Defending the Bible

[cvanwey]

In the video I argue for the need for an objective text to interpret our subjective experiences.

I realized that I didn't have the video posted in this thread. It can be found in this thread.

Posting a link to a hour video does not answer the poster's direct question to you. @essentialsaltes asks:

"Most believers say they have some kind of personal connection or knowledge of one or more gods. How would you connect that internal feeling of the divine with any particular text?"

I would say the claimant, asserting contact from the 'divine', will assert using one of (6) methods discerned - via 'objective messages' from an 'external objective source':

1) A felt thought, or intrusion, that seems not to have been your own; but from an 'external force'
2) Having an innate awareness, or a seemingly 'sixth sense'
3) Feeling(s) of intense euphoria, feeling overcome by an 'external force'
4) Actually hearing audible voices 'from God'
5) A burning in the bosom
6) Ability to all of a sudden speak in tongues, the angel's language, as the spirit takes you over

Which of the six point(s) above do [YOU] adhere to??? Or, do you also have a seventh way to add?

And of the provided methods above, it again begs the same question @essentialsaltes is ultimately asking.... How do you know the Bible was not written by mere humans, and is/was actually guided by some divine objective source? Isn't your entire argument viciously circular?

 

[Tree of Life]

Posting a link to a hour video does not answer the poster's direct question to you. @essentialsaltes asks:

"Most believers say they have some kind of personal connection or knowledge of one or more gods. How would you connect that internal feeling of the divine with any particular text?"

I would say the claimant, asserting contact from the 'divine', will assert using one of (6) methods discerned - via 'objective messages' from an 'external objective source':

1) A felt thought, or intrusion, that seems not to have been your own; but from an 'external force'
2) Having an innate awareness, or a seemingly 'sixth sense'
3) Feeling(s) of intense euphoria, feeling overcome by an 'external force'
4) Actually hearing audible voices 'from God'
5) A burning in the bosom
6) Ability to all of a sudden speak in tongues, the angel's language, as the spirit takes you over

Which of the six point(s) above do [YOU] adhere to??? Or, do you also have a seventh way to add?

And of the provided methods above, it again begs the same question @essentialsaltes is ultimately asking.... How do you know the Bible was not written by mere humans, and is/was actually guided by some divine objective source? Isn't your entire argument viciously circular?

If God has spoken and if God has given an objective text then God's word ought to be self-authenticating. His word would be absolute, unable to be judged by any other standard but in fact would be the standard by which all other things are judged. So I would say that God's word is self-authenticating and I know it to be God's word because it evidences itself to be the word of God.

Is this viciously circular? It's no more circular than any other method of knowledge. For example...

How do we know that rationalism is true? We can only demonstrate the truth of rationalism by rational arguments. Rationalism is self-authenticating.

How do we know that empiricism is true? We can only demonstrate the truth of empiricism by empirical arguments. Empiricism is self-authenticating.

How do we know that our memory is roughly reliable? Etc.. so on and so forth.

Memory, sensory experience (empiricism), and rationality are all methods of acquiring knowledge that must be self-authenticating. If God has spoken, his word would also be self-authenticating and would be another method of knowledge. God's word would be the method we would use to gain knowledge of God. It would be - and is - self-authenticating just like every other method of knowledge.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is this viciously circular? It's no more circular than any other method of knowledge.

Even if I grant this for the moment, the problem is that there are several divine self-authenticating texts to choose from. The Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Urantia...

They are all equally valid at this level. How do you connect that divine feeling inside (supposing you have one) to a particular text?

How do we know that empiricism is true? We can only demonstrate the truth of empiricism by empirical arguments.

I don't think the 'proof' of empiricism is supported by empirical evidence. We don't go looking under stones for a sentence carved in the rock that says 'Empiricism is true.' It is not circular in the sense you suggest.

 

[Tree of Life]

Even if I grant this for the moment, the problem is that there are several divine self-authenticating texts to choose from. The Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Urantia...

