5 ms·

How do you explain this then? https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

rsyring 5y ago
Easily. It's the same story from two different perspectives. The first chapter is on a more global level. The second zooms in and focuses specifically on how man was created. The animals were created globally first. Once Adam was created, God created animals again so Adam could see the process, understand that God is Creator, and participate in ruling over God's creation. Interesting website choice. I spent a year as an agnostic because of that website before I started to realize there must be another perspective to consider.
- rjbwork 5y ago
  Okay. So you don't believe that the bible is utterly true. You believe that the bible, plus some supplementary explanatory material is utterly true.
  - rsyring 5y ago
    I certainly believe interpretation is necessary and that some interpretations are more faithful than others. I believe there are resources out there that can help someone to faithfully interpret. And the converse also. The skeptics annotated Bible being in the latter category IMO.
    - fenomas 5y ago
      To a disinterested outsider, this dialog reads like: A: everything in this book is literally true B: what about this passage where it says 3+4=9? A: my interpretation of that passage is that the 9 represents a 7 in that particular context The salient point being: that even if A has arrived at a literally true interpretation of the passage, the truth came from A, not from the passage. Further, although A believes they're arguing that the book is inerrant, what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant.
      - no-dr-onboard 5y ago
        > the truth came from A, not from the passage How can an interpretation attesting the truth of two passages exist while the passages are individually untrue? There seems to be a logic error here. > what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant. I don’t think A is claiming that, as the most basic understanding of Christianity understands that the individual is terribly flawed and errant. If your presupposition for this conclusion is based on your earlier point might have either misstated something or you’re claiming a conclusion without an expressed premise.
deltaonefour 5y ago
The passages are interpreted incorrectly. Humans aren't rational beings that form conclusions by logically composing facts into a singular point. Instead humans are more prone to construct a scaffold of logic in order to support and existing belief. That site is picking and choosing passages in order to support a misguided belief. Instead a person must start with no beliefs and formulate a conclusion from the facts. If you do this, it is undeniable that the bible is real. I once told this to an atheist and he was astonished because my description of his subconscious behavior and lack of awareness was 100% what he thought I was doing. This makes me wonder do atheists even realize how unscientific and illogical they are? Are they constantly thinking that I'm the one that's illogical? Are humans so unaware of their own biases that we can never ever truly determine what is real and what isn't?
- rjbwork 5y ago
  To answer your final question - no, we probably cannot actually determine absolute truth about the universe. There is quite a long history of epistemology that indicates this. In addition, we've got the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_th... which lets us know that there will ALWAYS be true things that we cannot prove with any set of axioms. Coming to a full reckoning of truth or reality is impossible. We're each doing the best we can with the perspective we've been given and the information available to us. I also think you are being quite uncharitable to most atheists. The majority of us grew up in the church, have read the bible, utterly believed the bible was true, were devout believers, and generally were at some point quite indistinguishable from you or any other truly intellectual believer in terms of worldview. It really was the kinds of contradictions the comment you replied to indicates, along with hundreds of others, and the absolute mental knots that had to be constructed in order to justify them that set me on the path of disbelief. This is the path for millions of people as they take a serious reckoning of their beliefs and with their holy books and do a fundamental reexamination of their entire worldview and belief structure. I don't think that either of us is being disingenuous in our portrayal of our beliefs. That said, I really do think that your interpretation of what people are doing when they examine these contradictions and draw the conclusion of disbelief is, in fact, the theological equivalent of p-hacking is fundamentally untrue.

rsyring 5y ago

Easily. It's the same story from two different perspectives. The first chapter is on a more global level. The second zooms in and focuses specifically on how man was created. The animals were created globally first. Once Adam was created, God created animals again so Adam could see the process, understand that God is Creator, and participate in ruling over God's creation. Interesting website choice. I spent a year as an agnostic because of that website before I started to realize there must be another perspective to consider.

rjbwork 5y ago
Okay. So you don't believe that the bible is utterly true. You believe that the bible, plus some supplementary explanatory material is utterly true.
- rsyring 5y ago
  I certainly believe interpretation is necessary and that some interpretations are more faithful than others. I believe there are resources out there that can help someone to faithfully interpret. And the converse also. The skeptics annotated Bible being in the latter category IMO.
  - fenomas 5y ago
    To a disinterested outsider, this dialog reads like: A: everything in this book is literally true B: what about this passage where it says 3+4=9? A: my interpretation of that passage is that the 9 represents a 7 in that particular context The salient point being: that even if A has arrived at a literally true interpretation of the passage, the truth came from A, not from the passage. Further, although A believes they're arguing that the book is inerrant, what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant.
    - no-dr-onboard 5y ago
      > the truth came from A, not from the passage How can an interpretation attesting the truth of two passages exist while the passages are individually untrue? There seems to be a logic error here. > what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant. I don’t think A is claiming that, as the most basic understanding of Christianity understands that the individual is terribly flawed and errant. If your presupposition for this conclusion is based on your earlier point might have either misstated something or you’re claiming a conclusion without an expressed premise.

deltaonefour 5y ago

The passages are interpreted incorrectly. Humans aren't rational beings that form conclusions by logically composing facts into a singular point. Instead humans are more prone to construct a scaffold of logic in order to support and existing belief. That site is picking and choosing passages in order to support a misguided belief. Instead a person must start with no beliefs and formulate a conclusion from the facts. If you do this, it is undeniable that the bible is real. I once told this to an atheist and he was astonished because my description of his subconscious behavior and lack of awareness was 100% what he thought I was doing. This makes me wonder do atheists even realize how unscientific and illogical they are? Are they constantly thinking that I'm the one that's illogical? Are humans so unaware of their own biases that we can never ever truly determine what is real and what isn't?

rjbwork 5y ago
To answer your final question - no, we probably cannot actually determine absolute truth about the universe. There is quite a long history of epistemology that indicates this. In addition, we've got the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_th... which lets us know that there will ALWAYS be true things that we cannot prove with any set of axioms. Coming to a full reckoning of truth or reality is impossible. We're each doing the best we can with the perspective we've been given and the information available to us. I also think you are being quite uncharitable to most atheists. The majority of us grew up in the church, have read the bible, utterly believed the bible was true, were devout believers, and generally were at some point quite indistinguishable from you or any other truly intellectual believer in terms of worldview. It really was the kinds of contradictions the comment you replied to indicates, along with hundreds of others, and the absolute mental knots that had to be constructed in order to justify them that set me on the path of disbelief. This is the path for millions of people as they take a serious reckoning of their beliefs and with their holy books and do a fundamental reexamination of their entire worldview and belief structure. I don't think that either of us is being disingenuous in our portrayal of our beliefs. That said, I really do think that your interpretation of what people are doing when they examine these contradictions and draw the conclusion of disbelief is, in fact, the theological equivalent of p-hacking is fundamentally untrue.