The bridge between belief and faith?

[High Fidelity]

So, I'll begin by the perilously chosen words of "I watched a TV show the other day..." because I did and it has played on my mind since.

The programme was a BBC documentary series about Ancient Apocalypses and this particular episode was about Sodom and Gommorah.

What transpired throughout was essentially a geologist making claim that what could have happened were natural disasters that were grand enough that folklore of some sort was inevitable.

Himself, a gentleman from the British History museum, a forensic anthropologist, an geologist from Israel and testing in Cambridge University basically gathered enough information to satisfy themselves, and me, that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for what could have transpired and became folklore.

Then there are instances like Jericho which can be explained as well.

There is a pretty good summation of the Sodom and Gomorrah discussion here.

So, I was curious, if you see this type of thing and believe it, which I think is reasonable to do so, how does a person bridge the gap between belief in something and faith in something; As in, if certain aspects of the Bible are untrue in your eyes and have been proven so, how does a person move forward from that and maintain faith?

There must be a point where there is less belief than faith, a point where someone is hoping it's real and places faith in it more than they believe in it. I don't think I could ever be that way and it's why I'm curious.

I know at least I would struggle to believe anything purportedly infallible if something was proven to be wrong. If anything, it speaks to the fallibility and ignorance of men and not the infallible word of God.

TL;DR --

If certain aspects of the Bible are untrue in your eyes and have been proven so, how does a person move forward from that and maintain faith?

Do you think it's plausible that natural disasters could account for folklore that could be re-purposed for Biblical use?



Disclaimer: There will inevitably be differences in opinion so if you have a point to make or would like to post, either in agreement or disagreement, remain civil or I'll just request the thread be closed if people can't play nice.

 

[bhsmte]

So, I'll begin by the perilously chosen words of "I watched a TV show the other day..." because I did and it has played on my mind since.

The programme was a BBC documentary series about Ancient Apocalypses and this particular episode was about Sodom and Gommorah.

What transpired throughout was essentially a geologist making claim that what could have happened were natural disasters that were grand enough that folklore of some sort was inevitable.

Himself, a gentleman from the British History museum, a forensic anthropologist, an geologist from Israel and testing in Cambridge University basically gathered enough information to satisfy themselves, and me, that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for what could have transpired and became folklore.

Then there are instances like Jericho which can be explained as well.

There is a pretty good summation of the Sodom and Gomorrah discussion here.

So, I was curious, if you see this type of thing and believe it, which I think is reasonable to do so, how does a person bridge the gap between belief in something and faith in something; As in, if certain aspects of the Bible are untrue in your eyes and have been proven so, how does a person move forward from that and maintain faith?

There must be a point where there is less belief than faith, a point where someone is hoping it's real and places faith in it more than they believe in it. I don't think I could ever be that way and it's why I'm curious.

I know at least I would struggle to believe anything purportedly infallible if something was proven to be wrong. If anything, it speaks to the fallibility and ignorance of men and not the infallible word of God.

TL;DR --

If certain aspects of the Bible are untrue in your eyes and have been proven so, how does a person move forward from that and maintain faith?

Do you think it's plausible that natural disasters could account for folklore that could be re-purposed for Biblical use?



Disclaimer: There will inevitably be differences in opinion so if you have a point to make or would like to post, either in agreement or disagreement, remain civil or I'll just request the thread be closed if people can't play nice.

This really depends on a persons individual psychological makeup, in regards to how they respond to new information that is compelling.

People have different criteria they need to see before they believe something to be true. All of us, are impacted by confirmation bias, but some are better able to recognize when they are not being objective and they adjust their beliefs. Others, have a deep need to believe something, even against contrary evidence and they will then work very hard to convince themselves their belief is correct.

Tons of variables in play here.

 

[Chesterton]

Do you think it's plausible that natural disasters could account for folklore that could be re-purposed for Biblical use?

If God did destroy those cities, I don't see how it could help but look like a "natural" disaster. But when you say "re-purposed" I'm not sure if you're asking if it was an innocent re-purposing or whether people lied, i.e., knew a disaster was natural and claimed it to be supernatural to suit their purposes? I think that's unlikely because they knew less about what made natural disasters than we do (such as in seismology, meteors, stuff like that). And if the storytellers did know more than we assume, their listeners would have known it also.

 

[Colter]

So, I'll begin by the perilously chosen words of "I watched a TV show the other day..." because I did and it has played on my mind since.

The programme was a BBC documentary series about Ancient Apocalypses and this particular episode was about Sodom and Gommorah.

What transpired throughout was essentially a geologist making claim that what could have happened were natural disasters that were grand enough that folklore of some sort was inevitable.

Himself, a gentleman from the British History museum, a forensic anthropologist, an geologist from Israel and testing in Cambridge University basically gathered enough information to satisfy themselves, and me, that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for what could have transpired and became folklore.

Then there are instances like Jericho which can be explained as well.

There is a pretty good summation of the Sodom and Gomorrah discussion here.

