The apologetics game!

Originally posted by lemon lime
The Bible is a book. A book is not a supernatural object. The Bible is not God. A book (any book) cannot be evidence of whatever claim is found in that book.

In a sense, this is why I no longer subscribe to what is claimed in the Bible about God and about Jesus. When I was a Christian, I believed that the Bible was credible. But without it, there is and can be no Christian faith.

Originally posted by DeepThought
That's a better answer than the one RJ gave. But it requires a non-literal reading of the Bible text. The version of the Bible I was quoting (NIV) is a modern translation so why didn't the translators correct for that? Further, if that is the case then one would have to be non-literal about lots of other parts of the Bible which doesn't seem to happen much around here, which was my main point.

Thanks for putting up with me. I get a bit frustrated from time to time... and for reasons I believe you are already aware.

It's not a question of either/or... some parts are meant to be literal and some parts are understood to be non literal. But even then most if not all of the non literal parts are pointing to something meant to be understood literally. The sort of literary devices used then are still being used today, so there should be many modern examples we can use to illustrate what this means. For example, if I describe the sun as a gigantic light bulb most people will understand this to mean I'm talking about its appearance, and will not think I'm saying the sun is literally a light bulb.

I use the NIV version, but NAS is supposed to adhere more closely to a literal meaning than the NIV or NKJV, and I've heard the ESV is even better than the NAS in sticking with a literal translation. But a literal translation doesn't mean the modern reader will instantly get the meaning, because there is still the problem of distance as far as time and culture goes... and I'll wager even someone from a culture closest to settings in the Bible might have some trouble understanding what is meant. Just as an example, the original King James Version* differs so much from modern English usage that I can easily misunderstand what a passage is saying... or have no idea at all what is being said.

I'll tell you what though, the best place to start when reading any translation is simply from a standpoint of common sense. No one needs to be a Bible scholar to understand the Bible. Thinking of the context while looking at passages is the best tool I have for understanding manners of speech and thinking that are mostly foreign to me... and by that I mean someone simply speaking the same language as I do is not insurance I will understand. There have been times when I've had to work at understanding straight English.... it all depends on who I'm listening to.


* Just to clarify what I meant by "original"... I have a copy of the King James Version, but it doesn't read exactly like the original KJ. I've seen passages from the original, and there has definitely been an effort made to make it a bit more understandable to modern English readers.

The New KJV on the other hand removes all of the thees and thous and hasts, and instead of saying for instance "divers" diseases (huh, what does that mean?) it will say "various" diseases.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]...do you not accept the word of God (the Bible) as evidence to support the Christian gospel, doctrine and way of life?

No, I don't. I didn't accept that before I believed in God and I still don't accept it. You may think I'm splitting hairs as to why this is, but let me first turn that question around and ask you a similar question:

Do you b ...[text shortened]... ittle time out of your busy day and put some effort into learning what that word actually means.[/b]

Hang on a second. You are saying that no book constitutes evidence. However a physics textbook and something like the Bible are rather different things. The physics book will contain either a pile of theory, or it will contain details of experiments so that there is a description of evidence, and potentially a collection of instructions as to how to do the experiments so one can test claims oneself. So I'd argue that physics books contain evidence (as long as it's not all theory which is not in itself evidence).

The Bible, whether one believes it or not, is a historical document and as such contains historical evidence. Are you going to say that something like Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England does not constitute historical evidence? Bede was pretty biased by modern standards, but it's still a useful document. The Bible is evidence of God. It's hardly incontrovertible - otherwise I wouldn't be an agnostic - but it's still evidence. I doubt it's the only evidence people use to sustain their Christianity but that is different.

Incidentally, in one of your other posts you claimed FMF wasn't a real Christian because he stopped believing. Do you therefore think that all atheists who "see the light" weren't real atheists before conversion?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Thanks for putting up with me. I get a bit frustrated from time to time... and for reasons I believe you are already aware.

It's not a question of either/or... some parts are meant to be literal and some parts are understood to be non literal. But even then most if not all of the non literal parts are pointing to something meant to be understood litera ...[text shortened]... n I've had to work at understanding straight English.... it all depends on who I'm listening to.

