Disprove Scriptural inspiration

[frisian]

Re: Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

Because its in Scripture- and if he's saying that its not inspired by God (not sure how else he could clearly state that), then all Scripture can't be inspired.


c4ts- Aye, indeed.

He says it is not God speaking via direct fiat.

Does he imply or assert that he is not led by the "Spirit" to proclaim?

 

[frisian]

What a beautiful piece of ammo!! We need to run this by at ' Rapture Ready'...

If David's descendants are going to number in the billions ( or more ), it is going to take thousands of years ( at least ) for this to happen.. Wouldn't that sort of interfere with the Rapture taking place anytime soon?
Or is this scripture not true?

Talk about Ammo, I think this is one of ehbowen's 16" armour piercing babys....

14 generations having 5 kids each, would get you over a billion.

Them der are pretty long generations you have.

 

[c4ts]

Re: Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

Or they seem irrational because you are looking for objective "truth" via a subjective self.

Have you obtained absolute awareness?

Are you aware of every variable that goes into your thought processes?

Since I am not absolutely aware, nor can any man ever be that way, anything spoken above or below what is considered rational will never make sense to me or any other human being.

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

Since I am not absolutely aware, nor can any man ever be that way, anything spoken above or below what is considered rational will never make sense to me or any other human being.

Considered rational to you?

Or this simplified rationale that is based on not having absolute awareness?

So things outside one individual's logic cap do not exist?

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

Since I am not absolutely aware, nor can any man ever be that way, anything spoken above or below what is considered rational will never make sense to me or any other human being.

So reduce down 8/16 to 1/2 because you don't see the 14 other parts? Or what they contain?

Ockham's Razor must be your pal.

 

[sparklecat]

And how exactly would Paul have said it if he wanted to get across that he was the one giving the command rather than God.

"And now I say to you (I, not the Lord, and not speaking under inspiration of the Spirit. This is just me. Don't add anything to it. God has no part in what comes next. And no, that doesn't mean that he just didn't say it directly, it means that its from my uninspired head alone)..."

Though I doubt that even that would be enough to get the point across for some people...

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

How are God breathed and inspiration identical?

I don't exactly know the details. I went to a Christian website, one that had several different versions of the Bible, and looked up 2 Timothy 3:16 and got slightly different versions. The parts that differed were 'God breathed' and the bit about inspiration, so it stands to reason that they have the same intention.

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

I don't exactly know the details. I went to a Christian website, one that had several different versions of the Bible, and looked up 2 Timothy 3:16 and got slightly different versions. The parts that differed were 'God breathed' and the bit about inspiration, so it stands to reason that they have the same intention. [/B]

Hmmm, you don't know the details.

They would seem important when attempting to reason.

Perhaps "God breathed" indicates statements that are declared as "I God say" and the like. While inspiration would be like someone listening to Jimi Hendrix records and being inspired to play guitar?

 

[sparklecat]

Or maybe they're both english translations of the same root word? One just being more of a paraphrase.

 

[frisian]

Or maybe they're both english translations of the same root word? One just being more of a paraphrase.

Perhaps.

Much can get lost when translating.

Languages don't always "move" well from one to another.

 

[sparklecat]

Aye. That should be a new rule for anyone who wants to debate with me on the subject... know some of the language basics.

 

[Yahweh]

Triadboy is the real authorative figure on the biblical stuff, but I would think one of the first blows against the devine inspiration of the bible is the assumption of a hypothetical supreme being in the first place... its a shaky premise.
------------------------------------------------------

Why?

Because it is subjective?

Absolutely not. The assumption of the existence of a supreme being is an example of an "objective premise".

The premise remains shaky because it favors the supernatural explanation before the "rational".

From Skepdic.com:

Finally, rejecting explanations that require belief in occult, supernatural or paranormal forces in favor of simpler and more plausible explanations is called applying Occam's razor. It is not the same as ad hoc hypothesizing. For example, let's say I catch you stealing a watch from a shop. You say you did not steal it. I ask you to empty your pockets. You agree and pull out a watch. I say, "Aha!, I was right. You stole the watch." You reply that you did not steal the watch, but you admit that it was not in your pocket when we went into the store. I ask you to explain how the watch got into your pocket and you say that you used telekinesis: you used your thoughts to transport the watch out of a glass case into your pocket. I ask you to repeat the act with another watch and you say "ok." Try as you will, however, you cannot make a watch magically appear in your pocket. You say that there is too much pressure on you to perform or that there are too many bad vibes in the air for you to work your powers. You have offered an ad hoc hypothesis to explain away what looks like a good refutation of your claim. My hypothesis that the watch is in your pocket because you stole it, is not an ad hoc hypothesis. I have chosen to believe a plausible explanation rather than an implausible one. Likewise, given the choice between believing that my headache went away of its own accord or that it went away because some nurse waved her hands over my hand while chanting a mantra, I will opt for the former every time.

When given a choice, I wouldnt see why anyone would favor devine inspiration as opposed to natural inspiration.

