Using the Bible as fact...

Hi w_fortenberry, I hope you like this venue. [QUOTE][b]Is it the sequence of the fossils that is the fact, or is it their positioning that is a fact with the sequence being your interpretation of that positioning?[/QUOTE][/b]The order of fossils is a fact. Either they are stacked in a particular order or they are not. While it may take some field work to determine that order, it is a fact that can be verified by others. As for the sequence, it is the positioning of those fossils.

Thank you, gene90. That was a very good explanation. I would, however, like to receive Peter's reply before I respond. In the meantime, perhaps you could answer the second question, "Are the conclusions of these other investigations fact or opinion?"By the way, Cro_1 elected to drop out of the debate on Bolt. I may begin a new thread on the topic here, but I am not sure yet how well that style of debating would be received.

​

[This message has been edited by w_fortenberry, 07-07-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Is it the sequence of the fossils that is the fact, or is it their positioning that is a fact with the sequence being your interpretation of that positioning?

​

Are the conclusions of these other investigations fact or opinion?

---

Not sure on the difference re: sequence or positioning.Fossils as found increase in difference from modern forms
as depth of position increases.So the sequence of the fossil record is the fact, in this
case.A conclusion, almost by definition, is an opinion isn't it ?The facts of the other lines of enquiry can be interpreted
in a way which is consistent with an evolutionary interpretation
of the sequence observed in the fossil record.Since consistent interpretations of different data are possible
the conclusions/opinions lend credence to one another .... but
no they are not fact.There was a fact, theory, fallacy thread somewhere in which I
ut forward my interpreration of fact and theory in this context
as::FACT is something observable, where the observer's opinion
is not involved.THEORY is a consistent interpretation of data.ToE is a theory (kinda dumb I know since it says Thoery of
Evolution ... but )The fossil record (and sequence of fossils) are fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

FACT is something observable, where the observer's opinion
is not involved.

​

THEORY is a consistent interpretation of data.

---

This is why I can't understand most creationists.Evolution (as in change in allele frequency within a population over time leading to speciation etc) is a fact.The ToE (as in the mechanisms that drive this change) is a theory.Many creationists attempt to argue against the fact of evolution instead of the theory. Go figure.------------------
compmage

Not entirely sure you can claim evolution as a fact so
glibly ... unless there are allele frequency studies
to hand.I agree that Evolution happens, based upon the facts
I have seen and interprartions thereof, ToE seems
compelling to me, while YEC seems greatly lacking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Not sure on the difference re: sequence or positioning.

​

Fossils as found increase in difference from modern forms
as depth of position increases.

​

So the sequence of the fossil record is the fact, in this
case.

---

Sequence denotes an order in time. A reference to the sequence of the fossils is a reference to a particular order in time. The chronological order in which the fossils were laid is still a matter of speculation. Any given sequence may correspond to your definition for a theory, but it does not meet the requirements you have presented for a fact. Contrariwise, the position of those fossils in the ground is a fact. It is observable in a way in which the observers opinion is not involved. For example, the sequence which you have presented is that the fossils increase in difference from modern forms as depth of position increases. To obtain this sequence you observed the fact of the fossils’ position plus the fact of the differing anatomies of those fossils and theorized that those facts could best be explained by a sequence which corresponds to the theory of evolution.

quote:

---

A conclusion, almost by definition, is an opinion isn't it ?

---

A conclusion is merely an end. Whether that end is fact or opinion is not predetermined by the definition of the word.

quote:

---

The facts of the other lines of enquiry can be interpreted
in a way which is consistent with an evolutionary interpretation
of the sequence observed in the fossil record.

​

Since consistent interpretations of different data are possible
the conclusions/opinions lend credence to one another .... but
no they are not fact.

---

Since they are not fact, in what way are they more valid than the Bible?

quote:

---

There was a fact, theory, fallacy thread somewhere in which I
ut forward my interpreration of fact and theory in this context
as::

​

FACT is something observable, where the observer's opinion
is not involved.

​

THEORY is a consistent interpretation of data.

​

ToE is a theory (kinda dumb I know since it says Thoery of
Evolution ... but )

​

The fossil record (and sequence of fossils) are fact.

