Diagoras wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:08 pm
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:03 am
Suppose we did throw out the Bible, how would you know what God is like? Is he omnipotent or not? Is he omniscient or not? We could rely on the testimony of people who hear directly from God who post on this forum, but would that be an acceptable source?
Well, yes - for those fortunate individuals, but no for the rest of us.
Let me jump to this which is the crux of my argument between us. Yes, I would agree with this. For those fortunate individuals, it would be the optimal situation for them to have directly communicated with God. For the rest of us, since we didn't participate in the direct communication, the best that we can get is their written testimony.
Do you have an example of God directly communicating with more than a single person?
I would say Jesus coming down to earth would be the best example of God directly communicating with a group of people.
Taken with your quote directly above this one, I really do struggle with the concept that someone would trust a book written by ‘regular people’ thousands of years ago to be the best modern explanation for any geological feature.
Yes, I can sympathize with that.
So if the evidence points you to a global flood as wholly unlikely, you’d consider the Bible to be untrustworthy?
Note, I'm only speaking for me personally and not for others. But, it would make the Bible less trustworthy for me if there was not a global flood. But if there was good evidence for a global flood, it would make the Bible more trustworthy for me.
The flood is not a core doctrine of the Bible, but I do believe it to be pretty important. So, if it's false, it would weaken the authority, but not make it completely unauthoritative. However, if a core doctrine like Jesus not resurrecting or not even existing was proven true, it would make the entire Bible unauthoritative.
Tell you what – as a very simple exercise, please rank the following three sources in decreasing value for likeliness in being ‘trustworthy and accurate’ for providing an explanation of geologic strata, and provide reasons for your ranking:
Rather than doing a quiz on rating sources, what would be more important is the actual data. We'll get into this later.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:31 am
(1) the Gospel is made up. Based on a real person, perhaps, but made up material overlaid. The contradictions (I argue) demonstrate that.
Do you mean made up by the authors? Or in the copying process was altered as it went along to fit what the scribes would like you to believe?
If you mean the authors, how much of it is fictional? We have four authors of the gospels that are similar in their core doctrines. Yes, I agree the details can be different, but the main messages of the four are consistent.
(b) There are clues as to the people who did this. Matthew (the most apparently Jewish of the evangelists) shows (in misread prophecy) that he doesn't understand the OT but even had to read it in Greek. That indicates a Greek Christian, and that even without the Jew -hate.
The Septuagint was what was primarily used by all the Jews at that time, not the Hebrew text. So, it was not just Matthew that read it in Greek.
(c) it is evident that their views then are from Paul - the dismissal of the Law, the verbal attacks on Pharisees and Sadducees.
Paul did not quite dismiss the Law.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
1Ti 1:8 - But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;
2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
nobspeople wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 6:53 am
I would contend that, in the case of the bible, this isn't the same as 'any source of authority', justified by its expected end means (eternal life). Many may argue that's not the bible's 'end game'. But the bible is taught and read by most, not for entertainment, but as a means to understand this god-thing and get to heaven (or more likely, avoid hell).
At the risk of proposing another heresy, I don't believe the primary message Jesus preached was to get people saved so they can enter the celestial heaven after they die. Yes, it's important, who wants to go to hell? But, it was not Jesus's primary message.