(September 21, 2014 at 3:29 am)genkaus Wrote: But I did answer all your points - which is why you are left with nothing. It is not only helpful to be divisive here - it is necessary. I'm divisive about what constitutes valid evidence and what doesn't - and I'll not compromise that principle and allow you to sneak in any invalid evidence.

I don't appreciate you claiming that I'm "sneaking in" invalid evidence, that's nonsense.

Quote:Your position - in a nutshell - is to say that you admit the unreliability of evidence but you'd still rely on it to establish the validity the story and that's a valid position to take. It isn't.

That's not my position and I'd kindly ask you to stop misrepresenting my position. The Bible is largely unreliable for history, but it is made up of 49 separate texts that need to be individually analysed. The 22 of the OT, and the 27 of the NT. Furthermore the OT needs to be further subdivided - for instance the Pentateuch into its 5 components. The events in Genesis at the time they are written down are all thousands of years old. The Exodus is written down around 1200-1000 BC and is a mythical history for a few hundred years beforehand. The Israelites never visited the actual Mt. Sinai, thus scholars refer to the place that they spent 40 years and where God gave Moses the Ten Commandments "Biblical Mt. Sinai".

Other events that are more contemporary are more reliable. And that's just the O.T. So you have a range from completely unreliable to at least based upon a historical narrative.

In the NT you have much better quality texts overall. You have contemporary writings - in fact all the books of the NT except perhaps 1 and 2 Peter would be considered contemporary by anyone's definition. They were written within living memory of the events, and the epistles of Paul, James, John and Jude are all present-day contemporary.

As there are 49 different texts (or 66 books as counted in the Bible) you cannot apply the rule you've discovered from one to apply to all the others.

Quote:And why would the fact that its not a deliberate lie make it any more reliable?

Because as I've already explained some of the events are factual or based on a real historical narrative.

Quote:Since the events recorded in the earlier books have a direct bearing on the events recorded in the latter one, the established factual inaccuracy of the former does call the historicity of the latter into question.

Rubbish. They're not even written by the same authors.

Quote:Textual inconsistencies, lies, unreliable witnesses and gross violations of natural laws - that's a lot to go on for now.

You're extremely narrow-minded. All historians make mistakes - Josephus is known to make mistakes, but he's also respected as a serious Jewish historian. Modern historians can scarcely agree upon the simplest of things - thus you'll find no two with exact beliefs about any historical subject matter.

(September 22, 2014 at 6:47 am)Aractus Wrote: I don't appreciate you claiming that I'm "sneaking in" invalid evidence, that's nonsense.

"Trying to" - didn't say you actually succeeded.

(September 22, 2014 at 6:47 am)Aractus Wrote: That's not my position and I'd kindly ask you to stop misrepresenting my position. The Bible is largely unreliable for history, but it is made up of 49 separate texts that need to be individually analysed. The 22 of the OT, and the 27 of the NT. Furthermore the OT needs to be further subdivided - for instance the Pentateuch into its 5 components. The events in Genesis at the time they are written down are all thousands of years old. The Exodus is written down around 1200-1000 BC and is a mythical history for a few hundred years beforehand. The Israelites never visited the actual Mt. Sinai, thus scholars refer to the place that they spent 40 years and where God gave Moses the Ten Commandments "Biblical Mt. Sinai".

Other events that are more contemporary are more reliable. And that's just the O.T. So you have a range from completely unreliable to at least based upon a historical narrative.

In the NT you have much better quality texts overall. You have contemporary writings - in fact all the books of the NT except perhaps 1 and 2 Peter would be considered contemporary by anyone's definition. They were written within living memory of the events, and the epistles of Paul, James, John and Jude are all present-day contemporary.

As there are 49 different texts (or 66 books as counted in the Bible) you cannot apply the rule you've discovered from one to apply to all the others.

And this is how you are trying to sneak in the invalid evidence.

Step 1: Admit that bible as a whole is largely historically inaccurate.
Step 2: Argue that individual parts of the bible are to be evaluated individually.
Step 3: Argue that since some of those parts match actual historical events, they could be reliable.
Step 4: Claim that there is no evidence against their reliability.
Step 5: Therefore, those parts are reliable.

Your mistakes would be:
1. I've no problem analyzing those parts individually.
2. Correlation to historical events is not indicative of historical accuracy and therefore reliability - a lot of fiction correlates to historical events. Therefore, your step 3 argument is incorrect.
3. You are the one who provided evidence against its reliability.
4. Being contemporary does not make it reliable.

Therefore, your conclusion of their reliability is invalid.