It's a source of mild amusement to me how flamey this forum is even between the believers allegedly in the same faith. There's a book by a guy called William Keith Chambers Guthrie called The Greek Philosophers (from Thales to Aristotle, 1950), which is based on a lecture course he gave for non-Classicists, and I'd heartily recommend it if you are interested in that kind of thing. It's fairly short and he's a good writer, it's an easy read. He talks about the same problem that you do, what words actually connote. For example, the Ancient Greek theos meant god, but what it connotes is something that lasts longer than a human lifetime, so the example he gives is that friendship could be theos. He also talks about a basic incompatibility of world views: materialists (i.e. empiricists), which is where I tend to be coming from, and idealists (in the philosophical sense) and how (badly) they communicate. They can both give arguments the other will understand but not accept and never the twain shall meet.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well I think you need a refresher on the definition of lying; essentially the person telling a lie has to believe that he or she is conveying information that is false. I on the other hand am absolutely sure that you were not any form of atheist that is deserving of that term.

Also, I didn't actually call you a liar now did I? Indeed I could just have easi ...[text shortened]... suggesting that you were mistaken (I was by the way) .

The hilarity is all you lemon lime 🙂

If one tells a falsehood then that is lying. If one deliberately tells a falsehood then that is wilful lying. If one inadvertently tells a lie then it is still lying, although morally less serious the difference being that between intent and negligence. Most people distinguish between the two things as it is easy to be misinformed. In the UK parliament lying to parliament is a resignation matter (from parliament not just from Ministerial positions) even if the lie is inadvertent. Parliament is a court so in wilful cases it's up there with perjury.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If one tells a falsehood then that is lying. If one deliberately tells a falsehood then that is wilful lying.

I don't think I agree with you here. "Lying" without the "deliberate" aspect is not lying. If one makes a false statement unknowingly then that is an error or misconception. I think lying has to contain an intent to deceive. I think the word "wilful" is merely an intensifier and does not add any new meaning to "lying" that is not already there.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Hang on a second. You are saying that no book constitutes evidence. However a physics textbook and something like the Bible are rather different things. The physics book will contain either a pile of theory, or it will contain details of experiments so that there is a description of evidence, and potentially a collection of instructions as to how to d ...[text shortened]... fore think that all atheists who "see the light" weren't real atheists before conversion?

Hang on a second.

Yikes! I'm in the middle of skiing down a dangerous icy mountain slope, but okay, I'll push this little button here that makes time completely stop so I can take a close look at this...

You are saying that no book constitutes evidence.

That's right.

However a physics textbook and something like the Bible are rather different things.

How so? Can't they both be books?

The physics book will contain either a pile of theory, or it will contain details of experiments so that there is a description of evidence, and potentially a collection of instructions as to how to do the experiments so one can test claims oneself. So I'd argue that physics books contain evidence (as long as it's not all theory which is not in itself evidence).

Woah there cowboy, not so fast... Just because a text book describes conditions that point to a decisive conclusion, I still cannot view the book itself as evidence. The experiment described in the book is not the actual experiment, so in all fairness I cannot be expected to simply jump from something I've read to instantly believing what I've read.

BTW, it could be that FMF was careless and didn't say exactly what he meant. But it's up to him (and not me) to correct any misunderstanding on my part, because all I have to work with is what I've seen written. It's better for me to respond to what is actually said than for me to try second guessing based only on what I think might have been meant. It annoys me when people try second guessing what I mean when no guessing is actually necessary.

The Bible, whether one believes it or not, is a historical document and as such contains historical evidence. Are you going to say that something like Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England does not constitute historical evidence? Bede was pretty biased by modern standards, but it's still a useful document.

Okay...

The Bible is evidence of God.

I still don't get that, but okay... you see the Bible as containing evidence of God. I see the Bible as a book that speaks of and about God, and the people who became aware of God and etc etc. But if God wasn't real then that particular book (the Bible) would mean nothing to me.

I doubt it's the only evidence people use to sustain their Christianity but that is different.