So, I was curious, if you see this type of thing and believe it, which I think is reasonable to do so, how does a person bridge the gap between belief in something and faith in something; As in, if certain aspects of the Bible are untrue in your eyes and have been proven so, how does a person move forward from that and maintain faith?

There must be a point where there is less belief than faith, a point where someone is hoping it's real and places faith in it more than they believe in it. I don't think I could ever be that way and it's why I'm curious.

I know at least I would struggle to believe anything purportedly infallible if something was proven to be wrong. If anything, it speaks to the fallibility and ignorance of men and not the infallible word of God.

TL;DR --

If certain aspects of the Bible are untrue in your eyes and have been proven so, how does a person move forward from that and maintain faith?

Do you think it's plausible that natural disasters could account for folklore that could be re-purposed for Biblical use?



Disclaimer: There will inevitably be differences in opinion so if you have a point to make or would like to post, either in agreement or disagreement, remain civil or I'll just request the thread be closed if people can't play nice.

For me I never have believed the Bible was error free, my faith isn't based on the perfection of how others understood certain epochs of the past nor is it damaged by the exaggerations of the Hebrews who were Jews, writing about the Jews and for a Jewish audience.

Inherent capacity cannot be exceeded, a gallon cannot fit into a quart. Primitive man interpreted his encounters with the celestials according to their conceptual capacity for receptivity. In an enchanted age they tended to see everything as coming directly from the action of the Gods.

Sodom and Gomorrah may well have been immoral cities that were hit by the fallout from a meteor that came in at a high rate of speed, clipped the alps and exploded over the area. Perfectly natural thing, yet the ancients were so superstitious that they assumed it was God.

Science just eliminates the superstitious component, real spiritual faith remains.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Personally, I always considered belief to be just very strong faith

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I believe in faith as a tool, pragmatic value. It may or may not be true objectively, but it helps people live and organises their experience etc. We didnt get to where we are without a little help form organised forms of life.

Maybe religions are "attempts at science", but has science as of yet made an attempt at religion? Dont look back in anger, but look forwards with hope.

 

[Davian]

...

If certain aspects of the Bible are untrue in your eyes and have been proven so, how does a person move forward from that and maintain faith?

Compartmentalization, I guess.

Compartmentalization (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves."

Do you think it's plausible that natural disasters could account for folklore that could be re-purposed for Biblical use?

That does have explanatory power, for events in the bible, and those in prior times. Thor, God of thunder, and all that.

 

[Paradoxum]

You can be a Christian or theist while accepting that the Bible is fallible.

 

[High Fidelity]

You can be a Christian or theist while accepting that the Bible is fallible.

Seems like a strange thing to me though.

 

[jacks]

You can be a Christian or theist while accepting that the Bible is fallible.

You're correct, that is what most Christians think. HERE

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, I'll begin by the perilously chosen words of "I watched a TV show the other day..." because I did and it has played on my mind since.

The programme was a BBC documentary series about Ancient Apocalypses and this particular episode was about Sodom and Gommorah.

What transpired throughout was essentially a geologist making claim that what could have happened were natural disasters that were grand enough that folklore of some sort was inevitable.

Himself, a gentleman from the British History museum, a forensic anthropologist, an geologist from Israel and testing in Cambridge University basically gathered enough information to satisfy themselves, and me, that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for what could have transpired and became folklore.

Then there are instances like Jericho which can be explained as well.

There is a pretty good summation of the Sodom and Gomorrah discussion here.

So, I was curious, if you see this type of thing and believe it, which I think is reasonable to do so, how does a person bridge the gap between belief in something and faith in something; As in, if certain aspects of the Bible are untrue in your eyes and have been proven so, how does a person move forward from that and maintain faith?

There must be a point where there is less belief than faith, a point where someone is hoping it's real and places faith in it more than they believe in it. I don't think I could ever be that way and it's why I'm curious.

I know at least I would struggle to believe anything purportedly infallible if something was proven to be wrong. If anything, it speaks to the fallibility and ignorance of men and not the infallible word of God.

TL;DR --

If certain aspects of the Bible are untrue in your eyes and have been proven so, how does a person move forward from that and maintain faith?

Do you think it's plausible that natural disasters could account for folklore that could be re-purposed for Biblical use?



Disclaimer: There will inevitably be differences in opinion so if you have a point to make or would like to post, either in agreement or disagreement, remain civil or I'll just request the thread be closed if people can't play nice.

In short, I do three basic things:

1) I read widely; and I try to pick the better scholars on the various sides of the issues.

2) When Genesis is concerned, I realize that a philosophy of history primarily takes into account the abilities of the person writing the account, in this case, it was Moses or one of several redactors. What I mean by this is that the cogency of a historical account begins and centers primarily on the author and his understanding, not on the 'probable' names and events collected that came prior to the author himself.

3) Don't assume that the nature of prophecy and revelation will always, and by necessity, relate to humanity by way of linear, iron clad facts--instead, we may have stories that to various degrees represent some aspects or understandings about the past.

