What Could God do About Bible Errors?

[Purple Knight]

Hypothetically. I'm not saying the Bible has errors. I'm saying, what if people want to put lies in?

If I'm an unscrupulous monk, wanting to foist my own ideas on what I'm copying, and I just decide to lie like a dog and put down what I want to put down, what can God do about it? Can he act against me without violating my free will, which he has known compunctions against doing?

If I decide to burn originals and say I lost them, am I going to immediately suffer a heart attack or get struck by lightning before I destroy the precious scripture and corrupt it? Is my plan going to miraculously fail in some other way? Arguably the wind can blow everything away every time I try. Is that violating my free will? I mean, it's a bit like stopping the bullet every time somebody tries to shoot somebody else and it easily crosses into not allowing people the freedom to be bad, which may invalidate the choice to be good, to some degree.

Ultimately if I lie to gullible people, the only way to stop them being taken in, is by the use of force against me, right? And that's rather tactless and ham-handed; not something God would do.

But what if there's another way to stop people being taken in?

I could argue that just giving people Reason and permission to use it, is enough to defend against all possible lies. Now this is a really, really good argument, because all you people who have Reason are supposed to use it, and then you might see something wrong with people telling you to take things on faith. And you don't have to conclude that this means God doesn't exist. You are fully empowered to say it means God does exist: It means God does exist and he doesn't strike people dead who decide to lie to you, rather, he implores you to use this gift of Reason to see through it. So then, there's this one piece that doesn't fit and it's the necessity of faith.

So if you follow, then maybe anyone who has said not to use your Reason and just trust, is exactly such an unpunished liar and blasphemer God has allowed to do evil because he prefers not to interfere directly. And it's okay, because God gave you what you needed to see which puzzle piece doesn't fit.

God, yes. Faith, no.

[Purple Knight]

I'm afraid that doesn't work, because if God was worried about people doing the Good because they thought they'd get some reward, then He'd make sure the Bible contained a message (not to speak of not letting people get the idea there was a heaven and hell). It is inescapable that, even if heaven and hell are arguable, even if John implies there is a heaven with quality apartments for the faithful, the Bible offers incentives for the believers and warnings for the unbelievers.

So? No one believes it. Christians aren't offing their babies to guarantee them a first-class ticket to Heaven while they're still innocent, and that's because Christians don't really believe their religion. Secretly, they know it's all nonsense. They, like we, live in a world where miracles don't happen and people don't walk on water. The kicker is that, if it's somehow all true, the fact that they aren't meant to believe it, is 100% intended.

Radical Islamic terrorists really believe their religion - see, they act on their beliefs and sacrifice their lives because they know Heaven is coming to them - and I admit I don't have an answer for this. But Christians don't. Or they'd be killing their own babies.

As to a corrupted message, isn't it worthless?

Its only worth is getting you thinking about what might have been there before it was corrupted.

Your first point misses. It wasn't about people corrupting the message (which has evidently happened ) but making the message valid to start off with. Bottom line - if the OT is wrong, what reason would we have to suppose it was right from the start? If the OT makes no sense and is contradictory, why should we do other than suppose it was written by individuals who really knew nothing much about it?

We ought to presuppose neither. I admit there's no compelling reason to choose one over the other. It's an interesting what-if though. And at least to me, a lot of the bits that don't make sense or are arguably evil, start to make sense if the reason was to preserve or create power.

[Data]

an act of the purest optimism because atheists never answer questions, how do you test the science you have been spoon-fed?

I doubt it would be logical for anyone, including 'atheists', to respond or answer to loaded questions

Then unload it. It isn't a proposition from Wittgenstein.

[bluegreenearth]

I've told you the same as you test anything, and I asked you, an act of the purest optimism because atheists never answer questions, how do you test the science you have been spoon-fed?

Someone has already speculated that your question may be loaded. Whether this is the case or not , I will serve as the guinea pig and offer a brief summary of how the process of science is supposed to function. Your subsequent response will either validate or invalidate the speculation.

Science is a self-correcting method for testing falsifiable hypotheses. Science tests itself by requiring its practitioners to first identify the evidence they should expect to find if their hypothesis (i.e., the "science" if you will) is false and then designs experiments for the purpose of trying to find that disconfirming evidence. Should that disconfirming evidence be found, the hypothesis would be rejected. If the predicted disconfirming evidence is not found, then the hypothesis is accepted as a reasonable explanation but only tentatively until such a time, if ever, it becomes falsified.

[Data]

I've told you the same as you test anything, and I asked you, an act of the purest optimism because atheists never answer questions, how do you test the science you have been spoon-fed?

Someone has already speculated that your question may be loaded.

It was, in this case, I believe the second time I've asked. Spoon-fed is what I'm assuming is the loaded portion. You can simply remove it. By spoon-fed what I mean is that the person using science to criticize the Bible has almost never actually used science in any way. They are simply making the assumption that accepted science is a good enough argument for them, without questioning. That's fine, the same as theology is often used in the same way, without actually doing as the Bereans did. That is spoon-fed theology. If one wishes to go beyond spoon-fed, they have to do the work themselves. God did it, for example, or God works in mysterious ways isn't doing the work.