---

Using your definition of a fact, allow me to pose a few conclusions about the Bible.The actual words which make up the Bible are observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore the existence of those words is a fact.That each of those words have known definitions is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore those definitions are facts.The formation of those words into sentences, paragraphs, and books is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that structure is a fact.The correlation of those sentences, paragraphs, and books to certain known grammatical structures is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that correlation is a fact.That those certain grammatical structures limit the definitions of those words is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that limitation is a fact.That the context of each word further limits the possible definitions of those words is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that limitation is also a fact.That those words, when viewed in context, taking into consideration the grammatical structures of the sentences, paragraphs, and books thus formed, do not contradict each other in any way is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that lack of contradiction is a fact.That historians and scientists do not always agree with the statements of the Bible is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that disagreement is a fact.However, my question is whether those historians and scientists base their disagreement with the Bible on sheer fact or on their opinion of how those facts should be interpreted.

quote:

---

Sequence denotes an order in time. A reference to the sequence of the fossils is a reference to a particular order in time. The chronological order in which the fossils were laid is still a matter of speculation. Any given sequence may correspond to your definition for a theory, but it does not meet the requirements you have presented for a fact. Contrariwise, the position of those fossils in the ground is a fact. It is observable in a way in which the observers opinion is not involved. For example, the sequence which you have presented is that the fossils increase in difference from modern forms as depth of position increases. To obtain this sequence you observed the fact of the fossils’ position plus the fact of the differing anatomies of those fossils and theorized that those facts could best be explained by a sequence which corresponds to the theory of evolution.

---

A fundimental principle of geologic study is the principle of superposition.

quote:

---

The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.

---

From, and further information at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#princIt is a very basic interpretation that from bottom to top is older to younger. This is assuming that later tectonic actions have not modified the sequencing. And if tectonic resequencing has happened, it can be documented though the evidence.Now a fact is as follows:
(from http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html )

quote:

---

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

---

Thus, both the positions and the sequences of the fossils are facts.I leave the rest to someone else.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 07-08-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
A fundimental principle of geologic study is the principle of superposition...

---

A very good defense. Let us then assume that the sequence is factual. We must then face the fact that there remain many possible interpretations of that sequence. For example, some would say that the flood could have laid the layers in a manner much different from Peter’s evolutionary interpretation. Regardless of which is correct their still exists a difference of interpretation. This is also true of the Cosmic background radiation, as well as most other observable facts. The point that I wish to make is that the mere difference of interpretation of the facts does not negate the usage of the facts themselves.

quote:

---

Now a fact is as follows:
(from http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html )

---

Maybe you could explain how Gould arrived at such a precise definition. Perhaps he did an etymological study and discovered that the word fact originated from the Latin word facere meaning to do then decided that it really should mean might have done. If so, I think he would find that he has quite an affinity with Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty. He said, When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. Although it is certainly possible that Carroll got his probabilities mixed up and that it was really Alice who said that. Then again, maybe it wasn’t any of Carroll’s characters. I wonder what the possibility is of Poe’s raven having croaked such an ominous statement.Pardon the humor. As you can see, I don’t give much credence to the definitions posted by freethought. For the moment, at least, I would prefer to continue using the definition which Peter has already provided.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

Sequence denotes an order in time. A reference to the sequence of the fossils is a reference to a particular
order in time. The chronological order in which the fossils were laid is still a matter of speculation. Any given
sequence may correspond to your definition for a theory, but it does not meet the requirements you have
presented for a fact. Contrariwise, the position of those fossils in the ground is a fact. It is observable in a way
in which the observers opinion is not involved. For example, the sequence which you have presented is that
the fossils increase in difference from modern forms as depth of position increases. To obtain this sequence
you observed the fact of the fossils’ position plus the fact of the differing anatomies of those fossils and
theorized that those facts could best be explained by a sequence which corresponds to the theory of
evolution.

---

No. If the position of the fossils is fact, and the differing
anatomies are fact, then the sequence of differentness is fact.I imose no interpretation (evolutionary or otherwise) I simply
make the observation that as we go deeper, the fossils become
less like modern animals.I don't even suggest that this is due to the time at which the
fossils were laid down, since that is an interprertation.There is, quite simply, an observable sequence to fossils. What
that means is the stuff of theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

​

Since they are not fact, in what way are they more valid than the Bible?

​

---

The CONCLUSIONS are not fact. I've not said that that makes them
any more or less valid than the bible, only that the bible
cannot be used as fact.I personally am more convinced by them, because there are several
separate lines of enquiry that match the same theory. But that's
just my opinion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

Using your definition of a fact, allow me to pose a few conclusions about the Bible.

​

The actual words which make up the Bible are observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore the existence of those words is a fact.

​

That each of those words have known definitions is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore those definitions are facts.