Different how, or in what way? I didn't become convinced of Gods existence from only reading the Bible... this is why I don't see the Bible alone as being evidence, anymore than I would equate a description of an experiment in a book to an actual physical experiment.

Incidentally, in one of your other posts you claimed FMF wasn't a real Christian because he stopped believing.

That's close to what I was saying, but it wasn't a claim so much as a gut feeling based on everything I've seen him saying here and in other threads. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then I'm inclined to believe that what I'm observing is a duck. I might believe he used to be a different sort of duck, but no one is going to convince me that any kind duck could have been a swan earlier in his life.

Do you therefore think that all atheists who "see the light" weren't real atheists before conversion?

That's an interesting question, but I'll have to get back to you on that... I've never thought of that particular scenario before, so I'll need to mull over that awhile before answering.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I didn't become convinced of Gods existence from only reading the Bible... this is why I don't see the Bible alone as being evidence, anymore than I would equate a description of an experiment in a book to an actual physical experiment.

What evidence do you have to substantiate your belief that Jesus rose from the dead?

-Removed-

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the Bible in regard to the importance of what it communicates or what can be learned from it. But from my perspective, my own unique and personal perspective, the Bible alone cannot get anyone in touch with God or cause anyone to believe in His existence. So no, by itself and with no other experience or consideration I do not believe the Bible alone can be evidence of the Bible, and by that mean what is written in the Bible. The ink has no supernatural properties, the paper the ink rests on has no supernatural properties, the binding has no supernatural properties, etc etc etc etc etc...

If I saw a telephone for the very first time in my life, didn't know what it was or what it did, and then someone told me I could use it to talk with another person hundreds of miles away, I would not believe it. Would you? I don't know about you, but for me to believe this I would need some evidence of this miraculous talking device actually doing what I was told it could do, and not just because someone told me about it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the Bible in regard to the importance of what it communicates or what can be learned from it. But from my perspective, my own unique and personal perspective, the Bible alone cannot get anyone in touch with God or cause anyone to believe in His existence.

Do you think that what you have written in your last few posts constitutes evidence of what some of your beliefs are?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think that what you have written in your last few posts constitutes evidence of what some of your beliefs are?

What do you think?

Do you think that I think my words in print are evidence of anything I have been saying because I'm the one saying it?

How is it you can even ask this question after all of the trouble I went to in explaining why printed words alone are not evidence of anything?

Originally posted by lemon lime
How is it you can even ask this question after all of the trouble I went to in explaining why printed words alone are not evidence of anything?

Because I don't find what you are saying to be coherent. It sounds to me like something akin to a back-of-an-envelope thought experiment on your part. This is why I am scrutinizing what you have stated by asking you questions. I put it to you that the printed words in the supposedly historical account of the Hebrews and the establishment of Christianity ~ that is to say the Bible, which Christians believe to be the inspired word of God ~ is the only evidence that Christians have to offer to substantiate their claims about Jesus Christ and that without this evidence there could be no such thing as Christianity or Christian beliefs.

Originally posted by lemon lime
What do you think?

What I think is that you could go some way towards making your claim that 'the Bible is not evidence of God' clearer by answering the question: What evidence do you have to substantiate your belief that Jesus rose from the dead?

Originally posted by FMF
There is no Christian faith without the Bible.

That is patently false.

Is this what Catholics teach? I can't recall anyone from any denomination (including Catholics) telling me that having (or reading) a Bible is a necessity for passage into heaven. If I don't show up with a Bible in hand will I be rejected? Is a Bible the equivalent of a passport? Are you suggesting that if I have never had or read a Bible I may as well not bother to show up at the Pearly Gates? 😲

What is the reason for God judging someones heart if all He really needs to do is to see if they have a Bible in their home or not? You deny only going through the motions when you were a Christian, but then continue to demonstrate how little you actually know about Christian belief and doctrine.

If you had plugged up some of those rather sizable holes in your story before I showed up here....
...oh well, it's too late for that now 😛 😞

Okay, fine... if it's really all that important to you then I can believe you were once a Christian. There, are you happy now?