Is the Bible 100% truth?

[heretic888]

King David understood how vast the world was - he also understood that it was round. Apparently, God revealed much to him about the world and I am sure there were others with this knowledge.

Seeing as how there is no archeological evidence for a Davidic empire, it is much more likely that the stories of "King David" were written several centuries (possibly millenia) after the fact.

By the way, stories of a vast empire and a noble line of kings that was later destroyed by foreign powers would be particularly appealing to a conquered people, regardless of its lack of any historical basis.

Certainly Jesus, being the Creator of the world, knew this.

First off, no gospel (canonical or otherwise) has "Jesus" saying anything about the deluge.

Secondly, "Jesus" was most likely a mythical composite derived from several pre-existing figures.

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

Have a good one.

Thanks, you have a good one too. I have no problem with your beliefs, just that one posting. I hope I didn't come off as insulting in return.

 

[Beowulf]

TBC Today : "No Doubt We're In The Last Days" News

[TBC: As the days pass, the attacks against the Bible become more violent
and direct. Consider the following example from a textbook entitled
"Invitation to Critical Thinking," which very possibly will find a place in
classrooms in Canada. Each book costs the schools $59 each. "Critical
Thinking" (which is not really thinking, but indoctrination) plays a major
role in today's public schools. Consider the following comments from a
conservative Christian columnist who was asked for permission to allow some
of his own writings to be included in the textbook.]

Link to complete article

...I began to read the sample pages the publisher sent to me.

Critical Thinking Tip 11.5 (these are instructions for the children at the
top of the exercise)

Remember that issues are complex, so a diversion may on occasion be
warranted and reasonable. A warranted and reasonable diversion should
eventually return to the issue. Keep the issue(s) in mind. In other words,
the teacher will decide what is to be a "warranted and reasonable diversion"
and if you take a different path than the predetermined one, your argument
will not be "warranted or reasonable."

Exercise 11.16 Fallacies of Relevance II

In each of the following examples, check all fallacy categories that apply.
More importantly, explain each fallacious instance you identify.

 

[heretic888]

Personally, I'd choose "None of the above". An Appeal To Authority is the closest thing to a fallacy there.

Laterz.

 

[Beowulf]

The "great flood" never happened. It comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Babylonian mythical work.

Laterz.

Actually the fact that there is more than one account of a great flood is a double edged sword.

On the one hand myths in various cultures around the world relating to a great flood could be interpreted as evidence that the bible used other flood myths as a source for creating its own myth.

On the other hand, if there really was a great flood we would expect to find accounts of it in many cultures other than the Hebrews, and we do.

Thus it is more about which presupposition you adhere to.

"The bible cannot possibly be true therefor..."

"The bible is true therefor..."

Metaphysical or antimetaphysical, agnostic metaphysical or whatever, presuppositions occur whichever camp you adhere to.

Of course you could always make up a different take for why there are certain spiritual "echoes" if you will in each cultures myths which are similar.
I think Joseph Campbell did so, although I've only heard about his work.

In my opinion, the evidence that other cultures have biblical stories, or stories similar to them in no way discredits those stories, since one would expect to find them in other cultures around the world if they are indeed true.

Here are a few:

• Europe
  • Greek, Arcadian, Samothrace
  • Roman
  • Scandinavian, German
  • Celtic, Welsh
  • Lithuanian, Transylvanian Gypsy
  • Turkey
• Near East
  • Sumerian
  • Egypt, Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Hebrew, Islamic
  • Persian, Zoroastrian
• Africa
  • Cameroon
  • Masai (East Africa), Komililo Nandi, Kwaya (Lake Victoria)
  • Southwest Tanzania, Pygmy, Ababua (northern Zaire), Kikuyu (Kenya), Bakongo (west Zaire), Bachokwe? (southern Zaire), Lower Congo, Basonge, Bena-Lulua (Congo River, southeast Zaire)
  • Yoruba (southwest Nigeria), Efik-Ibibio (Nigeria), Ekoi (Nigeria)
  • Mandingo (Ivory Coast)

Complete article: FLOOD STORIES FROM AROUND THE WORLD

 

[heretic888]

On the other hand, if there really was a great flood we would expect to find accounts of it in many cultures other than the Hebrews, and we do.

