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.

[TRANSPONDER]

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!

Not a chance of that working, pal. Theology is nothing to do with logic, science or history as validation, only whether the religious claims are based on fact. THEN and only then, is there a point in discussing theology. Yet again, back to the drawing board with that one and, yet again, I don't know whether that was merely a wind -up. In either case, you do your case no good.

(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).

You may be limiting the discussion to Creation, but I am not; I am pointing out various places wherte the Bible is wrong. If we can'ttryst the prophecy of Tyre, why should we trust the demonstrably false Genesis? Unless one denies science.

Your excuse that the sun was indeed made before the earth and in fact the sun produced the day and night just as the Bible says (and was not some Cosmic Light that snapped on and off every 12 hours as one apologist tried to argue) but cloud cover obscured the sun so the person on the earth did not see it.

But there's the problem. There was no person on the earth to see it.Man was madelater. It can only be God telling the writer what happened. So why not tell him the truth which would turn out to be 'science in the Bible' (which is pitifully lacking) when needed at a time when skepticism was on the rise? Why tell Moses a misleading tale that looked like the limited guesses of man?

The smart money is on - the guesses of man is what it was.

This is a short answer to a long post, but you spent all that effort flogging a very dead horse.

[Data]

[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.

We tend to take words for granted; to me etymology is not only interesting but very important. Put simply, to me science means knowledge and theology means the study of gods. To the former, knowledge means facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. In the case of the later not exclusively the Biblical gods. God means anything or anyone considered mighty and therefore venerated. Venerate means to respect. In a very broad sense science is theology - theology is science. However, theology may study the supernatural whereas modern science doesn't.

To be falsifiable, of course, means able to be proven false: All scientific theories are falsifiable: if evidence that contradicts a theory comes to light, the theory itself is either modified or discarded. "To say that a certain hypothesis is falsifiable is to say that there is possible evidence that would not count as consistent with the hypothesis. According to Popper, evidence cannot establish a scientific hypothesis, it can only “falsify” it. A scientific hypothesis is therefore a falsifiable conjecture." (Source)

Science and theology are aspects of the study of two different kinds of knowledge. The natural and the supernatural. The first falsifiable, the second not. We all know this. Although a God or gods can be either natural or supernatural the God and gods credited by the Bible as creating the heavens and earth are supernatural, so science can't test if the alleged God, Jehovah, created anything. That isn't to say he didn't, it's just that science can't say whether he did or not. The question, though not for serious scientific inquiry in my opinion, of whether or not the heavens and earth were created, perhaps is theoretically falsifiable, but my own anecdotal perspective is that it isn't terribly important what science says regarding the subject because as mentioned above, all scientific theories are falsifiable. Even if science could reach a conclusion, it can very possibly be wrong. You wouldn't think "atheists" understand this very well, but whatever. All knowledge, whether theological or scientific is only at best, informed opinion and at worst confirmation bias. Truth is a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

As for theology, I consider Biblical study to be specifically what the Bible says whereas Biblical theology is specifically what the Bible means. For example, the Bible says a snake and donkey talked, but it doesn't mean that, it means a spirit being used a snake and a donkey as a puppet that appeared, to some, to talk.

I tested Genesis 1:1 in post #99.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #102]

No. It's still a waste of time, though your post does have the ring of sincerity. But while theological inconsistency or philosophical or logical incoherence, might be useful for doubting Bible claims, they do no good in determining the implications of those claims until we know those claims are true, and only the tools of science, history and rationality can do that - Philosophical, theological or revelationary guesswork cannot.

[boatsnguitars]

And I didn't say you can't test faith, God or supernatural.

Go on, tell us how you test those things. I'm ready to take notes!

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?

OK, I tested gravity by dropping certain things, the same distance and timed the fall. I found that the speed was precisely what I was "spoon fed" from my physics teachers: 9.8 meters per second squared.
(Do you want me to go on? I was an Environmental Science major and had to do more tests than I can count. Believe it or not, they actually encourage testing! Kinda the opposite of religion.... )

Now, let's test if faith can move mountains. What controls do I set up to test this?

But, first, do we need to burn Christians, to test if they have Faith?

1 Peter 1:7
7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

[Data]

OK, I tested gravity by dropping certain things, the same distance and timed the fall. I found that the speed was precisely what I was "spoon fed" from my physics teachers: 9.8 meters per second squared.

Ah, but did you drop a Bible to see if the speed was the same? If not, you haven't tested the Bible at all, have you?

Calm down, it was a joke.

