> Greetings, all!
> I'm the OTHER Nielsen; Gene, (not Ralph) & I've been lurking in the
> background for some time now. If I may, I'd like to toss in a couple of
> thoughts about what seems to have been proven &/or not proven by Farrell,
> Michael Fisher, Dave Court, Matthew Burdette, Aubrey Matthews, etc.
> I'm trying to be as objective as I can about this & it isn't my intention
> to offend anyone, but I've come to some tentative conclusions.
>
> As I understand it, this list is to discuss whether the Bible is totally
> without error or whether it contains errors. Matthew & Dave (& probably
> Aubrey) maintain that it is totally without errors of any kind. Farrell
> Till & Michael Fisher maintain that it contains errors of various kinds.
> (There are other posters on both sides of this question, but these are the
> ones I see most often.)
>
> What I've been seeing is this. Matthew consistently refuses to address
> valid points Farrell makes. Matthew also tends to characterize Farrell's
> references to other religions and their holy books as "word games" when
> they are simple comparisions. Matthew & Dave also constantly refer to their
> own subjective emotional experiences as "proof" that the Bible is inerrant.
It hink it should be pointed out that Till has on many occasions made the
implicit or explict claim of depedence of Xianity on some of these
comparisons. Simply showing similarity does not prove correletion. for
example simply showing that whales and humans have similar bones
structures at certain points does not mean that one was descended from
the other. but even if mere comparison on Till's part did establish
corelation, it does not prove causation. Sure there are similar ideas in
xianity as in Islam or even Buddhism. And Sure there may be and are
similar expereinces ind ifferent religions or even in athiesm. That does
not establish the truth or falsity of the paradigms in question. Also
since probability is different for any given fact for a different
paradigm, the probability of dependence is relative to any given
paradigm. For Till it is very high, since his naturalism a priori
excludes anything not bounded by nature as an explanation. Actually till
cannot explain anything since in his naturalism there is no intention or
reason, merely chemcial processes. And since he is part of the
unintentional or accidental nature, so are his conclusions. But these are
questions that he refuses to addresss clearly and to the point but rather
seeks to try and show that his opponant cannot address them either. His
naturalism is never open to questiona nd he protects it at all costs.
This can be seen in his niave empiricism when asked based on a
verificationis principle, how does he verify the very criteria or
principle by which he tests everything essle? that is, if every true
propsoition is derived in some way from sense data, how is that
principle derived from sense data without using the principle? This has
been a long esablished point against naive empiricism by such noted
non-xian philoophers like Bertrand Russell. Till gives out Bible
difficulties but refuses to tackle the touch quesitons about how he even
knows there is a bible at all let alone anything else.
> None of the inerrantists on this list so far seem to have even
> acknowledged that other religious systems have similar subjective emotional
> experiences. It seems to me if you accepts a fundamentalist's testimony of
> an indwelling God & a changed life, you must also accept similar
> testimonies from other religions.
Sure they have subjective experiences in other religions. So? (BTW I am
an inerrantist but not a Fundamentalist) How must I accept them? Accept
them as proving what? I do not accept a xian's claim as proving xianity
true let alone any other religion or paradigm.
> For that matter, other churches fundamentalists think of as cults have
> similar subjective emotional experiences: Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons,
> Seventh Day Adventists, etc. Of course fundamentalists claim they have the
> correct, true Christianity, but so do each of the "cults". Undoubtedly
> fundamentalists claim the emotional experiences the "cults" have as satanic
> in origin, but each cult says the same thing. Which are we to believe?
> Matthew has also said atheism doesn't change lives, yet the EX-TIAN list
> is full of testimonies of new-found freedom and healthier life patterns
> experienced by those who have abandoned
> fundamental/evangelical/dispensational Christianity.
While I am not evangelical or dispensational I do admit freely that
atheists profess to have found freedom and happiness int heir paradigm. I
would not expect them to hold it if it caused them great distress. I
personally could not care less if it brought them great sexual excstasy
every five seconds. It has little to do with the truth value of the
propositions in quesiton. Thirdly, I do not feel my own personal
experiences to be of that much importance to be discussed. I find the
epistemological and metaphysical issues to be of greater importance than
anything subjective.
> Both Matthew and David constantly claim there are no contradictions in the
> Bible and continue to deny the existence of contradictions even when they
> are spelled out for them, chapter and verse. This is at the very least,
> intellectual dishonesty.
