Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


(1)
Message 16 of 479 (530537)
10-14-2009 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by slevesque
10-13-2009 2:38 PM


I know what circular reasoning is, but you will have to explain to me how presupposing the bible to be true only to show that it is inconsistent with itself is circular reasoning.
No, he said proving the bible is true by saying the bible says it is true is circular reasoning.
you can't use the bible to prove the truth of the bible.
you CAN use external sources to corroborate the bible, and that's what you should be doing if you plan on proving the bible is true.
saying that the bible is true because it is the word of god, which we know because god says so, as written in the bible, which we know is true because it is the word of god (etc etc) ...is circular reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 10-13-2009 2:38 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 2:13 AM greyseal has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 17 of 479 (530538)
10-14-2009 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by greyseal
10-14-2009 1:49 AM


No, he said proving the bible is true by saying the bible says it is true is circular reasoning.
you can't use the bible to prove the truth of the bible.
you CAN use external sources to corroborate the bible, and that's what you should be doing if you plan on proving the bible is true.
saying that the bible is true because it is the word of god, which we know because god says so, as written in the bible, which we know is true because it is the word of god (etc etc) ...is circular reasoning.
Did you read what I wrote, or is this an intentional strawman ? Never did I adress the issue if it was the word of God or not, neither did I commit the blatant 'circular reasoning strawman' your are exposing here.
Here is, however, what I did say. Quoting myself in my previous post:
... it then becomes perfectly legitimate to defend a given worldview from aspects within that worldview, as to show that it is consistent with itself.
This would be circular reasoning if it was to show that it is true. ...
Showing self-consistency is not the same as showing truthfulness. You seem to be mixing them up. I used the first concept in the the part you quoted from me, and you replied adressing the second ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by greyseal, posted 10-14-2009 1:49 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by greyseal, posted 10-14-2009 5:35 AM slevesque has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 18 of 479 (530540)
10-14-2009 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by hooah212002
10-13-2009 12:27 PM


Re: Circular Reasoning
Hi hooah,
Before I wade into this debate I need a little information.
hooah writes:
No. That's called circular reasoning. You can't prove your source...with your source. To prove ANYTHING in the bible is true, you need an outside, unbiased source, which has yet to be accomplished for all but the minor portions.
Can I take a statement from vol a of the encyclopedia Britannia and prove something said in vol c of the same encyclopedia?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 12:27 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Izanagi, posted 10-14-2009 4:03 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 21 by greyseal, posted 10-14-2009 4:55 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 33 by lyx2no, posted 10-14-2009 6:24 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 128 by ramoss, posted 04-30-2010 12:31 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 19 of 479 (530559)
10-14-2009 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peepul
10-12-2009 1:29 PM


Re: Kingdom
Hi Peepul,
Peepul writes:
This is a challenge to a literal interpretation of the bible. How do those who believe the bible is inerrant respond to this?
I take it you have not had formal training in the study of the Bible or the languages of the Bible.
If you had you would know there is no problem with the text.
Lets examine the text, I use the KJV.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Who is Jesus speaking to? Verse 24 tells us His disciples.
What is Jesus speaking about? He is speaking about the bema seat judgment when those who have been born again are judged according to their works.
When will this take place? In the future yet.
This verse says absolutely nothing about His kingdom.
Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Who is Jesus speaking to? Still His disciples.
What is Jesus speaking about? Them seeing Him coming in His kingdom.
When did this take place? Within a couple of weeks of the announcment.
How did it take place? When Jesus made His triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on the colt of an ass. Jesus was received and announced as the son of David. He came into Jerusalem in royal power, and was announced as heir to the throne of David. Matthew chapter 21.
The Greek word that is translated kingdom, transliterated basileia and means royal power, kingship, dominion, rule.
It has to do with the right or authority to rule over a kingdom and has nothing to do with the actual kingdom.
The kingdom authority was already in existence on earth. Jesus had given the troops orders to announce the Kings arrival to the Jews.
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
The kingdom authority wasn't coming in the future it was present as the King was present.
They crucified the King of the Jews at Calvary.
The actual kingdom will be on earth after the tribulation period when Christ will set upon the throne of David and rule the world from Jerusalem for 1,000 years.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peepul, posted 10-12-2009 1:29 PM Peepul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Peepul, posted 10-14-2009 7:42 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 90 by Iblis, posted 12-18-2009 2:27 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 113 by Statman, posted 01-17-2010 10:28 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 20 of 479 (530565)
10-14-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICANT
10-14-2009 2:33 AM


Re: Circular Reasoning
Can I take a statement from vol a of the encyclopedia Britannia and prove something said in vol c of the same encyclopedia?
I know you asked hooah, but I would like to weigh in on this and my opinion is no. Using vol A of Britannia to prove something in vol C of the same encyclopedia is bad argumentation because you've used the same "source" to prove something the source says. What one should do is use another source, maybe an encyclopedia by another company, and compare the two to see if they corroborate with each other. That way, your argument stands on firmer ground as you have two sources to back each other up.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 2:33 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 5:28 AM Izanagi has not replied
 Message 371 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-10-2010 6:25 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 21 of 479 (530575)
10-14-2009 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICANT
10-14-2009 2:33 AM


Re: Circular Reasoning
Can I take a statement from vol a of the encyclopedia Britannia and prove something said in vol c of the same encyclopedia?
an encyclopedia is very different from the bible. I know you don't believe it, but it is.
an encyclopedia is a book of facts, researched and presented as facts (not as a story).
An encyclopedia starts "Aa - aardvark" and carries on through to "Z - zebra" (more or less) listing dry, unbiased facts and theories.
If, for example, one page on condoms describes what they do and how they do it (prevent pregnancy and the spread of STD's) and another page says (on the history of some African country, for example) that after the introduction of the condom program, unwanted pregnancies fell, as did the rate of STD transfer, you can probably surmise for yourself what did it.
If the bible, on the other hand, says in one book "jesus walked on water to the fisherfolk" and in another book says "it said in the scrolls of hooplah that my mate jesus walked on water to the fisherfolk", that is not the same thing - here the bible is referring to itself (it's a made up but valid type-example).
If the bible repeats itself that a certain city was destroyed, that also doesn't prove it really happened.
Maybe you believe the bible to be of the same authenticity as an encyclopedia...but the latter has pictures and drawings from real life.
Older books corroborate with other books written by other, unconnected peoples.
the bible? It corroborates primarily and singly with itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 2:33 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 6:17 AM greyseal has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 22 of 479 (530588)
10-14-2009 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Izanagi
10-14-2009 4:03 AM


Re: Circular Reasoning
Hi Izanagi,
Izanagi writes:
I know you asked hooah, but I would like to weigh in on this and my opinion is no. Using vol A of Britannia to prove something in vol C of the same encyclopedia is bad argumentation because you've used the same "source" to prove something the source says. What one should do is use another source, maybe an encyclopedia by another company, and compare the two to see if they corroborate with each other. That way, your argument stands on firmer ground as you have two sources to back each other up.
So you are saying if there are two different authors offering evidence it is better argumentation and not circular reasoning?
In other words if Hawking wrote something and Guth wrote something that was pretty much in agreement with what Hawking wrote that would be acceptable information. Then if someone else writes talking about these same things then in a couple of thousand years somebody could read their statements that was confirmed by an uninterested 3rd party and that would add weight to what they had said.
Is that what you are saying?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Izanagi, posted 10-14-2009 4:03 AM Izanagi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by greyseal, posted 10-14-2009 8:45 AM ICANT has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 23 of 479 (530589)
10-14-2009 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
10-14-2009 2:13 AM


did I read what you wrote?
did you read what I wrote? What hooah212002 wrote?
hooah212002 writes:
No. That's called circular reasoning. You can't prove your source...with your source. To prove ANYTHING in the bible is true, you need an outside, unbiased source, which has yet to be accomplished for all but the minor portions.
bold emphasis mine
you writes:
I know what circular reasoning is, but you will have to explain to me how presupposing the bible to be true only to show that it is inconsistent with itself is circular reasoning.
and what I replied:
me writes:
No, he said proving the bible is true by saying the bible says it is true is circular reasoning.
you can't use the bible to prove the truth of the bible.
Now, there are probably some crossed wires here, but I was replying - to your quote in the middle - that what hooah212002 was talking about was that proving the bible is correct by quoting the bible at itself was circular reasoning.
If the original objection you had was about something else, then I appologize, I was merely butting in (sorry) incase you'd misunderstood what hooah212002 wrote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 2:13 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 10-14-2009 6:44 AM greyseal has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 24 of 479 (530593)
10-14-2009 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by greyseal
10-14-2009 4:55 AM


Re: Circular Reasoning
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
an encyclopedia is very different from the bible. I know you don't believe it, but it is.
I know it is different from the Bible.
An encyclopedia is a collection of books that contain information that is gathered by a group of people and arranged in alphabetical order printed and sold.
The information is just as accurate as the people gathering it an assembling it make it to be. It is usually done over a relative short period of time and then is updated each year with an additional book.
The Bible is a collection of 66 books that that was written by 40 different writers over a period of nearly 1500 years. When rightly divided there is no contradictions in it. Most of the writers who wrote never saw what the other writers had wrote.
Josephus a Jewish historian who witnessed the destruction of the temple in 70 AD wrote of many of the things that are contained in the books of the Bible as well as Origen who was a religious writer and wrote at a later date. After 200 AD so he would have had what other had to say available to him.
So why would one be circular reasoning and the other not?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by greyseal, posted 10-14-2009 4:55 AM greyseal has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 25 of 479 (530595)
10-14-2009 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by greyseal
10-14-2009 5:35 AM