(Do you want me to go on? I was an Environmental Science major and had to do more tests than I can count. Believe it or not, they actually encourage testing! Kinda the opposite of religion.... )

Yes. The opposite of religion. Which is just ideology. Which the militant atheists are. But science isn't. Get it? That's what I've been saying since I got here. Well, long before that, but here, I mean. It's what I've been saying here.

Now, let's test if faith can move mountains. What controls do I set up to test this?

I think I've done that here already. I know I have elsewhere. It's always dismissed as nonsense because militant atheism has so many ideological blinders it isn't possible for someone like - let's say TRANSPONDER - to see or even try to understand.

How to test faith. First of all, know what it is and don't conflate or limit it. Faith in one thing is the same as faith in another. Faith is faith regardless of if it is in money or God. Faith is trust, belief and can be well founded or blind, baseless. Logical or emotional. The Latin word credit means trust, belief. If you ask for a loan and are given credit, for example. A large mining operation will involve credit, creditors, in order to literally move mountains, but Jesus used it in a figurative sense. Faith can overcome seemingly immovable objects in a figurative sense. Make a mountain out of a molehill, in reverse. Testing your faith would require that you keep your faith in spite of any obstacle set before you, even in pain of death. If we deem a source credible, that means we trust it or it is generally trusted.

Control would be lack of faith, obviously. This mining operation used credit and the control didn't. Too many variables there, huh? The one that did may need it while the one that didn't may not. Flip it around and the one that needs it can't move the mountain without it, but the one that doesn't need credit can.

But, first, do we need to burn Christians, to test if they have Faith?

Historically they have burned them. The Jews eagerly gathered firewood to burn Polycarp even though it was a great Sabbath. The question is, who had faith in God, the Jews breaking the great Sabbath or the Christian being burned? People get profound use from making gods in their image but that doesn't mean there are no gods. Testing the faith, therefore, isn't testing the God.

1 Peter 1:7
7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Specifically, faith is tested in this verse, as gold, which when tested (burned) separates the gold from impurities. Science boy.

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #102]

No. It's still a waste of time, though your post does have the ring of sincerity. But while theological inconsistency or philosophical or logical incoherence, might be useful for doubting Bible claims, they do no good in determining the implications of those claims until we know those claims are true, and only the tools of science, history and rationality can do that - Philosophical, theological or revelationary guesswork cannot.

Sounds to me like you put the cart before the horse. It always sounds to me like that when dealing with militant believers or unbelievers. There isn't anything remotely scientific about it. Science is only being misused in a religious/ideological manner. For me, as a believer, it's always useful to assume whatever I'm considering not to be true. Most of the time it isn't. When someone says to me, they are a believer I don't believe them. When someone says they are an unbeliever I don't believe them. When they say they use science I don't believe them, when they say God spoke to them, I don't believe them. When the Bible says it's true, I don't believe it, when science says it must be true, I don't believe it. When I don't believe it's true, I don't believe that I don't believe it's true and when I believe it is true, I don't believe I believe it's true. If that sounds to you like I'm pulling your leg, as it often seems to you, it isn't. I don't believe what I believe or that I really believe it because human nature is not only idealistic and unreliable but depends upon too many obstacles for it to be otherwise. Really what we do is pick our ideology. I believe it imperative to recognize that in order to compensate for it as much as possible. Most people don't.

We don't know what we believe because we can't see where that is coming from. That is spirituality. Invisible active force that produces visible results. Tradition, culture, genetics, endless variations. So, we can say "I believe this" or "I don't believe that" but we have no idea why. We think it's because of what we learn but where does that come from and how do we select it from any other possibility. The best we can do, I believe, is to gauge what we think by our actions rather than words and try to sort it out by looking at as many of the variables as we can. Not just our own, by the way, but historically human variations outside of our reference, or what we may think are outside of our reference.

[boatsnguitars]

Yes. The opposite of religion. Which is just ideology. Which the militant atheists are. But science isn't. Get it? That's what I've been saying since I got here. Well, long before that, but here, I mean. It's what I've been saying here.

Is that what you've been trying to say? All this time? That because science is the process of testing, that means it's an ideology, therefore as bad as religion?

That's about the dumbest thing I've read for a long time. And, the fact that you've been trying to express this over so many months, years(?)... I'm sorry for you.

[Data]

Yes. The opposite of religion. Which is just ideology. Which the militant atheists are. But science isn't. Get it? That's what I've been saying since I got here. Well, long before that, but here, I mean. It's what I've been saying here.

Is that what you've been trying to say? All this time? That because science is the process of testing, that means it's an ideology, therefore as bad as religion?

That's about the dumbest thing I've read for a long time. And, the fact that you've been trying to express this over so many months, years(?)... I'm sorry for you.