Whether this is the case or not , I will serve as the guinea pig and offer a brief summary of how the process of science is supposed to function.

I know how it works. How it works isn't in question. Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system.

Your subsequent response will either validate or invalidate the speculation.

According to whom?

Science is a self-correcting method for testing falsifiable hypotheses. Science tests itself by requiring its practitioners to first identify the evidence they should expect to find if their hypothesis (i.e., the "science" if you will) is false and then designs experiments for the purpose of trying to find that disconfirming evidence. Should that disconfirming evidence be found, the hypothesis would be rejected. If the predicted disconfirming evidence is not found, then the hypothesis is accepted as a reasonable explanation but only tentatively until such a time, if ever, it becomes falsified.

So, then, how would we test Genesis 1:1 scientifically and/or theologically?

[TRANSPONDER]

I've told you the same as you test anything, and I asked you, an act of the purest optimism because atheists never answer questions, how do you test the science you have been spoon-fed?

Someone has already speculated that your question may be loaded.

It was, in this case, I believe the second time I've asked. Spoon-fed is what I'm assuming is the loaded portion. You can simply remove it. By spoon-fed what I mean is that the person using science to criticize the Bible has almost never actually used science in any way. They are simply making the assumption that accepted science is a good enough argument for them, without questioning. That's fine, the same as theology is often used in the same way, without actually doing as the Bereans did. That is spoon-fed theology. If one wishes to go beyond spoon-fed, they have to do the work themselves. God did it, for example, or God works in mysterious ways isn't doing the work.

Whether this is the case or not , I will serve as the guinea pig and offer a brief summary of how the process of science is supposed to function.

I know how it works. How it works isn't in question. Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system.

Your subsequent response will either validate or invalidate the speculation.

According to whom?

Science is a self-correcting method for testing falsifiable hypotheses. Science tests itself by requiring its practitioners to first identify the evidence they should expect to find if their hypothesis (i.e., the "science" if you will) is false and then designs experiments for the purpose of trying to find that disconfirming evidence. Should that disconfirming evidence be found, the hypothesis would be rejected. If the predicted disconfirming evidence is not found, then the hypothesis is accepted as a reasonable explanation but only tentatively until such a time, if ever, it becomes falsified.

So, then, how would we test Genesis 1:1 scientifically and/or theologically?

It's the old story. We may trust the Bible; we may trust science. Which is more trustworthy? Which has yielded reliable and validated results? Which has turned out to be wrong? Which when it is wrong,holds up its' hands and gets on with investigating further? Which doubles down and says 'the facts must be wrong; this is the word of God'? (loaded question there). Reliance on science is not equal to reliance o the Bible.

Genesis - and all the Bible - should be considered and analysed with science, logic and history; whatever reliable or half - reliable facts we have, including of course, internal logic, coherence and consistency. Theology helps not at all, as it is predicated on the validity of something the validity of which is under question.

[Data]

I've told you the same as you test anything, and I asked you, an act of the purest optimism because atheists never answer questions, how do you test the science you have been spoon-fed?

Someone has already speculated that your question may be loaded.

It was, in this case, I believe the second time I've asked. Spoon-fed is what I'm assuming is the loaded portion. You can simply remove it. By spoon-fed what I mean is that the person using science to criticize the Bible has almost never actually used science in any way. They are simply making the assumption that accepted science is a good enough argument for them, without questioning. That's fine, the same as theology is often used in the same way, without actually doing as the Bereans did. That is spoon-fed theology. If one wishes to go beyond spoon-fed, they have to do the work themselves. God did it, for example, or God works in mysterious ways isn't doing the work.

Whether this is the case or not , I will serve as the guinea pig and offer a brief summary of how the process of science is supposed to function.

I know how it works. How it works isn't in question. Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system.

Your subsequent response will either validate or invalidate the speculation.

According to whom?

Science is a self-correcting method for testing falsifiable hypotheses. Science tests itself by requiring its practitioners to first identify the evidence they should expect to find if their hypothesis (i.e., the "science" if you will) is false and then designs experiments for the purpose of trying to find that disconfirming evidence. Should that disconfirming evidence be found, the hypothesis would be rejected. If the predicted disconfirming evidence is not found, then the hypothesis is accepted as a reasonable explanation but only tentatively until such a time, if ever, it becomes falsified.

So, then, how would we test Genesis 1:1 scientifically and/or theologically?

It's the old story. We may trust the Bible; we may trust science. Which is more trustworthy? Which has yielded reliable and validated results? Which has turned out to be wrong? Which when it is wrong,holds up its' hands and gets on with investigating further? Which doubles down and says 'the facts must be wrong; this is the word of God'? (loaded question there). Reliance on science is not equal to reliance o the Bible.

Genesis - and all the Bible - should be considered and analysed with science, logic and history; whatever reliable or half - reliable facts we have, including of course, internal logic, coherence and consistency. Theology helps not at all, as it is predicated on the validity of something the validity of which is under question.

So, then, how would we test Genesis 1:1 scientifically and/or theologically?

[TRANSPONDER]

I've told you the same as you test anything, and I asked you, an act of the purest optimism because atheists never answer questions, how do you test the science you have been spoon-fed?

Someone has already speculated that your question may be loaded.

It was, in this case, I believe the second time I've asked. Spoon-fed is what I'm assuming is the loaded portion. You can simply remove it. By spoon-fed what I mean is that the person using science to criticize the Bible has almost never actually used science in any way. They are simply making the assumption that accepted science is a good enough argument for them, without questioning. That's fine, the same as theology is often used in the same way, without actually doing as the Bereans did. That is spoon-fed theology. If one wishes to go beyond spoon-fed, they have to do the work themselves. God did it, for example, or God works in mysterious ways isn't doing the work.

Whether this is the case or not , I will serve as the guinea pig and offer a brief summary of how the process of science is supposed to function.

I know how it works. How it works isn't in question. Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system.

Your subsequent response will either validate or invalidate the speculation.

According to whom?

Science is a self-correcting method for testing falsifiable hypotheses. Science tests itself by requiring its practitioners to first identify the evidence they should expect to find if their hypothesis (i.e., the "science" if you will) is false and then designs experiments for the purpose of trying to find that disconfirming evidence. Should that disconfirming evidence be found, the hypothesis would be rejected. If the predicted disconfirming evidence is not found, then the hypothesis is accepted as a reasonable explanation but only tentatively until such a time, if ever, it becomes falsified.

So, then, how would we test Genesis 1:1 scientifically and/or theologically?

It's the old story. We may trust the Bible; we may trust science. Which is more trustworthy? Which has yielded reliable and validated results? Which has turned out to be wrong? Which when it is wrong,holds up its' hands and gets on with investigating further? Which doubles down and says 'the facts must be wrong; this is the word of God'? (loaded question there). Reliance on science is not equal to reliance o the Bible.

Genesis - and all the Bible - should be considered and analysed with science, logic and history; whatever reliable or half - reliable facts we have, including of course, internal logic, coherence and consistency. Theology helps not at all, as it is predicated on the validity of something the validity of which is under question.

So, then, how would we test Genesis 1:1 scientifically and/or theologically?

Did you not read my post? Scientifically, logically and historically, (1) the Bible comes apart. Theology is irrelevant until it is validated that the Bible and its' claims are worth anything.

(1) the sun was not made later than the daylight. Tyre was not forever destroyed, the nativities utterly contradict. Just for starters.

[Data]

Did you not read my post? Scientifically,logically and historically, the Biblecomes apart. Theology is irrelevant until it is valiidated that the Bible and its' claims are worth anything.

The usual dialogue. Your answer is theology must first be validated. Granted, theology is a broad and subjective term. The term is derived from the Greek theologia (θεολογία), a combination of theos (Θεός, 'god') and logia (λογία, 'utterances, sayings, oracles')" Wikipedia

I would say from theos (god) and logia (study). Wikipedia says logia had to do with, in a pagan sense, oracles, and in the Judeo-Christian sense divinely inspired scriptures. While that may be true in some sense, it seems wrong to me, at least in a practical sense. Theo (god) logia (study) seems, at least more to the point. Geology, from Geo (earth) logia (from the same Greek word Wikipedia defines the later, in this case, as study, discourse). It seems to me they are appeasing theological for no apparent reason.

Anyway, it doesn't make sense to say that theology, which is the very study of God (in this case of the Bible and occidental culture) can be validated prior to the study of it, so all you are saying, without knowing it apparently, is that science, logic and history is the only test to validate the Bible when those things would logically only be methods of theology, the study of God. Setting aside the problem you have there, while regarding science, logic and history - assuming those things are a reliable test for theology without the Biblical reference from which the specific God in question is derived in the first place, which makes no sense as far as I can tell, would test Genesis 1:1 how? Demonstrate rather than give dialogue. In other words, just do it!

[Data]

(1) the sun was not made later than the daylight. Tyre was not forever destroyed, the nativities utterly contradict. Just for starters.

You ETA? Well, Genesis 1:1 has nothing to do with Tyre. The sun not being made later than the daylight we've already discussed? I have I know. Genesis 1:1 says God created the heavens and earth. What are the heavens of which it speaks? The universe, including the sun, moon and stars. Again . . . The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action. At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

In verse 2 the planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. It was likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

In 1:3 the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable. The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action: A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence." Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]." The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band. In verse 4 light and darkness is divided between the eastern and western hemispheres as the Earth rotates on its axis.

In verse 16 the Hebrew waiyaas (proceeded to make), from asah, in verse 16 is different than bara (create) in verses 1, 21 and 27. Asah is the imperfect state indicating progressive action. The luminaries as part of the heavens had already been completed in verse 1, but now they were visible on Earth and prepared for their intended use. Asah can mean make, or appoint (Deuteronomy 15:1), establish (2 Samuel 7:11), form (Jeremiah 18:4), or prepare (Genesis 21:8).

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Data in post #94]

The Biblical claims that are falsifiable can be tested scientifically. The Biblical claims that are unfalsifiable cannot. I'm not sure what it means to ask if something can be tested theologically.