They are all equally valid at this level. How do you connect that divine feeling inside (supposing you have one) to a particular text?

I don't believe that the truth of the Bible - or me knowing that the Bible is true - depends upon a feeling. I do believe that we may suggest criteria for God's word which would eliminate other candidates and show the Bible to be the most plausible candidate. I discuss these criteria in the video I linked.

I don't think the 'proof' of empiricism is supported by empirical evidence. We don't go looking under stones for a sentence carved in the rock that says 'Empiricism is true.' It is not circular in the sense you suggest.

I would challenge you to demonstrate the truth of empiricism without using anything that relies on the truth of empiricism. Hard to do!

 

[essentialsaltes]

I do believe that we may suggest criteria for God's word which would eliminate other candidates and show the Bible to be the most plausible candidate.

Yes, and the imams and the Head Honcho Space Brother have videos about why their book is the only right one.

As an outsider, I have no reason to doubt their sincerity, or their feelings of 'the divine'. Or yours. But given their commonality and contradiction, I have no reason to prefer one over another, or any at all over nothing.

 

[cvanwey]

If God has spoken and if God has given an objective text then God's word ought to be self-authenticating. His word would be absolute, unable to be judged by any other standard but in fact would be the standard by which all other things are judged. So I would say that God's word is self-authenticating and I know it to be God's word because it evidences itself to be the word of God.

Is this viciously circular? It's no more circular than any other method of knowledge. For example...

How do we know that rationalism is true? We can only demonstrate the truth of rationalism by rational arguments. Rationalism is self-authenticating.

How do we know that empiricism is true? We can only demonstrate the truth of empiricism by empirical arguments. Empiricism is self-authenticating.

How do we know that our memory is roughly reliable? Etc.. so on and so forth.

Memory, sensory experience (empiricism), and rationality are all methods of acquiring knowledge that must be self-authenticating. If God has spoken, his word would also be self-authenticating and would be another method of knowledge. God's word would be the method we would use to gain knowledge of God. It would be - and is - self-authenticating just like every other method of knowledge.

I see what you are saying. However, I would point out you appear to be over-generalizing.

We have seemingly countless claims, from individuals whom receive messages from a god or gods. Do we take all these claims at face-value, or as 'true'? Or, does there exist a method or methodologies to better discern or distinguish actual contact from the counterfeit? Please also note my disclaimer here.... I already acknowledge there exists no way to assert a 100% absolute 'truth claim'. We live by levels of confidence or probability. --- (i.e.) There exists a 99.999% chance you cannot logically have a married bachelor, by mere definition alone.

However, when you state:

"His word would be absolute, unable to be judged by any other standard but in fact would be the standard by which all other things are judged. So I would say that God's word is self-authenticating and I know it to be God's word because it evidences itself to be the word of God."

Does your statement above really do anything else, other than completely loop right back upon itself? If you claim that all truth claims are this circular, then I would disagree; as stated above.

If I read a passage from the Bible, and the passage does not correlate with human discovery, or my 'known reality', I look to have the following options available to me:

a. Still think it was stated by God, even though the claim does not align with my perceived reality. Which might mean my available evidence is flawed and/or incomplete.
b. Still think it came from a God, but conclude this agent is not actually all knowing.
c. Reject the claim, as being from a God, because it does not align with my known reality.

As of now, I am going with option c. How about YOU?

 

[cvanwey]

I don't believe that the truth of the Bible - or me knowing that the Bible is true - depends upon a feeling. I do believe that we may suggest criteria for God's word which would eliminate other candidates and show the Bible to be the most plausible candidate. I discuss these criteria in the video I linked.

I'm not so sure you are open for an actual 'true discussion'? You made a rather bold assertion, in your video, at 13:50, and completely hand-waved my given response away. Why should anyone invest an entire hour in your video? If you have specific points, just make them here.

I'll start...

- If a book makes assertions/pronouncements, and some end up being false, it's safe to disregard this book, as being from a claimed perfectly divine agent logically, right?

However....

