstood the original intent of this thread. Those items of evidence are exactly what I'm asking for. Attempting to use the bible as evidence was a failure before it began. "Biblical Evidence" referred to evidence for the bible.
Quote:
The likelihood is extremely remote that the Talmud would record the cited information about the Temple oddities if they were not true. I would put the odds at less than the probability I cited for the combination of all of the events. But then you also have to consider that not only did the Jerusalem Talmud but also the Babylonian Talmud recorded the same events. What I find very amusing is that you and your friends claim that the Bible was edited and re-edited with some ultimate goal of promoting Christianity. Well, the same culture which produced the early Church also produced the rabbis who wrote the Talmud. Given that, why didn't they edit the record of the lot, cord, light, and door out so it didn't make them look bad? The reason was that their tradition was to preserve the Bible as it was revealed to them and not to change anything even though it showed them in a terrible light. That is a fact, which is demonstrable by reading the Major and Minor Prophets in the OT and many accounts in the NT where the disciples behaved badly.
This does not change the fact that the likelihood of fabrication is millions of times more likely than an alteration of the laws of nature. You say the likelihood of fabrication is extremely remote. Of course, you cannot say anything else but that, or your entire worldview would crumble. Your judgement is biased. But that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that even if the fabrication was extremely unlikely, an alteration of the laws of nature is even more unlikely, by an exponential amount.
Quote:
When someone will agree that that something which has a probability of happening of 1 in 1,461,501,637,330,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1.461501... x 10^48) has no chance of being an accidental occurance, please let me know and we can proceed with the proof of the Bible.
Yes, I've already agreed to this. Which leaves the trier of fact with three conclusions.
1) An event happened 2,000 years ago which defied the laws of nature. 2) The witness lied. 3) The ancient text was fabricated.
Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 4141 Location: Florida
Thanks: 121 Thanked: 143 times in 133 posts
Gender:
Re: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
If you wish to pursue this line of argument: 1) I will submit expert testimony in the form of ancient documents (scholarly books) more than 20 years old which will attest to the authenticity of the Bible as we know it today 2) I can also submit the Dead Sea Scrolls which are original autographs. 3) I will submit the King James Translation which qualifies as an ancient document along with the testimony of the committee who prepared the translation. 4) If you wish to continue this I will be happy to start a new thread The History of the Bible/Can we trust our translations, etc.
Perhaps you misunderstood the original intent of this thread. Those items of evidence are exactly what I'm asking for. Attempting to use the bible as evidence was a failure before it began. "Biblical Evidence" referred to evidence for the bible.
What is the definition of epistemology?
Quote:
The likelihood is extremely remote that the Talmud would record the cited information about the Temple oddities if they were not true. I would put the odds at less than the probability I cited for the combination of all of the events. But then you also have to consider that not only did the Jerusalem Talmud but also the Babylonian Talmud recorded the same events. What I find very amusing is that you and your friends claim that the Bible was edited and re-edited with some ultimate goal of promoting Christianity. Well, the same culture which produced the early Church also produced the rabbis who wrote the Talmud. Given that, why didn't they edit the record of the lot, cord, light, and door out so it didn't make them look bad? The reason was that their tradition was to preserve the Bible as it was revealed to them and not to change anything even though it showed them in a terrible light. That is a fact, which is demonstrable by reading the Major and Minor Prophets in the OT and many accounts in the NT where the disciples behaved badly.
interbane wrote:
This does not change the fact that the likelihood of fabrication is millions of times more likely than an alteration of the laws of nature. You say the likelihood of fabrication is extremely remote. Of course, you cannot say anything else but that, or your entire worldview would crumble. Your judgement is biased. But that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that even if the fabrication was extremely unlikely, an alteration of the laws of nature is even more unlikely, by an exponential amount.
Ten to the 48th?
Quote:
When someone will agree that that something which has a probability of happening of 1 in 1,461,501,637,330,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1.461501... x 10^48) has no chance of being an accidental occurance, please let me know and we can proceed with the proof of the Bible.
interbane wrote:
Yes, I've already agreed to this. Which leaves the trier of fact with three conclusions.
1) An event happened 2,000 years ago which defied the laws of nature. 2) The witness lied. 3) The ancient text was fabricated.
What happened ~ 40 years before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans?
_________________ “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.]
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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
Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.
Support BookTalk.org
BookTalk.org is being upgraded to a totally new design. This upgrade is expensive. Any support would be VERY helpful! See who supports us.
Make a donation
PEOPLE PAYING FOR OUR UPGRADE:
• afv - $10 May
• LevV - $50 March
• Dexter - $10 March
• supernova38 - $25 March
• Oblivion - $20 March
• jheimlich - $20 February
• Robert Tulip - $50 February
• giselle - $50 January
Children here need worming
regularly, and I think I
need to buy more worming
tablets, so while my friends
sit on the beach, I have to
catch bush taxis up to the… more
The children have a long way
to walk to the nearest primary
school. At the moment they are
in temporary accommodation,
with volunteer teachers. There
is community land available,
a… more
The price of The 12th Disciple
has been updated to $3.99 for
Kindle readers. The book is
still available for free to
borrow for Amazon Prime
members. To be
competitive, and s… more
The 12th Disciple has been
reviewed by two different
people on Amazon. They
purchased the Kindle edition;
one in the US, one in the
UK. One review was
5-stars (US) and the oth… more
I'd like to say I've
been reading Harry Potter
since the day the world renown
series appeared on the
scene. Unfortunately,
the truth is I began reading
Harry Potter… more
Easter teaches many of us the
importance of redemption and
resurrection. Regardless of
what faith people follow, the
story of Jesus Christ has been
told in many languages in many
c… more
Our Book Talk will begin on
Wednesday, May 2nd. I look
forward to hearing about your
learning and classroom
experiences with Number Talks
as it all unfolds...
NONOPPOSITIONAL NONVIOLENCE
The minute you conquer the
fear of death, at that moment
you are free. I submit to you
that if a man hasnt
discovered something that he
will die f… more
Yesterday, when I went to feed
Jeni the donkey, I noticed
swarms of bees entering
Ebrimas house through the
cracks in the door. We both
had a look, but he didnt
open his door… more
Whether you want to implement
number talks but are unsure of
how to begin or have
experience but want more
guidance in crafting
purposeful problems, this
dynamic multimedia resourc… more
Do you feel entitled? For
years I have listened to and,
in some instances, complained
that some people in America
feel entitled. For years I
have watched as these people
are portra… more
On Fat Tuesday and Ash
Wednesday of 2012, The 12th
Disciple was free to Kindle
users on both days. In all,
about 550 worldwide Kindle
users downloaded a copy of the
book.
Sacred Are the Brave a
collection of short stories
about the nonviolent
revolutions 1986-1989 is now
available in Kindle. Each of
the nine stories has
characters who are just
… more
The Weekend Trippers is the
true story of Rfn Ted Taylor
and his part in the heroic
last stand in Calais May 1940.
The Weekend Trippers is based
on Teds diaries written at
the… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
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
