Can the study of scripture be done in a scientific way?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2017, 09:27 PM
RE: Can the study of scripture be done in a scientific way?
Actually this is NOT at all what Jesus said. When the young man in Matthew asked Jesus what he had to do to get to heaven, he was told all he had to do was keep the commandments.

Matthew 19:16-17
"Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.""

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2017, 09:33 PM
RE: Can the study of scripture be done in a scientific way?
(01-03-2017 09:26 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Let's start with Genesis.
Is there any evidence that the things written in Genesis are true ?

As far as I know, the answer is no.

Harry, do you believe that Genesis is factually true ?
If so, why do you believe that ?

I posted on Genesis 1 earlier. (Post #8)

Did you know that there is instructions not to give heed (credibility) to Jewish fables?

Wondered in the Love of Christ,
Harold ConfusedConfusedConfused
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2017, 09:35 PM
RE: Can the study of scripture be done in a scientific way?
(01-03-2017 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually this is NOT at all what Jesus said. When the young man in Matthew asked Jesus what he had to do to get to heaven, he was told all he had to do was keep the commandments.

Matthew 19:16-17
"Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.""

You stopped too soon. After the man says that he had kept all of them, Jesus tells him that he still lacks one thing. This has to do with Jesus teaching about the eye being single for the body to be light.

Will continue this tomorrow as I have to get to bed.

Great start to the thread though.

Harold SmileSmileSmile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2017, 09:41 PM
RE: Can the study of scripture be done in a scientific way?
(01-03-2017 07:59 PM)hecrow55 Wrote:  Traditional Christianity claims that the Bible is the truth.
Jesus claims that He is the truth.

The young Earth creationist claim Genesis 1 is how the universe was created. Science has proven that false.

Jesus says that scripture testifies of Him.

In Genesis 1, Heaven is said to be an expanse that divides the waters above from the waters beneath.

Pro 18:4 The words of a man's mouth are as deep waters, and the wellspring of wisdom as a flowing brook.

Genesis through Malachi are words of men's mouths as are Acts through Revelation. In a closed Bible, Genesis through Malachi are the waters above while Acts through Revelation are the waters below. The Gospels would be the expanse between them, thus the Heavens (which is plural in a later verse in Gen 1).

Offered in the Love of Christ,
Harold

Total bunk. Made up nonsense. Even grade schoolers know the Hebrew universe was :
[Image: 18lud31xfgy86jpg.jpg]

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-03-2017, 09:50 PM
RE: Can the study of scripture be done in a scientific way?
(01-03-2017 09:35 PM)hecrow55 Wrote:  
(01-03-2017 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually this is NOT at all what Jesus said. When the young man in Matthew asked Jesus what he had to do to get to heaven, he was told all he had to do was keep the commandments.

Matthew 19:16-17
"Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.""

You stopped too soon. After the man says that he had kept all of them, Jesus tells him that he still lacks one thing. This has to do with Jesus teaching about the eye being single for the body to be light.

Will continue this tomorrow as I have to get to bed.

Great start to the thread though.

Harold SmileSmileSmile

If he would be perfect. He didn't say he HAD to be perfect.
So "scientific" for you just means "according to you" ? Science is a method. What TESTS have you done ? What is your null hypothesis ? Where is your data ?
It's hilarious that religionists value science SO much that they HAVE to try to make religion seem "sciencey". Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-03-2017, 09:58 PM
RE: Can the study of scripture be done in a scientific way?
Harry, it would seem like you are about 0 and 20 for answering any questions or providing any evidence.

This is how science works.
Lots of questions. A gauntlet of inquiry.
You haven't been able to back up any scripture with any truth.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
01-03-2017, 10:28 PM
RE: Can the study of scripture be done in a scientific way?
(01-03-2017 09:27 PM)hecrow55 Wrote:  
(01-03-2017 09:08 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  We’ve been down this road before, GWG’s resource is a good place to start.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ead?page=3


Thanks GWG

Have you ever heard of Simon Greenleaf?