- If a book happens to get every possible assertion right, it could still merely be from human(s) alone; but you could then also keep the 'from God claim' on the table, right?

So I guess we can start simply...

Do you adhere to the claims from Genesis as literal (or) allegorical, and why?

 

[Tree of Life]

Do you adhere to the claims from Genesis as literal (or) allegorical, and why?

I assume you're referring to the early chapters of Genesis. I read them literally, although I admit that this is not the only way to read Genesis 1. I read them literally because I think that the literal approach has the least hermeneutical problems. The other approaches, while they may jive better with modern scientific consensus, have greater hermeneutical problems.

 

[muichimotsu]

I assume you're referring to the early chapters of Genesis. I read them literally, although I admit that this is not the only way to read Genesis 1. I read them literally because I think that the literal approach has the least hermeneutical problems. The other approaches, while they may jive better with modern scientific consensus, have greater hermeneutical problems.

So because you can't make the bible consistent without acknowledging it isn't a scientific text in the first place, you have to emphasize internal consistency of the book in spite of ignoring scientific findings that you ADMIT contradict the literal interpretation? That's just flat out confirmation bias and presuppositions you refuse to move past

 

[cvanwey]

I assume you're referring to the early chapters of Genesis. I read them literally, although I admit that this is not the only way to read Genesis 1. I read them literally because I think that the literal approach has the least hermeneutical problems. The other approaches, while they may jive better with modern scientific consensus, have greater hermeneutical problems.

I'm referring to Genesis in general, just for starters..... Please remember, the topic is "Defending the Bible".

When you read these literal assertions, and you find some do not appear to 'jive' with human discovery, which approach do you take? --- a). or b).?

a). Still think it was stated by God, even though the claim does not align with my perceived reality. Which might mean my available evidence is flawed and/or incomplete.
b). Reject the claim, as being from a God, because it does not align with my known reality.

If your answer is a)., seems odd that God would author a book which looks to cause such confusion?

If the answer is b)., then the next logical question might then become, 'what other Verses was/were not issued by an actual god?' Is it possible none of it was instructed or issued from a divine agent?

Please remember, we can really only investigate the physical said claims, which are objective. Judging a Holy Book, based upon moral claims, is purely subjective to the reader.

 

[hedrick]

I would say that the best way to defend the Bible is not to use it in such a way that it's obviously wrong.

 

[muichimotsu]

I would say that the best way to defend the Bible is not to use it in such a way that it's obviously wrong.

The problem lies in the use of the word "obvious" with people that are already convinced versus those that are able to admit when they were wrong, which I've had to do several times even this year (like I forget that influenza and covid-19 are not in the same viral family)

 

[Tree of Life]

So because you can't make the bible consistent without acknowledging it isn't a scientific text in the first place, you have to emphasize internal consistency of the book in spite of ignoring scientific findings that you ADMIT contradict the literal interpretation? That's just flat out confirmation bias and presuppositions you refuse to move past

Indeed. I refuse to abandon my presupposition that the Bible is God's word.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Indeed. I refuse to abandon my presupposition that the Bible is God's word.

Why do you have this presupposition and not a presupposition that the Quran is the word of god?

 

[cvanwey]

Indeed. I refuse to abandon my presupposition that the Bible is God's word.

@Tree of Life ... Please address what I have stated to you before.... Your ultimate reason for belief does not look to be about [reason], logic, and/or evidence. It's fair to say you did not reason your way into this belief. Hence, it's also fair to say you cannot be reasoned out of it...

Your a priori is not only that a God exists, but it is the Christian God. --- Whether it be through indoctrination, feeling as though you have been touched by a holy presence, and/or pure emotion maybe?

Your given above answer again spotlights or demonstrates the pure irony at play here... Which is to say....

You teach apologetics. And yet, apologetics is neither what brought you to YHWH. Nor, will any amount of apologetics move you away from YHWH.

If you refuse to abandon your presupposition, or to abandon your faith, then what the heck IS the point of you being associated with apologetics? It only looks to be an exercise in futility.

