Good reason

[nobspeople]

In a different thread (listed below), when discussing, in part, if the bible is true, TRANSPONDER said " It is a well known argument that asserting what is in the Bible is true because it is in the Bible is a fallacy. A Lawyer would know that a witness statement is not going to be accepted as true just because he or she has said it. Nor of course rejected without good reason."

The above bolded section caused me to think (not claiming this is TRANSPNDER's assertion): is there good reason to think the bible isn't true?

For discussion: Is there good reason (define what is 'good reason' to you) to think the bible is or is not true*?

*TRUE here being used as 'legitimate, real word of God which was written by men, inspired by God' - this would assume everything written in it is true and agreed upon by God - in other words, nothing written is personal opinion of the writer.



Reference viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38540&start=10

[JehovahsWitness]

-the bible contains contradictions. (Of course most Christians try to claim there are none, but we know that's not true.)

The bible contains no contradictions. (Of course some try to claim there are some, but we know that's not true.)




JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

[brunumb]

- The bible contains blatant lies. eg: God's existance is obvious to all...

I know of no scriptures that says this. Could you provide a reference.

Does this count?

Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[JehovahsWitness]

- The bible contains blatant lies. eg: God's existance is obvious to all...

I know of no scriptures that says this. Could you provide a reference.

Does this count?

Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

No it does not. It says "clearly seen ...." (ie is visible) it does not say "clearly seen to all".





JW

[JehovahsWitness]

This is another problem with many biblical stories ... they just are not compatible with known science (which again is good reason to reject the biblical description of a suddenly created, modern human).

Emphasis MINE

Whether something is good is highly subjective. While many biblical stories may not presently seem compatible with "known science" most such details that are (a) usually are not meant to be ie they are description of miraculous events or (b) may well still be true and accurate. We must be careful not to elevate "scientific fact " to religious dogma: science is constantly evolving and what is considered a scientific fact may or may not turn out to be accurate and true with time. After all, time was (and may be again) when the earth being flat was considered a scietific fact. That view has had to be revised.




JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, THE BIBLE & SCIENCE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

[brunumb]

- The bible contains blatant lies. eg: God's existance is obvious to all...

I know of no scriptures that says this. Could you provide a reference.

Does this count?

Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

No it does not. It says "clearly seen ...." (ie is visible) it does not say "clearly seen to all".

Actually, it just occurred to me that the passage is pretty stupid anyway. It says that invisible things are clearly seen (ie visible).

That said, "by the things that are made" and "they are without excuse" surely applies to all human beings.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #35]

We must be careful not to elevate "scientific fact " to religious dogma: science is constantly evolving and what is considered a scientific fact may or may not turn out to be accurate and true with time. After all, time was (and may be again) when the earth being flat was considered a scietific fact. That view has had to be revised.

I certainly agree with the first sentence. The essence of science is that it constantly adjusts to new data, observations, etc. that may require anything from minor tweaks to major overhauls depending on what the new data and obsversations show and how tenuous existing understanding may be. The "best" explanation for something today may be upended tomorrow with new information.

However, there are many things that have been sufficiently confirmed by observations and evidence to be accepted as "fact." A heliocentric solar system, a (nearly) spherical Earth that rotates on its axis, etc. are examples (among a great number) that are not going to be shown false anytime soon because the evidence supporting them is just too overwhelming and reproducible. But there are flat earthers out there today with books, YouTube channels, conferences, etc., and they'll argue their case all day long despite being clearly and demonstrably wrong. They just argue in the opposite direction that it is science that is wrong, it is all a NASA hoax, or some other kind of nonsense conspiracy and maintain their position despite all the evidence against them.

People have to decide for themselves what to believe, but science has a far better track record than any religion of coming up with the correct descriptions of nature and how things actually do work. The phase "When science and the Bible differ, science as obviously misinterpreted its data" is easily disproven by the Noah's flood story alone. Even if the biblical chronology for when this supposed event occurred (~4400 years ago) is discarded, it could not have happened as described at any point when Homo sapiens have existed on this planet as at no point was the entire Earth covered with water to above the highest mountains. It is clearly just a fictional story (like the similar flood myths of those times and before ... eg. the Epic of Gilgamesh).

[TRANSPONDER]

Unread post by JehovahsWitness » Thu Aug 26, 2021 3:09 am

OnceConvinced wrote: ↑Thu Aug 26, 2021 12:05 am

-the bible contains contradictions. (Of course most Christians try to claim there are none, but we know that's not true.)
The bible contains no contradictions. (Of course some try to claim there are some, but we know that's not true.)

I don't think we do. I have demonstrated glaring contradictions and, despite your best efforts, you have not even able to show that they can be plausibly explained. Denial is another thing entirely.

quote=JehovahsWitness post_id=1048090 time=1629946129 user_id=6111]

This is another problem with many biblical stories ... they just are not compatible with known science (which again is good reason to reject the biblical description of a suddenly created, modern human).

Emphasis MINE

Whether something is good is highly subjective. While many biblical stories may not presently seem compatible with "known science" most such details that are (a) usually are not meant to be ie they are description of miraculous events or (b) may well still be true and accurate. We must be careful not to elevate "scientific fact " to religious dogma: science is constantly evolving and what is considered a scientific fact may or may not turn out to be accurate and true with time. After all, time was (and may be again) when the earth being flat was considered a scietific fact. That view has had to be revised.




JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, THE BIBLE & SCIENCE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

[/quote]

This is a very weak and last - ditch apologetic. While science debates and changes its' mind with new evidence, once something has been validated as hard evidence of a scientific Law, it isn't overturned. In fact no serious scientific discovery or Law has been overturned since the Ptolemaic planetary system was turned inside -out (1), and even that was a lot better than the Bronze - age snow - dome cosmos of the Bible.

No, the fact is that Science finds out reliable facts and The Bible makes claims or assertions that are -bit by bit - being shown false.

The 'heavens showing forth' the fingerprints of God (the watchmaker argument) has been debunked. There was an excuse in Paul's day as they didn't have the science to know better. These days, you are without excuse.

(1) Despite quantum, the scientific laws of Newtonian physics and Relativity are still valid.

[JehovahsWitness]

The phase "When science and the Bible differ, science as obviously misinterpreted its data" is easily disproven by the Noah's flood story alone.

Science cannot disprove a miracle. Noah's flood and many of the other miraculous accounts are essentially beyond the scope of scientific examination. It is therefore false to claim they have been disproved.



JW

[brunumb]

We must be careful not to elevate "scientific fact " to religious dogma: science is constantly evolving and what is considered a scientific fact may or may not turn out to be accurate and true with time.

We must be careful not to misuse terms. Facts do not change. Theories that are developed to explain the facts may change. Earth being flat was not a scientific theory. The notion predates the scientific method and was just a conclusion reached by people having little knowledge or understanding of the world they lived in. With the accumulation of facts over the centuries, the heliocentric model of the solar system with 'spherical' planets orbiting the sun became the theory that best explained those facts.

[brunumb]

Science cannot disprove a miracle. Noah's flood and many of the other miraculous accounts are essentially beyond the scope of scientific examination. It is therefore false to claim they have been disproved.

That is patently false. The great biblical flood would leave characteristic evidence that is well within the scope of scientific examination. All the evidence we have demonstrates that said flood not only did not happen but could not have happened. Plucking miracles out of the air does not mitigate that in any way.