It does not logically follow that because there is something like a "flood myth" in numerous cultures, that some type of "world flood" actually occured in the distant past. To argue otherwise is to Appeal To Common Practice.

It is also relevant to point out that the "flood" parallels only hold out if we are dealing in the most vague of general abstractions about these myths. When we actually examine the specific details of the myths --- when they happened, why they happened, what people "survived", how the people "survived", and so on --- we see nothing short of a radical pluralism.

Regardless, my point about the lack of evidence vis a vis the Biblical deluge was simply that:

1) There is no physical or empirical evidence that a world flood ever occured. At best, there is some evidence to indicate a regional flood might have occured thousands of years before the Bible says it did.

2) The specific details of the Hebrew myth appear to have been acquired from the specific details of the older Babylonian myth.

Laterz.

 

[Beowulf]

I just tried to reply 3 times and it erased it!

 

[Beowulf]

It does not logically follow that because there is something like a "flood myth" in numerous cultures, that some type of "world flood" actually occured in the distant past. To argue otherwise is to Appeal To Common Practice.

Actually its not Appeal to Common Practice on my part since that wasn't my argument.
Its actually a straw man on your part my fellow taijutsudansan.

My argument is that if the flood account in Genesis is true then it would logically follow that their would be numerous flood myths (which there are).

It is also relevant to point out that the "flood" parallels only hold out if we are dealing in the most vague of general abstractions about these myths. When we actually examine the specific details of the myths --- when they happened, why they happened, what people "survived", how the people "survived", and so on --- we see nothing short of a radical pluralism.

Variation of details within the myths would also logically follow if a global flood happened. I can't speak for all the myths, but their are many that are about a flood brought by one or more Gods, wiping out humanity and only a select few surviving. Each culture appears to have its own "twist" and heros within the story, yet the most important detail is that they all report it occurring, and many of these are from cultures that are vastly seperated from one another.

 

[Beowulf]

Regardless, my point about the lack of evidence vis a vis the Biblical deluge was simply that:

1) There is no physical or empirical evidence that a world flood ever occured. At best, there is some evidence to indicate a regional flood might have occured thousands of years before the Bible says it did.

.

Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
(excerpt)
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Scientific Reasons [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The earth's surface and sedimentary crust also bear strong witness to the historicity of a worldwide Flood, and the early geologists (Steno, Woodward, etc.) taught this. Most modern geologists have argued, on the other hand, that the earth's crust was formed slowly over billions of years. Yes, but consider the following significant facts. [/FONT]

1. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]All the mountains of the world have been under water at some time or times in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. Even most volcanic mountains with their pillow lavas seem largely to have been formed when under water. [/FONT]
2. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks (sandstones, shales, limestones, etc.). These were originally formed in almost all cases under water, usually by deposition after transportation by water from various sources. [/FONT]
3. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The assigned "ages" of the sedimentary beds (which comprise the bulk of the "geologic column") have been deduced from their assemblages of fossils. Fossils, however, normally require very rapid burial and compaction to be preserved at all. Thus every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidly—even catastrophically—and more and more present-day geologists are returning to this point of view. [/FONT]
4. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since there is known to be a global continuity of sedimentary formations in the geologic column (that is, there is no worldwide "unconformity," or time gap, between successive "ages"), and since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments, comprising in effect the geological record of a time when "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."[/FONT]
5. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is also significant that the types of rocks, the vast extent of specific sedimentary rock formations, the minerals and metals, coal and oil found in rocks, the various types of structures (i.e., faults, folds, thrusts, etc.), sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition, and numerous other features seem to occur indiscriminately throughout the various "ages" supposedly represented in the column. To all outward appearances, therefore, they were all formed in essentially the same brief time period. [/FONT]
6. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fossil sequences in the sedimentary rocks do not constitute a legitimate exception to this rule, for there is a flagrant circular reasoning process involved in using them to identify their supposed geologic age. That is, the fossils have been dated by the rocks where they are found, which in turn had been dated by their imbedded fossils with the sequences based on their relative assumed stages of evolution, which had ultimately been based on the ancient philosophy of the "great chain of being." Instead of representing the evolution of life over many ages, the fossils really speak of the destruction of life (remember that fossils are dead things, catastrophically buried for preservation) in one age, with their actual local "sequences" having been determined by the ecological communities in which they were living at the time of burial. [/FONT]
7. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fact that there are traditions of the great Flood found in hundreds of tribes in all parts of the world (all similar in one way or another to that in the Genesis record) is firm evidence that those tribes all originated from the one family preserved through the cataclysm. [/FONT]