(September 22, 2014 at 6:47 am)Aractus Wrote: Because as I've already explained some of the events are factual or based on a real historical narrative.

The 9/11 conspiracy theory has some events that are factual or based on a real historical narrative - doesn't make it reliable.

(September 22, 2014 at 6:47 am)Aractus Wrote: Rubbish. They're not even written by the same authors.

And why would that be relevant?

(September 22, 2014 at 6:47 am)Aractus Wrote: You're extremely narrow-minded. All historians make mistakes - Josephus is known to make mistakes, but he's also respected as a serious Jewish historian. Modern historians can scarcely agree upon the simplest of things - thus you'll find no two with exact beliefs about any historical subject matter.

Narrow-minded would be to not listen to any of your arguments - but I'm listening and accepting most of your arguments. I accept your argument that most of the bible is incorrect. I accept your arguments as to why the narrators of NT are unreliable. So, I'm just taking it to its logical conclusion.

To the OP:

well there are explosives, blunt objects and hired guns. Use your imagination. That assumes you no longer care for them at all and, as so many theists imagine, have lost all human feeling and values by becoming an atheist.

You forgot incendiaries Whatevs. Could always backpump mogas into their plumbing from the main.

Ooh .. that ought to work.

http://youtu.be/F8CrZBLJU90

(September 23, 2014 at 12:53 am)genkaus Wrote: Your mistakes would be:
1. I've no problem analyzing those parts individually.
2. Correlation to historical events is not indicative of historical accuracy and therefore reliability - a lot of fiction correlates to historical events. Therefore, your step 3 argument is incorrect.
3. You are the one who provided evidence against its reliability.
4. Being contemporary does not make it reliable.

Therefore, your conclusion of their reliability is invalid.

Fiction, outside of poetry, had not even been invented in Biblical times. So you can't use the argument that the Bible is a "work of fiction".

To get back to my point. The OT is much more difficult and less reliable than the NT. But it still contains more than just myths. The layers have to be separated - so the Pentateuch is separated into 5 texts, it then needs to be further subdivided because what we have today is not the text in its first edition - it was edited and re-edited several times (see documentary hypothesis). Many scholars attempt to separate the texts by their perceived authors so they can be understood better.

This is a way away from the NT. The epistles of Paul are all first-hand contemporary accounts and writings, and thus are considered quite reliable. Many of the teachings of Jesus can also be reliably derived from the gospel accounts - that doesn't mean the gospels are 100% accurate, but it does mean they contain valid events within them.

(September 24, 2014 at 7:05 am)Aractus Wrote: Fiction, outside of poetry, had not even been invented in Biblical times. So you can't use the argument that the Bible is a "work of fiction".

Ha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_literature

(September 24, 2014 at 7:05 am)Aractus Wrote: To get back to my point. The OT is much more difficult and less reliable than the NT. But it still contains more than just myths. The layers have to be separated - so the Pentateuch is separated into 5 texts, it then needs to be further subdivided because what we have today is not the text in its first edition - it was edited and re-edited several times (see documentary hypothesis). Many scholars attempt to separate the texts by their perceived authors so they can be understood better.

So, it isn't reliable to begin with and has been edited and re-edited multiple times, thus further reducing its reliability - with you on that.

(September 24, 2014 at 7:05 am)Aractus Wrote: This is a way away from the NT. The epistles of Paul are all first-hand contemporary accounts and writings, and thus are considered quite reliable. Many of the teachings of Jesus can also be reliably derived from the gospel accounts - that doesn't mean the gospels are 100% accurate, but it does mean they contain valid events within them.

Reliable account of what, exactly? Did Paul meet the guy called Jesus? Was he an eyewitness to the whole crucifiction/resurrection affair?

If not, then his testimony is hearsay and therefore inadmissible.

(September 24, 2014 at 8:00 am)genkaus Wrote: Reliable account of what, exactly? Did Paul meet the guy called Jesus? Was he an eyewitness to the whole crucifiction/resurrection affair?

If not, then his testimony is hearsay and therefore inadmissible.

He is a reliable source of information of the early church as he did in fact meet and know the family of Jesus and the other early church leaders. And no, he generally does not talk about the specific events of Jesus.

(September 24, 2014 at 8:58 am)Aractus Wrote: If not, then his testimony is hearsay and therefore inadmissible.

He is a reliable source of information of the early church as he did in fact meet and know the family of Jesus and the other early church leaders. And no, he generally does not talk about the specific events of Jesus.
[/quote]

Him being a source of info for early church is fine - but where do you get him meeting Jesus' family?