Board index ‹ Heaven and Hell

[1.62]

You have made some good points. I, on the other hand, seem to have sliced my ball out to the tree line, when, I really intended to lay it up in the short grass. Please allow me to take a mulligan. I’ll tee the ball up a little higher, I hope that it might make a difference. I don't know that this will change your overall position but it should better justify my position and clarify the point I was trying to make. This should get us moving along so others don’t try to play through.

> (3) the true difference between knowledge and belief is indistinguishable. At some point reason and presuppositions (beliefs) have to weigh in to everyone's epistemology where, to be able to proceed with any logic or to live in the "real" world, we have to default to presuppositional beliefs.

I think if we step way back, and I mean waaayyyy back, we would find agreement on the most fundamental level, would, ultimately be true when you say we can't really know anything, i.e., with absolute certainty. However the epistemological problem is not the obstacle in our path, the path is the obstacle. Fortunately, none of us need 100% certainty and knowledge. As a matter of fact, a great many of us in the world are able to get by and survive on starvation portions of common sense and rational thinking skills.

Concerning my views and my example using math is, " an exercise in using our senses ". My views do incorporate some of the principals contained within logical positivism, however, I am not basing the argument solely upon logical positivism. My arguments or view is more situated upon warrant and justification. I tend to hold the views of Carl Popper, who maintained opposition to logical positivism. He held that scientific theories talk about how the world really is, not, as positivists claim, about phenomena or observations experienced by scientists. Concerning my views and my example using math is,

" an exercise in using our senses ".

was that math is ultimately the tool we use logically and rationally organize our thoughts in correspondence to reality. The point is that what we get out of math is that it is a map of the world, a world that is tangible.

Earlier you said:

Again, I see things quite differently, from all my study. The more I study, the more I am absolutely convinced of the Bible's reliability and authority.

And then later:
When you read the Scriptures, and the experiences of Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc., revelation isn't just floating in the air, "Oh, I had a dream." In that case anyone can say what they want. But Moses said God spoke, and then the sea parted. Joshua said God was with them, and a part of the wall of Jericho fell down.

Here you are beginning to use some circular reasoning, using the bible to support the things you believe, which, came from the bible. I see no warrant to hold that the poetry and writings from many generations of an ancient civilization were anything more than stories and metaphor. There is no reason for me to suspend what I know about science, geology, anthropology, archaeology, etc. For example, we (including modern theology) know that the flood was not an event as described in the bible and you agreed that it was a regional event. However, there was much more to the Flood than just the water. It talked about gathering every animal from all over the world. It claims that the world began anew with eight people. It was about God rebooting creation, establishing a covenant or promise to the new creation. What should someone think really happened?

We now know that there was no exodus from Egypt in which there were a couple of million people wandering in the Sinai for 40 years. We know that when the bible talks about Abraham taking a caravan from Ur to the west that that didn't happen, like the bible claims. Camels were not domesticated until 1000 years later. Also modern theology admits the Gospels were anonymous and there were no "eye witnesses". The claim that there were eye witnesses is a false belief that people have held since the 4th century spread of Christianity. There are many reasons to question the claims of the bible and the claims of traditional Christianity, two very different stories.

> Are you kidding? We have a piece of John from about 125, and pieces of other gospels from early in the second century—nowhere NEAR the 250-300 years you claim. But that's another far-ranging topic for another discussion.

I apologize for my ambiguity here, when I was referring to manuscripts I was meaning the full writing of the book, not the scraps. It is a fact that the first identifiable reference to any Christian gospel was by Justin Martyr around 160 CE. The New Testament is not a historical record nor is there any contemporary witness that verifies any of the bible's miraculous events. What we have today is 160 English bible translations. When we consider the modern versions there is much disagreement and many major theological contradictions that disagree on the very nature of God.

At this point I think you have the burden to show justification for revelation, specifically, justification for how you or someone is supposed to receive new, special knowledge from God. Also in describing revelation it is important to be aware that an explanation is not a justification.

I look forward to your reply.

[jimwalton]

Sure, let's talk about the Bible itself. Always a fun subject. My belief in the Bible and the events recorded there is not founded on circular reasoning, though after a while some circles come into it. My belief in the Bible is based on evidence of its veracity. Once I am absolutely convinced of its truth, then I accept other things written in there just because they're written in there, because I regard the document as trustworthy and reliable.

> There is no reason for me to suspend what I know about science, geology, anthropology, archaeology, etc.

I agree 100%. Nor do I suspend anything I know about science, geology, anthropology, archaeology, etc. as a believer. I subscribe to science, and I subscribe to Scripture, and find no contradiction between the two. I neither have to choose one over the other nor compromise one or the other.

> We now know that there was no exodus from Egypt in which there were a couple of million people wandering in the Sinai for 40 years.

