Replies

LOL! Can you prove it ISN'T true?

Parts of it, sure. See below.

Every part of it? No, some parts describe historical events accurately.

Is every part disprovable? No, for the same reason that you can't prove there isn't a Tooth Fairy (or Zeus -- try to prove that Zeus isn't the real head honcho). This is a well-known philosophical catch-22, often (but inaccurately) described as "proving a negative". Next you'll likely ask me whether I've stopped beating my wife.

Another bit of education: Since you earlier indicated that you were unclear on the difference between a "leap of faith" and the things that are discovered by science, here's a primer: Science deals in things that can conceivably be falsified. In other words, there has to be a way to disprove a theory (and additionally of course, there must be ways to verifiably support the theory by experiment or evidence, which usually means that it must be predictive -- but I digress). A theory which can be disproven implicitly contains ways that it can be conclusively discarded if it fails to fit the evidence. In short, it's testable, and is open to ways to give it an immediate failing grade if it turns out not to be true (the flip side is not an immediate "proof", but only "continues to pass each test/evidence put to it").

This is why acceptance of evolution requires no "leap of faith" -- one can examine all the evidence for oneself and see that a) nothing yet discovered or tested proves it wrong, and b) everything so far discovered and tested (over the past 150 years) either fits the predictions of theory, or is in the "jury's still out" category (and much more of the former than the latter). It takes no "leap of faith" to look over the evidence. It just takes time and a brain and some education in a few related fields.

Your belief system, on the other hand, *does* take a "leap of faith", because there's absolutely no way it can be falsified, even in theory. And you're not only expected to believe it apart from any evidence, you're expected to believe it even if things appear to *contradict* it (begone, lying Satan!). When all else fails, you're expected to shrug and say, "well, He works in mysterious ways, if it makes no sense it's *my* fault..."

Can you also explain WHY the Bible is vindicated ALL the time in archelogy and secular history?

Please, you can't possibly be this naive. Yes, the stories in the Bible take place in and around actual historical places and mention actual historical events (like so-and-so being King, etc.) But surely you understand that this can't be taken as proof that every little detail is then necessarily true.

I can verify that there was actually an American Civil War, that Lincoln was actually President during it, and that a general named Sherman actually burned Atlanta -- but does this prove that *everything* in Gone With the Wind actually happened?

Every culture has its tales of heroic (or otherwise) adventures, which they of course most often place amid actual places and periods and events. Homer's "The Odyssey" (written in 800BC) takes place just after the Trojan Wars, and details Odysseus's voyage home to Ithaca, Greece after fighting as a soldier in Troy. The setting of the book is "vindicated ALL the time in archelogy and secular history", because there really were Trojan Wars, there really was a Troy and Ithaca. But does this make the Cyclops true?

For someone who's pretty picky about how "evolutionists" must prove every tiny little thing to your satisfaction before you'll even consider it, you seem pretty loose about what minor evidence you'll wave around as "proof" that every little thing in the Bible must be literally true.

Other people may "claim" the same thing, however it is the Bible that is true - even through secular evdience.

...as I was saying...

You: Let's not pretend that any of us have indisputably heard "what God says" directly from the source. If you hear voices, I strongly suggest you get professional help.

I'm not the one who seems to think he has heard quote "what God says" unquote, you are. I was the one who pointed out the distinct difference between "what God says" and "what some folks wrote down that *they* say He said". That's a significant difference. I'm clear on the distinction, I'm still not sure that you are.

If you want to believe that they wrote things 100% accurately and correctly and without a bit of personal agenda or error or mistaken presumption that they were speaking for God when perhaps they were writing their own beliefs, that's fine. I'm not taking issue with that.

I'm just pointing out that contrary to your claim that it's just a matter of "either you believe what God says or you don't", as you claimed, it's actually a lot less clear-cut than that, because we *don't* have direct personal knowledge of "what God says" (I know *I* don't hear those voices, anyway...), we have *indirect* claims of *other* humans about what *they* assert came to them from God (and in some cases, they say that it came to *them* indirectly as well). Suddenly the "chain of custody" of the evidence, as they say in court, becomes a lot less clearcut. Or as long as I'm using court terms, in short you're claiming direct eyewitness testimony, and I'm pointing out that in actual fact the nature of the testimony only rises to the level of hearsay.

I hope that clears things up. But I doubt it will.

Hmm, let's try this from another approach. When you wrote, "Either you believe what God says or you don't", my objection was your implicit claim that what you've got in your hand in that black-covered book is indisputably "what God says", and that all that's left to decide is whether one is going to believe what God has spoken or not.

Well when you put it that way, yeah, anyone who doesn't believe the words coming right out of God's mouth is either stupid or evil.

The problem, however, is that you've got another "have you stopped beating your wife" word trap going on there. You actually haven't yet established beyond arguable doubt that what you've got there *is* actually "what God says". Because look over there, there's a Moslem with a different book which claims the same thing. And here comes a Buddhist with another one. And a Hindu. And a Sikh. And a Mormon. And a Taoist. And... Well, you get the idea.

That's my point to you, and the reason for my earlier post. Do not presume to have first-hand knowledge of "what God says", because you do not. Your knowledge is at very best second-hand, and in many cases far more removed than that. What you have is the claims of those men who *believed* they were relaying messages from God. Which is another thing altogether. And if you're not clear on the difference, you really need to be.

I once met a man who told folks that he had messages for them from God. He seemed very sincere. He was preaching to us and to others in the park one day, as he walked around. Whenever he passed the pay phone, he would lift the receiver to see if God had any more messages for him. True story.

And no, I'm not implying the authors of the various books of the Bible all needed heavy medication. All I'm pointing out is that there is truly a large gulf between "from God's lips" and "from some guy who says he's got a message from God". Especially when there's no shortage of guys arguing with each other over which one of them has the *real* word of the *real* deity.

I have no idea how you drifted off into hearing voices

I never mentioned hearing voices. Did you perhaps hear a voice mentioning that topic?

I did, however, point out that none of us, contrary to your implication, have actually heard "what God says". His word comes to us, if it comes to us at all, through more unreliable channels than straight from the, um, horse's mouth, if you'll excuse the metaphor.

or who this Hank fellow is.

Didn't bother to click the link, I see...

You're way off topic.

No, I'm right spot on the topic you raised.

If you don't want to believe the Bible, believe in the Judeo Christian God

You presume too much. My point had nothing at all to do with what I "want" to believe or not, and everything to do with the epistemological flaw in the post of yours I responded to.

or evidence that validates what "is written" in the Bible,

I'm all ears -- what evidence?

And for reasons I've already given, the fact that real cities and rulers happen to be mentioned in the Bible doesn't do much to "validate" the entirety of the book.

While we're at it, how about the evidence that seems to *invalidate* what "is written"? For example, there's ample evidence that there was never any simultaneous worldwide flood of epic proportions.

But for heavens sake stop making a fool out of yourself.

I can't "stop" what I haven't started.