On certain kinds of topics (like 'does God exist?') I tend to be a skeptic of the sort teresa mentions: I am 'agnostic' in the sense that I do not actually believe it is even POSSIBLE to prove certain assertions (and that is a big one). I am not 'gnostic' (everything is knowable with certainty). I am 'agnostic' (not everything is knowable with certainty).
But when it comes to more concrete matters, like most people, I am willing to accept that - even if we 'can't be sure of anything' - that it is completely appropriate to accept that certain things are so PROBABLY true, that it would be pointless to keep insisting that we can't really KNOW.
I mean, gravity works. Things fall to earth. It is possible (given quantum theory) that someday something might NOT fall but would rise instead - but that possibility doesn't belong in science class when teaching about gravity. Things fall to earth. The earth rotates the sun. The earth does not randomly stop in mid-rotation so Joshua can make the day last longer - nope. The 'probability' of that happening is so small that it doesn't warrant bringing up as an explanation.
On inerrancy - and how to understand it
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
The point is this:
The Gospels were written long after the fact.
They come from what various people believed coming from oral traditions.
Most Scholars believe Mark was written first with Matthew and Luke taking Mark and adding their own stories to it.
John is probably the latest.
The names of the documents were assigned later to identify them not who wrote them.
If you do a comparison of between gospels they do not always match.
The problem with inerrancy is that you don't know what the original said.
You only have hand copies many copies later.
Errors and corrections can be seen.
There are apparently late additions.
Both the King James and the Vulgate have them because their source was of later origin.
The best and oldest complete test we have is Codex Sinaicticus.
It was found in the 1800's by Constantine Tischendorf.
He was a German Scholar who found it at Saint Catherine's.
This is a Greek Orthodox Monastery at the base of Mount Sinai.
The Greek translated Old Testament Section was found lose in a basket for starting fires.
Some will make you believe the that the New Testament section was burned too. It wasn't.
As far as I know this is fact not conjecture.
I do not believe in an innerrant Bible.
It is believed by those who don't know the facts.
I don't desire anyone to walk away ignorant.
There is much much more.
The Gospels were written long after the fact.
They come from what various people believed coming from oral traditions.
Most Scholars believe Mark was written first with Matthew and Luke taking Mark and adding their own stories to it.
John is probably the latest.
The names of the documents were assigned later to identify them not who wrote them.
If you do a comparison of between gospels they do not always match.
The problem with inerrancy is that you don't know what the original said.
You only have hand copies many copies later.
Errors and corrections can be seen.
There are apparently late additions.
Both the King James and the Vulgate have them because their source was of later origin.
The best and oldest complete test we have is Codex Sinaicticus.
It was found in the 1800's by Constantine Tischendorf.
He was a German Scholar who found it at Saint Catherine's.
This is a Greek Orthodox Monastery at the base of Mount Sinai.
The Greek translated Old Testament Section was found lose in a basket for starting fires.
Some will make you believe the that the New Testament section was burned too. It wasn't.
As far as I know this is fact not conjecture.
I do not believe in an innerrant Bible.
It is believed by those who don't know the facts.
I don't desire anyone to walk away ignorant.
There is much much more.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
I am glad to hear you are like most people, how generous of yourselfagricola wrote:...But when it comes to more concrete matters, like most people, I am willing to accept that - even if we 'can't be sure of anything' - that it is completely appropriate to accept that certain things are so PROBABLY true, that it would be pointless to keep insisting that we can't really KNOW....
Now if only the topic was a "concrete matter" instead of an insistence that a bit of writing material from 2000yrs ago and that no longer exists is only now known beyond dispute to NOT have been written by a specific person (asserting a negative). Yet, that is what people are want to keep insisting on no matter how pointless. What does Earth rotation or Joshua have to do with teaching observable gravity? And what light does that possibly shed on a claim of indisputable proof that a specific person didn't not pen a bit of writing that no longer exists? Why is it so hard to just consider the premise assertion itself and how it is phrased? Does it show a bias based on a prior conclusion? Is it confirmation bias when one does not find this logic jump a problem? And why do folks continue to try to throw in everything from denominations to gravity to kitchen sinks instead of just directly considering the assertion itself?