He is one of the men who set up and established the Harvard School of Law. His published work on the rules of evidence is still considered one of the greatest treatise ever written on the subject.

Greenleaf's principal work of legal scholarship is a Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 vols., 1842–1853), and which remained a standard textbook in American law throughout the Nineteenth century. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf

Greenleaf was an agnostic whom some say leaned to atheism. He was challenged by one of his students one day to consider the Gospel account of the resurrection of Jesus according to his own rules of evidence. He accepted the challenge expecting to prove is was a myth and/or hoax. After he had considered the evidence, he converted to Christianity and wrote another paper on how he had scrutinized the evidence.

You can read it here:
The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice
https://archive.org/details/testimonyevange00tiscgoog

The Bible would be acceptable evidence in any court of law under the ancient documents rule.

Offered in the Love of Christ,
Harold SmileSmileSmile

Yes, I'm familiar with Greenleaf and I've run across several theists who have posted the very same link you did. Unfortunately your link does not tell the whole truth. He wasn't even in the least bit leaning towards atheism. He was a lifelong Episcopalian and presupposed the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. He was wrong of course. He became a lawyer in 1809 or thereabouts, before modern scholarship have proven them to be hearsay accounts written decades after the alleged events took place. His work is completely outdated.

Back to the drawing board for you.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like dancefortwo's post
01-03-2017, 10:36 PM
RE: Can the study of scripture be done in a scientific way?
(01-03-2017 09:27 PM)hecrow55 Wrote:  Have you ever heard of Simon Greenleaf?

He is one of the men who set up and established the Harvard School of Law. His published work on the rules of evidence is still considered one of the greatest treatise ever written on the subject.

Greenleaf's principal work of legal scholarship is a Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 vols., 1842–1853), and which remained a standard textbook in American law throughout the Nineteenth century. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf

Greenleaf was an agnostic whom some say leaned to atheism. He was challenged by one of his students one day to consider the Gospel account of the resurrection of Jesus according to his own rules of evidence. He accepted the challenge expecting to prove is was a myth and/or hoax. After he had considered the evidence, he converted to Christianity and wrote another paper on how he had scrutinized the evidence.

You can read it here:
The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice
https://archive.org/details/testimonyevange00tiscgoog

The Bible would be acceptable evidence in any court of law under the ancient documents rule.

Offered in the Love of Christ,
Harold SmileSmileSmile

Actually the Bible would not. Most of it has been debunked. If it were entered today, (as opposed to 1800) it would fail, monumentally.

Now this IS the argument from authority fallacy. Legal evidence is not the same as the rules for historical evidence, and Greenleaf was no scripture scholar or historian.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These events occurred in what is now, one of the United States of America.
The Governor of the state in question became involved.
A court was established.
Witnesses were carefully examined and cross-examined, by the best experts of the day.
Evidence was gathered.
Many people confessed in public to the officials of the court.
The entire proceeding was documented with thousands of sworn affidavits, court documents, interviews and related proceedings.
Sufficient evidence was established by intelligent men and women of good faith, that the declarations of the witnesses were true, and that these declarations should in all reasonableness result in the established legal consequences that reasonable good adult men and women thought were perfectly legitimate.

What evidence did they have that the assertions concerning what they said they saw and were convinced of were really true ?