The Exodus is a long topic of discussion. There probably isn't room for it here. I've studied it deeply, and I'll just summarize here (at the risk of leaving myself open for target practice).
- There weren't millions of people, but about 25,000. Rationale: the same consonants (original Hebrew had no vowels or vowel points) for "thousands" (lpn) is the same as "clans" (lpn). A simple translation changes 603,000 men to 603 clans. Vast difference.
- I wouldn't expect people wandering in a desert to leave much behind for archaeologists to find.
- Archaeologists dig in city mounds, not in random places around the desert.
- There is debate whether they wandered in Sinai or in Midian. We don't even know where Mt. Sinai even is. Tradition doesn't carry much weight.
- While there is no direct evidence of the Exodus, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- The indirect evidence of the truthfulness of the exodus is overabundant. EVERYTHING about the story corresponds to the times, the geography and the cultures.

Can't treat it fully, but you absolutely CANNOT responsibly claim with certainty that "there was no exodus from Egypt".

> Camels

From Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas: "Although camel remains in Arabia date back to 2600 BC, domesticated camels were not common in Palestine until 1200 BC. The occasional references to them in Genesis are authenticated by evidence of domestication in an Old Babylonian text from Ugarit from the early second millennium. Evidence that the camel was used as a beast of burden in Arabia dates to the end of the 3rd millennium. The stages of domestication may be traced by the development of the saddles. They were extremely valuable animals capable of carrying heavy loads through hostile desert terrains. Thus they were seldom used for food and would have been a sign of wealth."

For the biblical narratives, there does not have to be widespread domestication. Furthermore, one cannot simply depend on camel remains found in archaeology to make the determination. Camels would have been more often used in nomadic situations and therefore we would not expect their remains to be found as often in settlements where archaeologists would excavate. Radio-carbon dating can only be done on remains that are found, so it is difficult to use that information to determine when camels were first domesticated or used. This information is substantiated also by the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Near East.

> Also modern theology admits the Gospels were anonymous and there were no "eye witnesses".

The Gospels were certain anonymous—that was the nature of the genre. That doesn't mean they're inauthentic. Most novels are anonymous also, except for the name on the cover and title page. All four of the gospels have a "name on the title page," and those names are without dispute in every copy and from the earliest days. There is no canonical gospel parchment without a name attached, and those names are always and without exception Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It's a much longer discussion. I have researched it deeply.

> No eyewitnesses

Au contraire. The gospel are full of details that only an eye-witness would know or bother to write about.

> The claim that there were eye witnesses is a false belief that people have held since the 4th century spread of Christianity.

This is simply untrue. We have documents far earlier than this giving us accurate readings. We can be 98% certain about the readings we have of the gospel documents themselves. This "4th century" accusation is spurious and untrue. We have, all tolled, 25,000 copies of the NT in whole or fragments, giving us tremendous reliability in the text. Thousands are from before the 4th century.

> It is a fact that the first identifiable reference to any Christian gospel was by Justin Martyr around 160 CE.

Actually, Paul refers to "the gospel" in 1 Cor. 15, a text that is almost universally said to be an extremely reliable and early reference. Again, a few of Paul's writings are universally accepted to be genuine writings of Paul's from the 50s AD, and they mention the gospel. It's true that the books of the NT was not assembled into a collection until later, but that says nothing about the reliability of the documents themselves.

> The New Testament is not a historical record nor is there any contemporary witness that verifies any of the bibles miraculous events.

You're right. The miracles are like pebbles dropped in a stream: they leave no evidence of having happened. Again, lack of corroborating historical evidence doesn't guarantee they didn't happen. There no historical evidence of what I had for supper one week ago, but I surely had supper.

Can we still believe the Bible? Sure.
- The copies of the Bible are no hopelessly corrupt, as is superficially accused. In reality our copy of the Bible is astoundingly accurate and remarkably close approximations of the autographs.
- Our multiple translations of the Bible bring out various nuances, not contradictions. Comparing the translations brings clarity. Realistically, disagreements are few and far between. This is a much larger discussion. I'd be curious what examples you have of what you're talking about.
- Nor do the miracles make the Bible mythical. Every scientists knows that the miraculous by definition lies outside of its parameters for experimental verification. Craig Keener, in a recent two-volume set, documented hundreds of miracles in recent years from every continent.

The historical and geographical accuracy of the Bible gives credibility to its reliability as a document of event accuracy. The only reason to doubt the miracles is if you have an unconfirmable presupposition that miracles are impossible.

> How did someone receive special knowledge from God?

Such came about by a variety of means: an audible voice, a miraculous occurrence, a prophetic interpretation of a historical event verified by a miraculous occurrence, dreams and visions, etc.

Let's talk more. I'm sure I haven't addressed everything you have questions about.