As to your second question, it is 'possible' that natural disasters could account for some biblical stories, but don't assume that the scholars 'selected' in the documentary actually 'know' the connections in each link of their hypotheses or theories. Just because what sounds like a plausible framework is presented by no means makes it true or the only plausible framework that could be produced. Be careful with the concept of "proof" in relation to archaeological finds.

Peace

 

[bhsmte]

In short, I do three basic things:

1) I read widely; and I try to pick the better scholars on the various sides of the issues.

2) When Genesis is concerned, I realize that a philosophy of history primarily takes into account the abilities of the person writing the account, in this case, it was Moses or one of several redactors. What I mean by this is that the cogency of a historical account begins and centers primarily on the author and his understanding, not on the 'probable' names and events collected that came prior to the author himself.

3) Don't assume that the nature of prophecy and revelation will always, and by necessity, relate to humanity by way of linear, iron clad facts--instead, we may have stories that to various degrees represent some aspects or understandings about the past.

As to your second question, it is 'possible' that natural disasters could account for some biblical stories, but don't assume that the scholars 'selected' in the documentary actually 'know' the connections in each link of their hypotheses or theories. Just because what sounds like a plausible framework is presented by no means makes it true or the only plausible framework that could be produced. Be careful with the concept of "proof" in relation to archaeological finds.

Peace

How do you determine who the better scholars are?

Also, what about historians in regards to the bible? Do you read the work of historians? Scholars tend to focus more on the actual scripture and it's meaning, while historians focus on whether the scripture has any historical credibility.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How do you determine who the better scholars are?

Also, what about historians in regards to the bible? Do you read the work of historians? Scholars tend to focus more on the actual scripture and it's meaning, while historians focus on whether the scripture has any historical credibility.

I determine them in the same way that a person with a Master's degree from a secular state university would determine them.

And in my book, a historian with a PhD 'is' a scholar.

 

[Gottservant]

The core teaching of Jesus is all you really need to know (that and proverbs and ecclesiastes are pretty helpful too).

Words do not become miracles, unless you fully intend to live by them (regardless).

I think the problem with most of the world is that it is so hinged on its own judgment that it thinks the first contradiction it creates is perilous, when the reality is that most things can be accommodated if you maintain some sort of focus on the truth.

 

[Colter]

"Belief fixates, faith liberates." UB

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How do you determine who the better scholars are?

Also, what about historians in regards to the bible? Do you read the work of historians? Scholars tend to focus more on the actual scripture and it's meaning, while historians focus on whether the scripture has any historical credibility.

[/quote]You can be a Christian or theist while accepting that the Bible is fallible.[/quote]

Seems like a strange thing to me though.

the leap of faith,
is required, yes? as without faith 'tis not possible to please God, (and if God ain't pleased , .... well... 'tis not good!),

the leap of faith, (or even small step of faith if you prefer) , is to call on God. let Him help.

God Himself said in His Word (the Bible) that scholars are not privy to His Kingdom and Salvation. <LIGHT ON!> so , don't trust scholars.

(yes, takes faith to trust God instead of trusting men)

(of course, faith in man is still faith; but can man save anyone ? (hint:no) )

so faith in God is good and wonderful and delightful and awesome and RARE, but necessary for LIFE. Eternal Life. those without faith, no worry - no Eternal Life.

Great Praise to the Father in heaven Who has chosen to reveal His Great Salvation in Yahshua to little babies

and hidden it from the educated (scholars), because "it is well pleasing" to do so.

oh,
that doesn't mean
that someone who makes it to sixth grade
is ineligible
for the Kingdom of God.

it just means that it's rarer and harder for them to turn to God, repent and be immersed in Yahshua's Name, and to live a life dependent on God every day.

 

[bhsmte]

I determine them in the same way that a person with a Master's degree from a secular state university would determine them.

And how would that be?

 

[Paradoxum]

Seems like a strange thing to me though.

It doesn't seem strange to me. If you're going to be religious, I think that would be the more reasonable view.

You're correct, that is what most Christians think. HERE

Interesting. I would've thought more Americans would say it's all literally true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I determine them in the same way that a person with a Master's degree from a secular state university would determine them.

And how would that be?

It would be something like this:

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/8/

What are academic resources? - Anthropology - Library guides at Monash University

The only thing I want to specify further is that I would mostly use books and peer-reviewed journal articles authored by researchers with a PhD (or equivalent), and mainly with degrees oriented to the research topic being investigated.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are under the impression that they can just pick up a single, solitary book on a topic, read it, and claim that this act counts as sufficient academic research. Of course, that wouldn't fly at most universities which are worth their academic salt.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It doesn't seem strange to me. If you're going to be religious, I think that would be the more reasonable view.



Interesting. I would've thought more Americans would say it's all literally true.

Well....surprise. Some of us are actually educated and also know how to handle the Bible in ways other than what is proffered in some Bible 101 class at the local church.