To go into a little more detail as to why the supernatural explanation really doesnt hold a candle to natural explanations, from Skepdic.com - Charles Tart:

Tart explains how he first got interested in the paranormal in the following story told at a talk he gave in Casper, Wyoming:

<blockquote>There was a time, years ago, when I was highly skeptical of any paranormal claims of any kind. One of the things that convinced me that there must be something to this is a strange experience that I personally went through. It was wartime. I was at Berkeley, California, and everybody was working overtime....the young lady who was my assistant at the time worked with me until very late this one night. She finally went home; I went home. Then the very next day she came in, all excited....She reported that during this night she had suddenly sat bolt upright in her bed, convinced that something terrible had happened. “I had a terrible sense of foreboding,” she said, but she did not know what had happened. “I immediately swung out of bed and went over to the window and looked outside to see if I could see anything that might have happened like an accident. I was just turning away from the window and suddenly the window shook violently. I couldn’t understand that. I went back to bed, woke up the next morning and listened to the radio.” A munitions ship at Port Chicago had exploded. It literally took Port Chicago off the map. It leveled the entire town and over 300 people were killed....She said she had sensed the moment when all these people were snuffed out in this mighty explosion. How would she have suddenly become terrified, jumped out of bed, gone to the window, and then - from 35 miles away, the shock wave had reached Berkeley and shook the window? (Randi 1992)</blockquote>

There is no need to perceive this event as paranormal, according to James Randi, who tape-recorded the story. A shock wave travels at different speeds through the ground and through the air. The difference over 35 miles would be about 8 seconds. Most likely the shaking earth woke up the young lady in a fright and 8 seconds later the window shook. She and Tart assumed that the explosion took place when the window shook, making her experience inexplicable by the known laws of physics. This explanation only makes sense, however, if one ignores the known laws of physics.

 

[frisian]

Absolutely not. The assumption of the existence of a supreme being is an example of an "objective premise".

The premise remains shaky because it favors the supernatural explanation before the "rational".

From Skepdic.com:

When given a choice, I wouldnt see why anyone would favor devine inspiration as opposed to natural inspiration.

To go into a little more detail as to why the supernatural explanation really doesnt hold a candle to natural explanations, from Skepdic.com - Charles Tart:

Why can't a premise favor a supernatural explanation before the "rational"?

I read the writings some one gave you, but I am not following why it MUST be.

 

[DarkPrimus]

The easier way to do this would be to point out that the Bible cannot be used to prove the Bible. (Circular reasoning.)

 

[sparklecat]

The easier way to do this would be to point out that the Bible cannot be used to prove the Bible. (Circular reasoning.)

Oh no, its not easier at all... lol

It doesn't work. I guarantee it.

 

[Yahweh]

Why can't a premise favor a supernatural explanation before the "rational"?

I read the writings some one gave you, but I am not following why it MUST be.

If Charles Tart's story doesnt get it across as to why supernatural explanations are useless, I'll make the reasoning a little more clear...

To put it bluntly, the supernatural explanation effectively explains nothing.

There is nothing that would suggest anything can occur outside of "natural explanation". There is nothing supernatural that is said to exist which is demonstratably or verifiably true in a scientific environment (scientific enviroments are favored for bias-free accuracy). While there is no evidence against the existence of the supernatural (I honestly have no idea how to go about finding empirical evidence - much less proof- to demonstrate the non-existence of anything), dont fool yourself into believing "hey, it could be possible".

That is why the premise for an explanation must be rational.

 

[calladus]

Re: Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

How are God breathed and inspiration identical?

Who claims them as such and how so?

Look up the etymology of the words spirit, inspire, and breath.

 

[calladus]

Why can't a premise favor a supernatural explanation before the "rational"?

EXCELLENT IDEA! Wow! That would make school so much easier, wouldn't it?

Why do things fall down? Gravity? NO! Elves with magic wands make things fall down! Why does fire burn? Chemical combustion? NO, it's those dang Elves again! Where does the sun go at night? The Elves hide it! Why do airplanes fly? Nothing to do with aerodynamics - we just ask for special dispensation from the Elves to not point their gravity wand at us!

Next time you fly on an airplane, make sure you make an offering to the Elves, or they may get angry and let you drop!

The reason why you don't seek supernatural causes first is because there is a whole laundry list of supernatural causes to pick from, most of which are mutually exclusive. I chose Elves, you might choose God. Someone else might choose invisible pink unicorns. We could all make our premise very hard (or even impossible) to disprove. However, each of us could offer our own special proof. (Joe Schmoe didn't make an offering to the Airplane Elf, and his plane crashed! SEE? PROOF!)

But along comes someone with a rational explanation, and offers the means to test that explanation. Testing it results in confirmation that his explanation is correct.

This is the beginning of science. This is where we eventually end up in the long run. So why not start there first?

Or just make an offering to the Airplane Elf. He accepts Paypal. I'll be glad to take the offering on his behalf.

 

[Ipecac]

Sparklecat,

True believers cannot be reasoned with when it comes to biblical inerrancy.

My brother is a true believer who believes in this. We recently discussed the issue. I thought I'd start with a couple of basic New Testament inconsistencies. (Please forgive the lack of a reference cite. I don't have time to dig them up right now.)

The gospels disagree about the names of the disciples. There are two lists that positively do not match. My brother made the argument that the inconsistency was due to one listing the real name of the disciple, the other listing a "nickname". Needless to say, there's no evidence of this.

The other was to point out two very different genealogies of Jesus from David through Joseph. These two genealogies have only a few names in common and even list a different number of generations. His explanation was that one of the genealogies was of Mary, despite that it clearly does not include Mary.

Once they reach true believer status, you just can't win with reason and logic.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

Hmmm, you don't know the details.

Well sure; I didn't do the translation/transliteration, and couldn't find anything that specifically addressed it.

They would seem important when attempting to reason.

One is able to reason without knowing 100% of the details. You have heard of inference, right?

Perhaps "God breathed" indicates statements that are declared as "I God say" and the like. While inspiration would be like someone listening to Jimi Hendrix records and being inspired to play guitar?

The two 2 Timothy 3:16 passages only differed in that one spot, so it stands to reason that the different combination of words mean the same thing in that instance.