Perhaps they do not find these allaged contradictions very compelling for
other reaons not having to do directly with the text? That is, perhaps
there are philsophical reasons why contradictions are not likely for them
or rather, perhaps they read the text and approach the text differently.
An orthodox Jew in Isreal today reads the bible very differently than say
an American Fundamentalist. They read it as different literature. For
eample, Till posesd a contradiction to me about the Geneology in Ex 6
trying to show that over 4 generations given 430 yr time span all kinds
of stupid things take place with the text. I concur, IF the text gives a
comlete geneaology. But one should note that Tribal cultures of today and
of that period almost never have segmented geneaologies longer than 4 or
5 generations and clearly feel free to edit them to make them easier to
memorize. Not only that, but the 10 commandments state clearly that
God's curse comes down to the 4th generation. Hence the children of
Isreal are saved by Moses inthe fourth generation as was promised to
Abraham. It is a theological play with the geneaology. Segmented
geneaologies and linear geneaologies in ancient tribal cultures composed
their geneaologies in order to make a theological/socio-political point.
The point in EX 6 is to show the legitimacy of Moses and Aaron, hence
this is why the geneaology is clearly stuck in the middle of the
Narrative. There is much much more data than this on this particular
topic. But I think it points out how different cultural backgrounds will
influence the style and content of the writing. For us, this type of
geneaological information would be inaccruate since we are concerened
with chronicle rather than theologial and political significance with
geneaologie and hence Till reads it just like a 20th century American
Fundamentalist, for that is what he STILL IS. This is why he reads the
bible the way he does and why he still maintains such Fundamentalist
notions that the bible clearly teaches Disepnsational theoilogy when the
system of dispensational theology cannot be traced farther back than the
late 1700 and was clearly developed by John Nelson Darby in 1830. This is
why most fundamentalist sects and cults such as SDA, JW's LDS are all
essentially dispensationl and apocalyptic in their theology.
Millinarianism was rampant during that time period.
Till simply fails to see the relevance of epistemology and metaphysics in
relation to everything, that is, probability is based on prior positions,
not bare facts. This is something that Postmodernism has clearly taught
us. Facts do no interpret themselevs but are meaningful only in a
context. Change the context and you change the meaning of the fact. Hence
for Matthew and others, Till's arguments depend on a woldview that they
reject and vice verse and untill Till and others come to realise that
they are playng a form of Wittgenstein's "langauge game" they will
always talk past eachother.
> Aubrey is another case entirely. He is not much of a communicator and
> doesn't seem to be able to understand when he's been refuted. I suspect
> from his writing style that he is something of an intellectual lightweight.
> Farrell & Michael, on the other hand, seem to be very clear and direct.
> They have an occasional regrettable tendency to be sarcastic, but in the
> face of such stubbornness one can hardy blame them. They both seem to have
> done their home-
> work and (I hate to say this) it looks like they both have an edge on
> Matthew, David & (especially!) Aubrey intellectually, educationally,
> logically & as communicators.
> (Now Matthew will probably quote the Bible where it says something about
> the wisdom of the world being foolishness in the sight of God. Don't you
> see, Matt-
> hew, the purpose of this list is to determine if the Bible is worth quoting?)
> There's more, but this post is too long already. To be (possibly) continued...
And honestly don't you see how prior positions determine how one reads
the Bible, or for that mater any other peice of data? It is all context
relative. Hence this whole endevor by Till is question begging.
And I know he will not see it this way and will probably make some snide
comment about how I am running away from the text and I have not answered
him or he will respond and answer me on a few points and try to turn it
around but the fact of the matter is that Till has change dhis position
throughout this whole thing. First objective truth existsed but youc ould
never know it, which is obviously self refuting, for if it cannot be
know, then how does one KNOW it cannot be known or even that it exists?
Now Till has changed and flip flopped on this topic, not to mention many
others. I particularly enjoyed his attempt to refute Immaneual Kant on a
priori catagories. I guess he was a stupid xian too! :)
Gene btw I respect your aility to try and keep issues clear. I have
beenlurking for a while myself because I have been far to busy with
school and the holidays and travel to get back into the list, no to
mention the fact that it has been down for some time. nayhow, take care.
NIKA ICXC
PCR
> > GENE (THE OTHER)
NIELSEN > genen@silcom.com > >
> ====================================================================
> For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
> "help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
> ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
> "unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.
>
>
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.