I agree that what Hooah described (you can't prove your source ... with your source) is circular reasoning. There is no issue on this.
The problem was that he accused me of this, when all I did was to assume the Bible to be true, to show that it is self-consistent, and not to 'prove' it to be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by greyseal, posted 10-14-2009 5:35 AM greyseal has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 26 of 479 (530599)
10-14-2009 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by ICANT
10-14-2009 3:44 AM


Re: Kingdom
Thanks ICANT for your very interesting reply. You're right, i am not a biblical scholar in any sense.
However, I take issue with one part of your reply, an important one
quote:
When did this take place? Within a couple of weeks of the announcment.
That doesn't make sense if we consider Jesus' words.
quote:
There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Why would Jesus say that if the fulfilment was going to be within a couple of weeks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 3:44 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 11:35 AM Peepul has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 27 of 479 (530610)
10-14-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by ICANT
10-14-2009 5:28 AM


Re: Circular Reasoning
ICANT writes:
So you are saying if there are two different authors offering evidence it is better argumentation and not circular reasoning?
Yes, I think he is.
The logic goes that if two unconnected people write about the same events in the same time period, that it increases by many-fold the chance of the thing having occured.
The key is unconnected and independant witnessing of key events, places, objects, people - whatever.
It's why police seperate people accused of certain crimes until they've got their independant statements written down - so that they can't later get together and change their stories until they agree, and why police often search for independant witnesses to a crime which would otherwise be a case of he-said-she-said.
for example a robbery - if one person accuses another of stealing money, why should the police believe the victim?
If, on the other hand, a disinterested third person says "yes, I saw someone looking like that taking money from somebody looking like this" then that's corrobative evidence that a crime (otherwise "invisible") occured.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 5:28 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 11:05 AM greyseal has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 28 of 479 (530631)
10-14-2009 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by greyseal
10-14-2009 8:45 AM


Re: Circular Reasoning
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
The logic goes that if two unconnected people write about the same events in the same time period, that it increases by many-fold the chance of the thing having occured.
In Message 22 I gave an example of Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth, would this be acceptable?
quote:
In other words if Hawking wrote something and Guth wrote something that was pretty much in agreement with what Hawking wrote that would be acceptable information. Then if someone else writes talking about these same things then in a couple of thousand years somebody could read their statements that was confirmed by an uninterested 3rd party and that would add weight to what they had said.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by greyseal, posted 10-14-2009 8:45 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by greyseal, posted 10-14-2009 11:58 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 29 of 479 (530640)
10-14-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Peepul
10-14-2009 7:42 AM


Re: Kingdom
Hi Pepul,
Pepul writes:
Why would Jesus say that if the fulfilment was going to be within a couple of weeks?
I have no idea why Matthew used those exact words. He is writing what he remembered that Jesus said.
Matthew was allowed to use his own words to describe what he understood to be said and happening. I don't know if he was taking notes on a constant basis or if he wrote them down each night. He could have even been writing from memory. I would assume he would have been writing from memory as they truly expected Jesus to set up His earthly kingdom at that time. If that had been the case there would have been no need of anything ever being written down.
Matthew was giving testimony that there would be some there that would see Jesus coming with kingdom authority. There may have been those there who died before that took place which Matthew would have known about at the time of his writing.
Regardless of why the words were recorded as they were the facts do not change.
There were many standing there that saw Jesus come into Jerusalem as prophesied in kingdom authority accepted as king to sit on David's throne.
Not everyone accepted Him and therefore they plotted to kill Him and was allowed to succeed. Because it was necessary for Jesus to die for the sins of the world.
That is the only way I or anyone else could be restored to a right relationship with God.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Peepul, posted 10-14-2009 7:42 AM Peepul has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 30 of 479 (530649)
10-14-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by ICANT
10-14-2009 11:05 AM


Re: Circular Reasoning
your example, whilst possibly valid, isn't clear on what you mean and the relatedness between the two names.
If Hawking lived in the UK (yay, he does!) and wrote about black holes via the Einstein-Rosencrantz bridge (yay for technobabble), and said "this complicated math shows X" and Guth, living in the US and working independantly wrote about black holes via the hyper-space n-dimensional string-theory (which is - in this example - entirely seperate to the einstein-rosencrantz bridge and is also technobabble) and said "this proves Y" ...and then you come along and say "X and Y are complementary explanations due to Brane transfer flux theory" then they'd be a very good example.
If, however, some tinfoil hat wearing person said that multidimensional warp fold manifests to alpha centauri were made possible in his back garden by uniting these theories...and he then proceeds to pick selected facts out of the original theories, or even just plain make them up when in reality all he has is a toaster with aerials sticking out, this wouldn't put the warp fold manifest theory as dependable just because it talks about real (potentially entirely different) facts and figures.
sorry for making it more complicated, but I've a nasty feeling where you're going, and I feel you're trying to set up a strawman which I wouldn't agree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 11:05 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 1:54 PM greyseal has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024