---

Not entirely. Since the language is ancient there is opinion
involved in the definition of each word.If there were not we not have the arguments along the lines of
'But the hebrew word [whatever] can also mean/really means' etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

The formation of those words into sentences, paragraphs, and books is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that structure is a fact.

​

The correlation of those sentences, paragraphs, and books to certain known grammatical structures is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that correlation is a fact.

​

That those certain grammatical structures limit the definitions of those words is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that limitation is a fact.

​

That the context of each word further limits the possible definitions of those words is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that limitation is also a fact.

---

The first two are fact.The latter two above are not. They require an interpretation of
what grammar imposes upon the raw words, and as soon as you bring
context in you are adding subjective elements.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

That those words, when viewed in context, taking into consideration the grammatical structures of the sentences, paragraphs, and books thus formed, do not contradict each other in any way is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that lack of contradiction is a fact.

---

No. There are quite heated debates about whether or not there
are contradictions within the bible. There is therefore opinion
involved in that assessment. And again the use of the word
context should be an alert to opinion being involved.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

That historians and scientists do not always agree with the statements of the Bible is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that disagreement is a fact.

​

However, my question is whether those historians and scientists base their disagreement with the Bible on sheer fact or on their opinion of how those facts should be interpreted.

---

The meaning of any passage of the bible is open to interpretation,
and so cannot be USED as fact. You have above pointed
out where that interpretation starts and where the facts stop.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Not entirely. Since the language is ancient there is opinion
involved in the definition of each word.

​

If there were not we not have the arguments along the lines of
'But the hebrew word [whatever] can also mean/really means' etc.

---

The mere fact that moose and I disagree on the actual definition of the word fact does not negate the fact that the word has known definitions. Similarly, the mere presence of debate over the definitions of different Hebrew words does not negate the fact that those words have known definitions.

quote:

---

...They require an interpretation of
what grammar imposes upon the raw words, and as soon as you bring
context in you are adding subjective elements.

---

I did not say that the interpretation is a fact. I said that it is a fact that grammar and context limit the definitions of the words. This is true of all literature. Whether we are speaking of the Bible, or scientific reports, or even online debates, the grammar and context of each word limits the definitions of those words.The context is not subjective; the position of a word within a sequence of words is an observable fact.The word context is derived from a combination of the Latin word texere, meaning to plait or join, with the prefix com, meaning together. It is defined as The part of a written or spoken statement that surrounds a word or passage and that often specifies its meaning. (Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary)

quote:

---

No. There are quite heated debates about whether or not there
are contradictions within the bible. There is therefore opinion
involved in that assessment. And again the use of the word
context should be an alert to opinion being involved.

---

First of all, the mere presence of debates does not negate the facts, nor does it demand the involvement of opinion on the part of each debater. It is certainly possible that of those debating one group is debating from the facts while the other is doing so in ignorance or denial of the facts.Secondly, it appears that I did not word this point as precisely as I thought. Allow me to try again.That those words, when viewed in context, taking into consideration the grammatical structures of the sentences, paragraphs, and books thus formed, readily yield themselves to an interpretation which contains no contradictions is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore the existence of a consistent, non-contradictory interpretation is a fact.

quote:

---

The meaning of any passage of the bible is open to interpretation,
and so cannot be USED as fact. You have above pointed
out where that interpretation starts and where the facts stop.

---

The question you posed was not whether any stated meaning should be used as fact. The question was whether the Bible itself should be used as fact.To claim that the meaning of any passage of the Bible is open to interpretation and so cannot be used as fact is to claim that the meaning of any grouping of words is open to interpretation and so cannot be used as fact. To follow this line of reasoning is to depend solely on first hand observation. In which case, nothing anyone says on this site can be used as fact, nor can any thing ever written or stated be used as fact.

w_fortenberry writes:

---

To claim that the meaning of any passage of the Bible is open to interpretation and so cannot be used as fact is to claim that the meaning of any grouping of words is open to interpretation and so cannot be used as fact. To follow this line of reasoning is to depend solely on first hand observation. In which case, nothing anyone says on this site can be used as fact, nor can any thing ever written or stated be used as fact.