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
Of course I'm 'like most people'. And I am also 'unique' (again, just like everybody else).
Do you seriously want to talk about why gravity and why the story of Joshua can't co-exist? I suppose that does tie into the 'inerrancy' topic. Hmm. Well, the sun doesn't move around the earth, the earth moves around the sun. So for the sun to 'stand still' from the viewpoint of humans on earth, then the earth itself would have to cease rotation. This is not really possible without a rather considerable amount of physical destruction of the planet. The planet is (demonstrably) still intact, therefore the earth's rotation has not ever suddenly stopped, then restarted, at any point in the past history of the planet.
As a matter of historical interest: 'inerrancy' as a concept about the Bible ORIGINALLY didn't mean 'exactly correct in all factual information', it just meant the Bible didn't err in the SPIRITUAL message. The extension of inerrancy to include 'factual accuracy' about things like young earth, six day creation, a literal flood, and - yes - Joshua and the sun stood still story - THAT idea is relatively recent and mostly a U.S. notion among fundamentalist Christians (a movement that became popular around the end of the 19th and early parts of the 20th century - just when the coc as a distinct denomination was getting started).
Do you seriously want to talk about why gravity and why the story of Joshua can't co-exist? I suppose that does tie into the 'inerrancy' topic. Hmm. Well, the sun doesn't move around the earth, the earth moves around the sun. So for the sun to 'stand still' from the viewpoint of humans on earth, then the earth itself would have to cease rotation. This is not really possible without a rather considerable amount of physical destruction of the planet. The planet is (demonstrably) still intact, therefore the earth's rotation has not ever suddenly stopped, then restarted, at any point in the past history of the planet.
As a matter of historical interest: 'inerrancy' as a concept about the Bible ORIGINALLY didn't mean 'exactly correct in all factual information', it just meant the Bible didn't err in the SPIRITUAL message. The extension of inerrancy to include 'factual accuracy' about things like young earth, six day creation, a literal flood, and - yes - Joshua and the sun stood still story - THAT idea is relatively recent and mostly a U.S. notion among fundamentalist Christians (a movement that became popular around the end of the 19th and early parts of the 20th century - just when the coc as a distinct denomination was getting started).
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
And so how does rotation effect, disrupt, and/or negate gravity? I just want to know your science on how rotation relates to gravity. I understand that you want to just deny God/miracles/and disruption of natural laws....but how exactly does Earth rotation change gravity?agricola wrote:Of course I'm 'like most people'. And I am also 'unique' (again, just like everybody else).
Do you seriously want to talk about why gravity and why the story of Joshua can't co-exist? I suppose that does tie into the 'inerrancy' topic. Hmm. Well, the sun doesn't move around the earth, the earth moves around the sun. So for the sun to 'stand still' from the viewpoint of humans on earth, then the earth itself would have to cease rotation. This is not really possible without a rather considerable amount of physical destruction of the planet. The planet is (demonstrably) still intact, therefore the earth's rotation has not ever suddenly stopped, then restarted, at any point in the past history of the planet. ...
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
klp - are you kidding?
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
OK I'm taking this to Old Paths because it doesn't go here. This thread can stay and continue along the lines of inerrancy teaching and its influence though.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
Nope, not kidding. You, as a Mod, decided to cast some aspersions on "inerancy" folks. First posting an article that makes an unprovable assertion and defines it as "beyond dispute". I asked for this assertion to be supported or else it is false. No support, only smoke is offered. And so to defend that defenseless statement you chose to go beyond that and go bull-in-a-china-shop style and double down by throwing shade about people of faith being "anti-science" by stating that a Joshua story is impossible by pointing out lack rotation somehow negates gravity. Thinking that gravity is caused or related to rotation is poppycock...yet you keep trying to put on the mantle of scholarship and science and trying to cast others as anti-science or ignorant or that rotation/gravity is so obvious one must not be serious to even need to answer such. And so the lack of support of any assertion continues.agricola wrote:klp - are you kidding?