Excellent. Perfect.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #102]

No. It's still a waste of time, though your post does have the ring of sincerity. But while theological inconsistency or philosophical or logical incoherence, might be useful for doubting Bible claims, they do no good in determining the implications of those claims until we know those claims are true, and only the tools of science, history and rationality can do that - Philosophical, theological or revelationary guesswork cannot.

Sounds to me like you put the cart before the horse. It always sounds to me like that when dealing with militant believers or unbelievers. There isn't anything remotely scientific about it. Science is only being misused in a religious/ideological manner. For me, as a believer, it's always useful to assume whatever I'm considering not to be true. Most of the time it isn't. When someone says to me, they are a believer I don't believe them. When someone says they are an unbeliever I don't believe them. When they say they use science I don't believe them, when they say God spoke to them, I don't believe them. When the Bible says it's true, I don't believe it, when science says it must be true, I don't believe it. When I don't believe it's true, I don't believe that I don't believe it's true and when I believe it is true, I don't believe I believe it's true. If that sounds to you like I'm pulling your leg, as it often seems to you, it isn't. I don't believe what I believe or that I really believe it because human nature is not only idealistic and unreliable but depends upon too many obstacles for it to be otherwise. Really what we do is pick our ideology. I believe it imperative to recognize that in order to compensate for it as much as possible. Most people don't.

We don't know what we believe because we can't see where that is coming from. That is spirituality. Invisible active force that produces visible results. Tradition, culture, genetics, endless variations. So, we can say "I believe this" or "I don't believe that" but we have no idea why. We think it's because of what we learn but where does that come from and how do we select it from any other possibility. The best we can do, I believe, is to gauge what we think by our actions rather than words and try to sort it out by looking at as many of the variables as we can. Not just our own, by the way, but historically human variations outside of our reference, or what we may think are outside of our reference.

That was a good one. It had me thinking "I rather prefer to believe than not', but of course, there's the bear pit in front of me. Where is skepticism? I would have to consider the whole epistemology of everyday interaction. Supernatural claims are not to be credited until verified. The same with scientific ones. Personal matters, one credits what one is told - until there is reason to doubt it, like someone in a bar cadging a drink while claiming to be a nuclear physicist - and then he confuses an atom with a molecule. In the old days I thought 'everyone gets one chance - on consideration, two. When they try to bamboozle me, the third time, I'm done. Of course that doesn't apply to religious debate where Rhetorical and lawyer tricks in the cause of Faith are the way the game is played.

And of course "The Book". We had a discussion about fiction and non -fiction, (re Genesis) and of course fact or metaphor was a long time apologetic. Yet i rather unusually would not make a special case against the bible just because it contained miracles.Generally atheist apologists rejected it as just another faith 0-claim but that's not how we treat the Axiomatic "Other Books". I use the Jugurthine war because it read like straight history until we got to a miracle, and I rejected that but still believed the rest. So reasonably I credited a LOT of the Bible as History apart from miracles because "Miracles don't happen".It's what on trial and error we do - we try to get the history we can out of the most dubious tales, but we do not credit miracles. Epistemology works that way and it seems reasonable to me, though I'm no expert.

As you may have garnered from some of my posts, more and more of what I credited in the Bible as history (though doubting a miracle) more and more has come adrift the more I learned. Kenyon's Jericho excavations debunked the walls of Jericho story. The nativities went in my time (and I credit that i put the final touches to that) and recently (well,over the last decade) Exodus has also been looking dubious. And I needn't labour the case I am pushing that the resurrection event -scenario never happened.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. The opposite of religion. Which is just ideology. Which the militant atheists are. But science isn't. Get it? That's what I've been saying since I got here. Well, long before that, but here, I mean. It's what I've been saying here.

Is that what you've been trying to say? All this time? That because science is the process of testing, that means it's an ideology, therefore as bad as religion?

That's about the dumbest thing I've read for a long time. And, the fact that you've been trying to express this over so many months, years(?)... I'm sorry for you.

Excellent. Perfect.

That reminds me of "If I've alienated our paying customers, I've done my job". You make a question to be answered,sure, but it is a flawed case, because militant atheists (even supposing that militant atheism was not justified or even urgently needed) do not affect the validity of atheism per se. Just as convicted criminals using Christianity as a cover does not a thing to debunk the case for religion.

Ideology is irrelevant to the discussion and for you to appeal to it, even in a fair and balanced way rather than the twisted mud - slinging method you do - just shows up what is wrong with your case, argument and (so far as i can see) entire mindset, rationale and way of thinking.