---

Yes, that is correct. The trust one might place in any given authority, be it a written source like the Bible or a textbook, or a living source like a scientist or minister, will in some cases be quite high, but you can never treat it like a fact.In the final analysis, even facts cannot be considered eternal truths, because the facts we gather of reality are filtered by our fallible human senses and interpretive frameworks.--Percy

For the purposes of the following post, I am going to subdue, with some difficulty, my skepticism about the possibility of objective observation of external reality. It will be a struggle, but here goes ... [QUOTE]Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
[b] Using your definition of a fact, allow me to pose a few conclusions about the Bible.The actual words which make up the Bible are observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore the existence of those words is a fact.[/QUOTE]Wrong.[/b]
I'm afraid you fall at the first hurdle. The inclusion of texts in the canon is still a matter of some controversy between the Christian churches. The resolving of contradictions between preserved early texts and what constitutes the true text, or if indeed it makes sense to talk of such a thing for a collection of documents with such diverse sources and from such diverse sources: these are still continuing matters of controversy amongst Biblical scholars. Identifying "The actual words which make up the Bible" requires considerable interpretation: they are not a fact in the sense you seem to adhering to.

quote:

---

That each of those words have known definitions is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore those definitions are facts.

---

​

Wrong.
There are actually quite a few words in the Bible whose definition is extremely unclear and there are considerable variations in opinion as to their meaning. Leviticus 16, for example, has a number of very obscure terms indeed whose definitions are germane to the understanding of the passage - Kapporeth, Mitsnepheth, `aza'zel, etc.

quote:

---

The formation of those words into sentences, paragraphs, and books is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that structure is a fact.

---

​

Wrong - and then some!
Again, not only is the text of the Bible contested at the level of words, but in several source texts there are considerable transpositions. What is generally known as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is an excellent example of a text which appears in different locations in different sources and appears to do so because its meaning is subtly altered by such transpositions.

quote:

---

The correlation of those sentences, paragraphs, and books to certain known grammatical structures is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that correlation is a fact.

---

​

Wrong!
The Hebrew texts in particular are notoriously difficult to parse to grammatical structures.

quote:

---

That those certain grammatical structures limit the definitions of those words is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that limitation is a fact.

---

​

Way way way wrong!
Let's take for example, parataxis. Parataxis chains short sentences or clauses using "and" or "but" or somesuch device as a comma or semicolon. This is frequently used to construct a list of actions or descriptions, but the semantic relationship between the members of the list is always a matter for the reader to interpret. As the parataxic bumper sticker says: "You toucha my car. I breaka your face." This can be contrasted with a hypotaxic sentence such as "First he got a hammer, then a nail, then the string, so he could hang the picture." In the hypotaxic sentence the temporal, causal and intentional order are explicit.Parataxis is found in frequently in Genesis and in the Gospel of Mark. And does it affect meaning? You bet it does. The parataxis at the end of Romans 13:1 is particularly controversial. "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." The intepretation of the parataxis, linked here by the colon, is pretty crucial to a number of sects, including Mennonites and Friends.

quote:

---

That the context of each word further limits the possible definitions of those words is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that limitation is also a fact.

---

​

Correct! :-) The limitation is a fact.
What that limitation is and which definitions are constrained by the context remains a question for interpretation - or opinion as you put.

quote:

---

That those words, when viewed in context, taking into consideration the grammatical structures of the sentences, paragraphs, and books thus formed, do not contradict each other in any way is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that lack of contradiction is a fact.

---

​

Well, given you have been wrong in all but one of your premises, guess what - your conclusion, too, is hopelessly wrong.

quote:

---

That historians and scientists do not always agree with the statements of the Bible is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore that disagreement is a fact.

---

​

Correct.Then again, it's not exactly an earth-shattering observation.The following excellent paper describes some of these difficulties as they relate to translation in particular ...
http://accurapid.com/journal/18bible.htmSorry folks for going into so much detail - but there was more crap in this post than most people manage to put up on the board in a week.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
The question you posed was not whether any stated meaning should be used as fact. The question was whether the Bible itself should be used as fact.

​

To claim that the meaning of any passage of the Bible is open to interpretation and so cannot be used as fact is to claim that the meaning of any grouping of words is open to interpretation and so cannot be used as fact. To follow this line of reasoning is to depend solely on first hand observation. In which case, nothing anyone says on this site can be used as fact, nor can any thing ever written or stated be used as fact.

---

Yes.'First hand observation' is how I have defined a fact. Even then
we have to contend with the possibility that what I see is not
the same as what any other individual sees ... not as easy to
discount as one might think.Do you disagree that there is ambiguity in the Bible ?Do you accept that some written phrases/sentences/whatever can
be ambiguous ?All of the above is WHY the bible cannot be used as fact.
Mister Pamboli clearly has much greater scholastic knowledge of
bible study than I, and so I refer you to his post (with
which I agree).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
I'm afraid you fall at the first hurdle. The inclusion of texts in the canon is still a matter of some controversy between the Christian churches. The resolving of contradictions between preserved early texts and what constitutes the true text, or if indeed it makes sense to talk of such a thing for a collection of documents with such diverse sources and from such diverse sources: these are still continuing matters of controversy amongst Biblical scholars. Identifying "The actual words which make up the Bible" requires considerable interpretation: they are not a fact in the sense you seem to adhering to.