 

[pstarr]

Gosh, I was never aware that the apocrypha were "books of the Bible"...

Beowulf- nice post regarding the flood. Well done.

 

[Beowulf]

2) The specific details of the Hebrew myth appear to have been acquired from the specific details of the older Babylonian myth.

Laterz.[/quote]

This really goes into the realm of opinion. The Epic of Gilgamesh right? Is there a way to prove which is older?

I read this one a while back and only one chapter in it referred to the flood account. It seemed that the few fragments that could be traced to the bible were about two words from what I remember when I read it. Then IMO it seemed like a pomous king story had been pasted on.

I remember it talked about the earth "teaming with life" and rearing its head like a wild bull and the gods became angry because of the "babble". So I connected "teamed with life" from the bible and also "babble". But IMO the bible seemed to make a lot more sense. The Epic of G version sounded like it had been passed around the room too much.

IMO it seemed like an erroneous retelling of the story by some 12 year olds trying to tell a late night scary story. But I thought it was cool. I actually had a freind who used to love reading it out loud because its written with such intense warrior poetry.

 

[heretic888]

Gosh, I was never aware that the apocrypha were "books of the Bible"...

It depends if you accept Protestant historical revisionism or not.

Beowulf- nice post regarding the flood. Well done.

Actually, it'd be a lot more impressive if it was information published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Y'know, as opposed to apologist nonsense published in a populist work within the dubious field of "creation science".

Really, it's pretty absurd to claim one has "scientific evidence" for something, but won't submit one's findings to the peer review of other scientists. This would be like claiming one has "scientific evidence" that proves atheism, but only publishes it in magazines like Skeptic.

I don't think so.

 

[Beowulf]

Actually, it'd be a lot more impressive if it was information published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Y'know, as opposed to apologist nonsense published in a populist work within the dubious field of "creation science".

Really, it's pretty absurd to claim one has "scientific evidence" for something, but won't submit one's findings to the peer review of other scientists. This would be like claiming one has "scientific evidence" that proves atheism, but only publishes it in magazines like Skeptic.


This follows the fallacy of Pollute the Well. Instead of defeating my arguments you have reverted that. Actually, was there not a public forum for this very subject recently in Kansas? It was boycotted by evolutionists. I wonder why. LOL!!!

 

[Beowulf]

Wow, macs don't quote well (at least not this one). Notice the first two paragraphs on that last one are Heretics and the last one is my reply.

 

[heretic888]

This follows the fallacy of Pollute the Well. Instead of defeating my arguments you have reverted that.

Not at all.

I know absolutely nothing about the personal characteristics or history of the individual that wrote the aforementioned article. Ergo, I cannot "poison the well" by introducing embarassing information about him.

All I know is that he and other "creation scientists" claim to have what they call "scientific evidence" for their position, but will not publish their findings in peer-reviewed academic journals dedicated to such sciences. I'm sorry, but that is just how science works. It has to be methodologically reproduced by other peers in the field, otherwise we have no basis for believing it the author's position.