And by the way, you cannot control what you believe. And since you look to assert such a position, it's also fair to say that nothing that anyone here points out, could ever truly shake your faith or even raise question in your current conclusion. It's fair to say your belief is driven by a felt force from the 'beyond.'

Am I close????

 

[muichimotsu]

Indeed. I refuse to abandon my presupposition that the Bible is God's word.

So you admit you're not only biased, but irrationally so in clinging to it against any other evidence? How is that rational at all?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

I don't believe that the truth of the Bible - or me knowing that the Bible is true - depends upon a feeling. I do believe that we may suggest criteria for God's word which would eliminate other candidates and show the Bible to be the most plausible candidate. I discuss these criteria in the video I linked.



I would challenge you to demonstrate the truth of empiricism without using anything that relies on the truth of empiricism. Hard to do!

Something being most plausible doesn’t mean it’s true right?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

I see what you are saying. However, I would point out you appear to be over-generalizing.

We have seemingly countless claims, from individuals whom receive messages from a god or gods. Do we take all these claims at face-value, or as 'true'? Or, does there exist a method or methodologies to better discern or distinguish actual contact from the counterfeit? Please also note my disclaimer here.... I already acknowledge there exists no way to assert a 100% absolute 'truth claim'. We live by levels of confidence or probability. --- (i.e.) There exists a 99.999% chance you cannot logically have a married bachelor, by mere definition alone.

However, when you state:

"His word would be absolute, unable to be judged by any other standard but in fact would be the standard by which all other things are judged. So I would say that God's word is self-authenticating and I know it to be God's word because it evidences itself to be the word of God."

Does your statement above really do anything else, other than completely loop right back upon itself? If you claim that all truth claims are this circular, then I would disagree; as stated above.

If I read a passage from the Bible, and the passage does not correlate with human discovery, or my 'known reality', I look to have the following options available to me:

a. Still think it was stated by God, even though the claim does not align with my perceived reality. Which might mean my available evidence is flawed and/or incomplete.
b. Still think it came from a God, but conclude this agent is not actually all knowing.
c. Reject the claim, as being from a God, because it does not align with my known reality.

As of now, I am going with option c. How about YOU?

If we live by level of probability then basically we aren’t sure about anything at all would you agree?

 

[cvanwey]

If we live by level of probability then basically we aren’t sure about anything at all would you agree?

Sure. Nothing is absolute. As many can and will argue in a basic philosophy class.... Maybe we are in the 'Matrix'. Maybe I'm real, and you are a figment of my imagination. I think I see what you may be driving at here however

We all must induce SOME level of 'faith.' But as I stated.... If the probability looks to be low, seems logical/rational to reject the claim, at least until further presented evidence may point to the contrary

Which begs the fundamental question in this topic...

Knowing what you know about your perceived reality and known human discovery, how confident are you in discerning the Bible to be the 'authority'? 50%, 25%, 99%, other???

I gather you know where I might stand in this question

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Sure. Nothing is absolute. As many can and will argue in a basic philosophy class.... Maybe we are in the 'Matrix'. Maybe I'm real, and you are a figment of my imagination. I think I see what you may be driving at here however

We all must induce SOME level of 'faith.' But as I stated.... If the probability looks to be low, seems logical/rational to reject the claim, at least until further presented evidence may point to the contrary

Which begs the fundamental question in this topic...

Knowing what you know about your perceived reality and known human discovery, how confident are you in discerning the Bible to be the 'authority'? 50%, 25%, 99%, other???

I gather you know where I might stand in this question

Sheesh, that’s a tough question. I really feel most honest saying I don’t know. Obviously my conditioning has played a part in my beliefs. So my biases over the years have been evident. But where is the truth? As you said we live in a world of probabilities. Which means basically a world of uncertainty. But everyone seems so certain of there believe, the Muslims, the Christians, the Buddhist, it’s just so weird. So I know I didn’t answer your question but thanks for your reply. I honestly just don’t have an answer for you lol