---

Yet each text consists of actual words. The debate over which of those texts is the true text does not disprove the existence of such a text. For the purpose of this debate all references which I make to the Bible will be to the King James Version and the texts from which it is translated. It is in reference to these texts that I stated: That those words, when viewed in context, taking into consideration the grammatical structures of the sentences, paragraphs, and books thus formed, readily yield themselves to an interpretation which contains no contradictions is observable without the involvement of opinion; therefore the existence of a consistent, non-contradictory interpretation is a fact.

quote:

---

There are actually quite a few words in the Bible whose definition is extremely unclear and there are considerable variations in opinion as to their meaning. Leviticus 16, for example, has a number of very obscure terms indeed whose definitions are germane to the understanding of the passage - Kapporeth, Mitsnepheth, `aza'zel, etc.

---

Yet those words still have known definitions. Though there is discussion over which of those definitions is correct, the correct definition still exists. To claim otherwise is to claim that the word is in actuality just a random assortment of letters with no intended meaning.

quote:

---

Wrong - and then some!
Again, not only is the text of the Bible contested at the level of words, but in several source texts there are considerable transpositions. What is generally known as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is an excellent example of a text which appears in different locations in different sources and appears to do so because its meaning is subtly altered by such transpositions.

---

Again the presence of debate does not negate the facts. Though there is a difference of opinion regarding which arrangement is correct, the arrangement itself still exists.

quote:

---

Wrong!
The Hebrew texts in particular are notoriously difficult to parse to grammatical structures.

---

The difficulty to discover which grammatical structure is used does not negate the fact that such a structure is indeed utilized. [QUOTE]Way way way wrong!
Let's take for example, parataxis. Parataxis chains short sentences or clauses using "and" or "but" or somesuch device as a comma or semicolon. This is frequently used to construct a list of actions or descriptions, but the semantic relationship between the members of the list is always a matter for the reader to interpret. As the parataxic bumper sticker says: "You toucha my car. I breaka your face." This can be contrasted with a hypotaxic sentence such as "First he got a hammer, then a nail, then the string, so he could hang the picture." In the hypotaxic sentence the temporal, causal and intentional order are explicit.Parataxis is found in frequently in Genesis and in the Gospel of Mark. And does it affect meaning? You bet it does. The parataxis at the end of Romans 13:1 is particularly controversial. "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." The intepretation of the parataxis, linked here by the colon, is pretty crucial to a number of sects, including Mennonites and Friends.[/B][/QUOTE]Parataxis simply refers to the coordination of grammatical elements such as phrases or clauses without the use of coordinating elements such as conjunctions. (Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary)In the case of Romans 13:1, the verse does not display true parataxis. The two phrases are divided by a coordinating element, the colon. According to Kate Turabian, A colon marks the point at which the idea expressed in one clause is followed by another clause or phrase (or more) that expands, clarifies, or exemplifies its meaning. (From: A Manual for Writers by Kate L. Turabian)However, even if this verse did show true parataxis, there is more to grammar than just parataxis and hypotaxis. For instance, formality, genre, and punctuation must always be taken into consideration.

quote:

---

Correct! :-) The limitation is a fact.
What that limitation is and which definitions are constrained by the context remains a question for interpretation - or opinion as you put.

---

Thank you.

quote:

---

Well, given you have been wrong in all but one of your premises, guess what - your conclusion, too, is hopelessly wrong.

---

Please refer to my corrected conclusion.

quote:

---

Sorry folks for going into so much detail - but there was more crap in this post than most people manage to put up on the board in a week.

---

I will not deny that such is a possibility, but I am not the one arguing that the mere presence of debate necessitates the inexistence of fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes.

​

'First hand observation' is how I have defined a fact. Even then
we have to contend with the possibility that what I see is not
the same as what any other individual sees ... not as easy to
discount as one might think...

​

...Mister Pamboli clearly has much greater scholastic knowledge of
bible study than I, and so I refer you to his post (with
which I agree).

---

Am I to assume then that when you claimed that the Bible can not be used as fact, you did so with limited observation?If so, allow me to suggest that you increase your observations.