This is actually quite common among pseudoscience as a whole, whether we're talking about proponents of "intelligent design", "flat earth hypothesis" or one of the many "conspiracy theories" out there. They don't publish in peer-reveiwed academic periodicals, but instead through populist mediums like personal websites or various publishing companies.

Laterz.

 

[Beowulf]

All I know is that he and other "creation scientists" claim to have what they call "scientific evidence" for their position, but will not publish their findings in peer-reviewed academic journals dedicated to such sciences. I'm sorry, but that is just how science works. It has to be methodologically reproduced by other peers in the field, otherwise we have no basis for believing it the author's position.

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? (link to full article)

By David Buckna

In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly ‘has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific journal’ (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldn’t be bothered to glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science bibliographic source.

This is actually quite common among pseudoscience as a whole, whether we're talking about proponents of "intelligent design", "flat earth hypothesis" or one of the many "conspiracy theories" out there. They don't publish in peer-reveiwed academic periodicals, but instead through populist mediums like personal websites or various publishing companies

.

By trying to equate my position with "flat earth hypothesis" or ridiculous "conspiracy theories" a person could easily make my position look silly. This again goes into the realm of mere opinion and could be an Appeal to Common Practice if anything.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Just a reminded to everyone to please keep the insults and sniping out of the discussions. Religion is a touchy subject for many.

Thank you

 

[heretic888]

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

All of which is completely irrelevant unless we are talking about the specific arguments in support of their "creation science".

That a certain scientist publishes articles on the migration patterns of sea turtles in a peer-reviewed journal and then goes around and publishes articles about the Flood in a pseudoscience journal dedicated to creationism has no bearing whatsoever.

This be like me saying that Richard Dawkins occassionally writes articles for Skeptic or Atheist magazine has any bearing whatsoever on the work he publishes concerning molecular genetics.

In both cases, one set of their work may be reputable while the other set is completely dubious (or at least suspicious from a scientific vantage). That the same person published both sets of work is irrelevant, as there is no direct correlation (in terms of scientific credibility) between the two.

By trying to equate my position with "flat earth hypothesis" or ridiculous "conspiracy theories" a person could easily make my position look silly.

Not difficult to do, as all of the aformentioned are on equal footing in science.

This again goes into the realm of mere opinion and could be an Appeal to Common Practice if anything.

If by "mere opinion" you mean "peer-reviewed scientific research", then sure. . .

I do find your references interesting, though, from a purely psychological perspective. It would be like me citing "evidence" for penis envy in a periodical called the Freudian Research Initiative. These journals are clearly designed to champion one theoretical point of view above all others, being characterized not by a field-specific research methodology, but by the universal acceptance of foregone conclusions.

Real scientific journals don't do that. They provide diverse points of view and do not unilaterally support any given set of conclusions in the field. If I opened up an issue of Psychology Bulletin, I would see no foregone assumptions that behaviorism has more merit than humanism, for example. I would simply see research articles arguing for either perspective.

This is why your "evidence" is not science, but apologism. Science uses a methodology to uncover evidence and form tentative conclusions or predictions based on that evidence. Apologism begins with the conclusions at the start, and then proceeds to selectively "find" the "evidence" that supports their conclusions.

That is precisely why everything you have cited in the past several posts has no scientific merit whatsoever. It is theology masquerading as science.

Laterz.

 

[shesulsa]

Moderator Note:

Several articles have been posted nearly in their entirety which is against MartialTalk policy. These posts have been edited to smaller abstracts including links to on-line articles. Please review the copyright policy here on MartialTalk before posting large portions of articles.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator

 

[hongkongfooey]

Not quite true, although this is likely what many believed.

King David understood how vast the world was - he also understood that it was round. Apparently, God revealed much to him about the world and I am sure there were others with this knowledge.

Certainly Jesus, being the Creator of the world, knew this.

So Jesus created the world before he was born?