So yes, now beyond clarifying how one can know exactly who didn't write a letter (when that letter no longer physically exists), please now explain how Earth rotation and the story of Joshua is impossible due to gravity.
I am saying these are erroneous and/or unprovable assertions all made in defense of an attack on something that is not provable. Erroneous assertions and overstatements do not make that "something" more sure. But that is what people do to shore up their chosen POV. If you don't want to believe the Bible then fine, good for you. But why bring up silly things like lack of spinning rotation would defy or negate gravity. Or maybe you think that the gravity on the Earth's moon is reduced because it rotates slower than the Earth? I am just asking you to give your expertise and knowledge on how rotation of Earth defines or effects the gravity of the Earth.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
I see this as very good. Science as good as it is does not really answer all questions. I have worked equations in physics related to gravity. I do not understand why mass holds us to the plant without us spinning off into space. I do not consider the Bible correct in all matters of Science. The problem is that science changes itself when something new and repeatable is discovered. Does the Bible ever change? Science does and its history is replete with old ideas that have been discarded. Do you really want to know about Spontaneous Generation? How about microscopic animals or the history of microscopes. The development of penicillin which was an apparent accident with an agar plate? The problem with any technology is the more you know, the more you don't know. That is why it is dynamic not static. The Bible is static but people assume too much and don't investigate reality around it. I have found Bart Ehrman very helpful because I get what is true historically. I do not agree with him in all things. Each person has their own truth. I did not get what was true from my Church of Christ. You know the Rate Suckers on the Geico ad. There are Spirit Suckers. I still feel the vacuum after nearly 50 years away from the CoC. Agri is correct about inerrancy being an American concept. Spiritual inerrancy might get interesting?agricola wrote:Of course I'm 'like most people'. And I am also 'unique' (again, just like everybody else).
Do you seriously want to talk about why gravity and why the story of Joshua can't co-exist? I suppose that does tie into the 'inerrancy' topic. Hmm. Well, the sun doesn't move around the earth, the earth moves around the sun. So for the sun to 'stand still' from the viewpoint of humans on earth, then the earth itself would have to cease rotation. This is not really possible without a rather considerable amount of physical destruction of the planet. The planet is (demonstrably) still intact, therefore the earth's rotation has not ever suddenly stopped, then restarted, at any point in the past history of the planet.
As a matter of historical interest: 'inerrancy' as a concept about the Bible ORIGINALLY didn't mean 'exactly correct in all factual information', it just meant the Bible didn't err in the SPIRITUAL message. The extension of inerrancy to include 'factual accuracy' about things like young earth, six day creation, a literal flood, and - yes - Joshua and the sun stood still story - THAT idea is relatively recent and mostly a U.S. notion among fundamentalist Christians (a movement that became popular around the end of the 19th and early parts of the 20th century - just when the coc as a distinct denomination was getting started).
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
Did Judas hang himself or burst asunder? This is an apparent discrepancy.
Matt 27:5 kjv
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 kjv
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst
asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
One of our early Church Fathers. Papias describes this problem. He said that Judas was very fat. He hanged himself and was saved. He later fell and burst asunder. The area still reeked to his day so great was the spillage. If you have a weak stomach you might not enjoy this link. See under heading of Judas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis
He also claims Matthew was first written in Hebrew?
Matt 27:5 kjv
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 kjv
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst
asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
One of our early Church Fathers. Papias describes this problem. He said that Judas was very fat. He hanged himself and was saved. He later fell and burst asunder. The area still reeked to his day so great was the spillage. If you have a weak stomach you might not enjoy this link. See under heading of Judas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis
He also claims Matthew was first written in Hebrew?