1. Hundreds if not thousands of people were involved in concluding that what they said they saw and concluded was actually true.
2. The witnesses provided sworn testimony in court, sworn affidavits which we can look at today, and affirmed they were completely utterly convinced that what they were saying was totally completely true.
3. The witnesses came from all social strata, and every diverse background, including the most highly educated of the day.
4. These witnesses included judges, magistrates, the governor of the state, and family members of those about whom the assertions were made.
5. Many involved had much to lose if the assertions were to be found true. The consequences would impact many in very personal ways, if found to be true, thus had no conflict of interest, or reasin to lie. Many could lose beloved spouses and family members and friends about whom they cared a great deal.
6. The proceedings were thorough, exhaustive investigations. They deliberately gathered evidence. They made every effort to sort out truth from fallacy. They went to every possible length to actually discern the facts.
7. There are numerous artifacts from the time, and many documents from the proceedings we can review in person today.
8. These proceedings happened, not 2000 years ago, but a mere few hundred years ago. The literacy rate was far far higher than in ancient Israel.
9. For claimed events from 2000 years ago, there are no actual original documents of any kind. None at all. Only copies from centuries later.
10. For the events in question we have sworn documented court testimony, not just word of mouth transmission.
11. A truck full of documents from the proceedings exists at the University of Virginia Library. You can go see the testimony of the eye-witnesses for yourself, today.
12. By any measure or method, the quantity and quality of the evidence for the events in question FAR FAR FAR outweigh the quality, quantity, and reliability of the evidence for the events in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
13. Anyone who claims they have good evidence today to support belief in Jesus, his death, and resurrection, or any miracle thought to have happened surrounding a man named Jesus, IF they are in any way a consistent, honest, logical and reasonably thoughtful person, they MUST also accept :

............................ that of the 250 people accused, 19 women in Salem Massachusetts, including Sarah Goode, and Rebekah Nurse, ........ The Witches of Salem Massachusetts, really were actually witches, and were justly condemned and executed for performing demon magic.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-03-2017, 12:02 AM
RE: Can the study of scripture be done in a scientific way?
(01-03-2017 07:21 PM)hecrow55 Wrote:  Can the study of scripture be done in a scientific way?
They can be studied systematically, although there are several competing systems of Biblical hermaneutics (literal, moral, anagogical, allegorical) as well as various schools within schools of thought. For example, pre-, post- and amillenialism, dispensationalism, hyperdispensationalism.

A better and more fundamental question is can god and other invisible beings, the spiritual world, and the supernatural be proven scientifically. To scientifically determine a thing you need a scientifically valid hypothesis, that is, a hypothesis that can be falsified. You need to be able to show how you would go about DISproving the hypothesis.

The problem with unseen / discarnate entities, spirits, and particularly the supernatural is that they are non-falsifiable and therefore non-provable and therefore no one can make a credible knowledge claim as to their (non)existence.

I say particularly the supernatural because that is a concept constructed in such a way that it's inherently non-discussable. If you can describe it, measure it, or convey information about it that it's not above or beyond nature (super-natural). It is a useless and entirely self-contradictory concept right out of the gate.

100% of everything that is asserted about deities are asserted without evidence or substantiation, scientifically speaking. Since I am not in the habit of affording belief to things that cannot be substantiated, I do not believe in those things, and see no good reason to.

The Bible is just written assertions about god's existence, nature, character and claims, about heaven, hell, the devil / demons / angels, mixed with fantastic stories and extraordinary truth-claims but not a shred or iota of actual evidence.

Given the extraordinary and claimed high consequentiality of scriptural truth-claims over against the utter absence of substantiation, the study of scripture, "scientifically" or otherwise, is a non-starter. You first have to establish the existence of god (any god, much less yours).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
02-03-2017, 01:00 AM
RE: Can the study of scripture be done in a scientific way?
I'm not sure what it is you're even trying to study here.

If you're asking people to prove certain statements wrong, and if they can't then you assume they are right, then that is called the argument from ignorance fallacy. I explain in a video below why that is not valid. The scientific approach is to look for positive evidence, not assume positions and ask people to look for negative.

I don't even know what you mean about what Jesus said being "wrong". Do you mean the statements themselves are incorrect? Or that he didn't really say them?

Science isn't about certainty and binary positions, it's about likelihood and reasonable doubt. There is all the reasonable doubt in the world that the character Jesus, as written, is fictional beyond a possible mundane preacher figure. Even trying to tie together the mundane facts we supposedly know is hugely problematic. I'd suggest checking out what Richard Carrier has to say.

Most of the big OT events, and even many characters, have been debunked as nonsense. People spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to validate the NT for this reason (I guess).




I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: