Neither of those quotes are me agreeing that your errors don’t affect your argument. In fact the whole reason I pointed out your errors is to demonstrate that you have insufficient knowledge to form an argument through hermeneutics.
If someone states that the sky is blue because it reflects the ocean, I will point out their error and tell them they are ignorant to physics because they, in fact, are.
I’m not sure how you define ‘predictive power’ in this context, but the knowledge of the textual evidence of the bible gives us a wealth of information applicable to a variety of disciplines. You sound like a positivist. You only value things that can be empirically and materially proven. Positivism is considered outdated for a reason. I would love if I could solve problems wholly empirically and materially, but it’s not possible. I am a postpositivist and holist because they are some of the most pragmatic and useful approaches to solving problems in existence today.
To claim an inability to articulate a position is tantamount to an incorrect position is fallacious.
I’m not claiming that. I’m claiming that if you have the correct answer, but you don’t have a valid argument for it, then you don’t have any argument to base your conclusion on. You are relying on either misinformation or emotion, or more likely some combination. Consider these three scenarios:
The sky is blue because I see it -> unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific
The sky is blue because it reflects water -> attempts to be scientific but is wrong
The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering -> correct, scientific explanation
You continually keep trying to appeal to some sort of moral indication that my actions are wrong. Well, here is my moral framework: it is my purpose in life to learn things, and to use that knowledge to correct others.
Neither of those quotes are me agreeing that your errors don’t affect your argument.
Your claim is contrary to fact.
You have directly agreed my premise and the outcome is unchanged as result of the errors.
This is what trivial means.
but you don’t have a valid argument for it,
An argument that is only trivially wrong is a valid argument.
This is what trivial means.
The sky is blue because I see it -> unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific
The sky is blue because it reflects water -> attempts to be scientific but is wrong
The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering -> correct, scientific explanation
You keep bringing up this straw man.
If we were to parlance my argument into your sky example,
The sky is blue because of scattering
i.e. The bible is not literally the divine word because of translation
its trivial to say "scattering is an insufficient poor explanation, you mean Rayleigh scattering"
You continually keep trying to appeal to some sort of moral indication that my actions are wrong.
No, I keep appealing to the idea that its oddly hypocritical to be such a devout researcher of the bible but to have ignored the message contained within in favor of quibbling about trivial details.
The bible is not literally the divine word because of translation
This is wrong. To call something ‘divine word’ is unfalsifiable. Your argument has no logical basis.
Regardless, I have shown that there is no evidence that the bible has suffered from translation error, and that there is sufficient textual evidence to reasonably believe it has been both preserved and translated correctly.
Translation is not scattering in this case. It is reflection, i.e. a completely wrong explanation with no basis in reality.
This is wrong. To call something ‘divine word’ is unfalsifiable.
Therefore its irrational to call the bible divine word and appeal to it as fact when rejecting Old Earth Creationism.
Thank you for agreeing with me again.
Your argument has no logical basis.
You literally proved the logical basis of my argument for me several times over.
Translation is not scattering in this case. It is reflection
You are focusing too much on your own straw man. no metaphor lasts if you pick at it.
As you already agreed, the bible is a translation of an oral history that cannot be reasonably called the divine word nor relied on as such in an argument.
Therefore its irrational to call the bible divine word and appeal to it as fact when rejecting Old Earth Creationism.
Not if you are Christian. Falsifiability goes both ways. If something is unfalsifiable, it can neither be proven nor disproven through empirical means.
As you already agreed, the bible is a translation of an oral history that cannot be reasonably called the divine word nor relied on as such in an argument.
You are trying to twist my words into somehow making you look less like an idiot but it is simply not possible. In fact, you just end up stating more things that are incorrect. Reread what I said, ‘it’s in fact the Church that created the bible, and as all things the Church creates, being made of humans, has the mark of human flaws.’ This means that the Church canonized the bible by compiling the most important works of Christianity into a single volume, including LXX, the four gospels, and a selection of apostolic epistles considered genuine. In that sense the bible, as it is known today, was created by the Church. The books of the bible existed long before canonization.
Never did I say that ‘the bible is a translation of oral history’. The bible was transmitted primarily orally in the early Church. The books were originally written. Some parts were songs, such as the psalms, and some were (possibly) common expressions, such as proverbs. But most of the books were crafted by authorship, with pen and scroll, unlike say the Iliad which was originally entirely in song. The point of oral transmission is important because it explains how churches used scripture before the printing press, but the scripture was always available in written form, albeit highly valued.
Secondly I never said it wasn’t divine in any sense. Such an assertion is unscientific. Various sects have their own theology regarding the divine nature of the bible and what exactly that means. If you want to discuss a particular theology, you must define that context first.
What I did say is that it has flaws. There are flaws in three senses: flaws by the original author, flaws in transcription, and flaws in canonization. The second I’ve already addressed.
The first supposes that an author made some error, whether it be an incorrect date or reference, some inconsistency in thesis, or poor use of the language. These are all highly subjective and unscientific qualities, but we can still study them. We just have to be careful not to be dogmatic about it. There is hard science, there is soft science, and then there is history. While the historiography of the OT is all over the place, the historiography of the NT is quite consistent, with no obvious errors pointing to anachronistic authorship. Part of this is because we have much better knowledge of the post-Alexandrian world than we do of the pre-Alexandrian world.
The third is perhaps the most interesting, as many books were very closely canonized and ultimately rejected (1 Enoch, 1 Clement, etc.), some are canonized in the Orthodox Church but were removed by Martin Luther (Apocrypha), and some have had their canonicity disputed (by Protestants) (Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Antilegomena). Note that books that are not canon are not necessarily degraded, particularly in the Orthodox Church. The purpose of the canonization of the bible was to ensure that the most important liturgical texts were preserved.
So indeed, one cannot say that the earth is young because the bible says so, but you cannot say something is scientifically proven simply because a book says so. Everything must be tested by falsifiable means. If I say ‘the universe is six years old,’ then I can falsify that by finding a creature that is seven years old. Thus the age of the universe is falsifiable to the extent that we can observe age. On the flip side, the statement that the universe was created at some point to look old is not falsifiable, and thus can neither be proven nor disproven. It is now outside the realm of empiricism and must be solved through some other method.
Neither of those quotes are me agreeing that your errors don’t affect your argument. In fact the whole reason I pointed out your errors is to demonstrate that you have insufficient knowledge to form an argument through hermeneutics.
If someone states that the sky is blue because it reflects the ocean, I will point out their error and tell them they are ignorant to physics because they, in fact, are.
I’m not sure how you define ‘predictive power’ in this context, but the knowledge of the textual evidence of the bible gives us a wealth of information applicable to a variety of disciplines. You sound like a positivist. You only value things that can be empirically and materially proven. Positivism is considered outdated for a reason. I would love if I could solve problems wholly empirically and materially, but it’s not possible. I am a postpositivist and holist because they are some of the most pragmatic and useful approaches to solving problems in existence today.
I’m not claiming that. I’m claiming that if you have the correct answer, but you don’t have a valid argument for it, then you don’t have any argument to base your conclusion on. You are relying on either misinformation or emotion, or more likely some combination. Consider these three scenarios:
The sky is blue because I see it -> unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific
The sky is blue because it reflects water -> attempts to be scientific but is wrong
The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering -> correct, scientific explanation
You continually keep trying to appeal to some sort of moral indication that my actions are wrong. Well, here is my moral framework: it is my purpose in life to learn things, and to use that knowledge to correct others.
Your claim is contrary to fact.
You have directly agreed my premise and the outcome is unchanged as result of the errors.
This is what trivial means.
An argument that is only trivially wrong is a valid argument.
This is what trivial means.
You keep bringing up this straw man.
If we were to parlance my argument into your sky example,
i.e. The bible is not literally the divine word because of translation
its trivial to say "scattering is an insufficient poor explanation, you mean Rayleigh scattering"
No, I keep appealing to the idea that its oddly hypocritical to be such a devout researcher of the bible but to have ignored the message contained within in favor of quibbling about trivial details.
This is wrong. To call something ‘divine word’ is unfalsifiable. Your argument has no logical basis.
Regardless, I have shown that there is no evidence that the bible has suffered from translation error, and that there is sufficient textual evidence to reasonably believe it has been both preserved and translated correctly.
Translation is not scattering in this case. It is reflection, i.e. a completely wrong explanation with no basis in reality.
Therefore its irrational to call the bible divine word and appeal to it as fact when rejecting Old Earth Creationism.
Thank you for agreeing with me again.
You literally proved the logical basis of my argument for me several times over.
You are focusing too much on your own straw man. no metaphor lasts if you pick at it.
As you already agreed, the bible is a translation of an oral history that cannot be reasonably called the divine word nor relied on as such in an argument.
Not if you are Christian. Falsifiability goes both ways. If something is unfalsifiable, it can neither be proven nor disproven through empirical means.
You are trying to twist my words into somehow making you look less like an idiot but it is simply not possible. In fact, you just end up stating more things that are incorrect. Reread what I said, ‘it’s in fact the Church that created the bible, and as all things the Church creates, being made of humans, has the mark of human flaws.’ This means that the Church canonized the bible by compiling the most important works of Christianity into a single volume, including LXX, the four gospels, and a selection of apostolic epistles considered genuine. In that sense the bible, as it is known today, was created by the Church. The books of the bible existed long before canonization.
Never did I say that ‘the bible is a translation of oral history’. The bible was transmitted primarily orally in the early Church. The books were originally written. Some parts were songs, such as the psalms, and some were (possibly) common expressions, such as proverbs. But most of the books were crafted by authorship, with pen and scroll, unlike say the Iliad which was originally entirely in song. The point of oral transmission is important because it explains how churches used scripture before the printing press, but the scripture was always available in written form, albeit highly valued.
Secondly I never said it wasn’t divine in any sense. Such an assertion is unscientific. Various sects have their own theology regarding the divine nature of the bible and what exactly that means. If you want to discuss a particular theology, you must define that context first.
What I did say is that it has flaws. There are flaws in three senses: flaws by the original author, flaws in transcription, and flaws in canonization. The second I’ve already addressed.
The first supposes that an author made some error, whether it be an incorrect date or reference, some inconsistency in thesis, or poor use of the language. These are all highly subjective and unscientific qualities, but we can still study them. We just have to be careful not to be dogmatic about it. There is hard science, there is soft science, and then there is history. While the historiography of the OT is all over the place, the historiography of the NT is quite consistent, with no obvious errors pointing to anachronistic authorship. Part of this is because we have much better knowledge of the post-Alexandrian world than we do of the pre-Alexandrian world.
The third is perhaps the most interesting, as many books were very closely canonized and ultimately rejected (1 Enoch, 1 Clement, etc.), some are canonized in the Orthodox Church but were removed by Martin Luther (Apocrypha), and some have had their canonicity disputed (by Protestants) (Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Antilegomena). Note that books that are not canon are not necessarily degraded, particularly in the Orthodox Church. The purpose of the canonization of the bible was to ensure that the most important liturgical texts were preserved.
So indeed, one cannot say that the earth is young because the bible says so, but you cannot say something is scientifically proven simply because a book says so. Everything must be tested by falsifiable means. If I say ‘the universe is six years old,’ then I can falsify that by finding a creature that is seven years old. Thus the age of the universe is falsifiable to the extent that we can observe age. On the flip side, the statement that the universe was created at some point to look old is not falsifiable, and thus can neither be proven nor disproven. It is now outside the realm of empiricism and must be solved through some other method.