GreecePwns wrote:I think the problem with quoting Bible scripture, as Viceroy and others have, to prove that it has "predicted events" (the exact words that Viceroy has used) is indeed that it is so open to interpretation and even direct alteration. If one can interpret the Bible to have predicted X major world event, someone else could use that same verse to say it predicted Y major world event, for example and someone else can say it doesn't predict anything and in fact is a part they don't even believe in.
Which is why most mainline Christians really don't view the predictions in that manner.
GreecePwns wrote:The Bible's vagueness was interpreted as a prediction of a future event, so what? Other religious and nonreligious texts and people have done the same thing - what makes the Bible special in this regard, other than the Bible saying itself that its special in this regard? The only answer Viceroy and Lionz have to that is to quote even MORE Bible scriptures and try to connect them to A or B major world events.
First, forget Lionz.. and, to some extent Viceroy as well. Looking to them as "representatives" of Christianity is about like saying folks who camp out at area 54 are representative of scientists or even just representative of those who think life on other planets might exist. I don't care what kind of idea you bring up, people will give all sorts of ideas on it. That's because we are all human.
GreecePwns wrote: What about the predictions that the Bible was wrong on?
Show me one. I am not aware of any. (seriously!)
GreecePwns wrote:What about . To have total faith in whatever interpretation you have of a book, that interpretation must have some semblance of logic that applies to the entire text instead of an interpretation that depends on cherrypicking the parts that make you happy and ignoring the ones that don't. The latter is what most Christians are guilty of; "this part about [insert undesirable position] doesn't apply anymore solely because society changed," "this part is not part of the Bible because my sect doesn't believe it is."
Whoah, that is a pretty high standard you put forward.
Basically, you want a point by point detailed guidebook that gives you specifics on each aspect. You might consider Orthodox Judaism. Christianity, to contrast is more general. Christ gave us a new covenant, not that utterly did away with the old laws, but that said, essentially "OK folks, you don't need to get so bogged down in the details", or "you are grownups, now, not children. I give you the general guidelines and you can find the real answers yourself" (you can say some Jews do and always have done this.. thus the nuances and variations in Judaism, but remember Christ did generate an offshoot faith that is quite different from Judaism.).
GreecePwns wrote:In other words, if you're gonna quote the Bible to show it predicted major world events and therefore is the one and only true religious text, you have to do three things:
1. Define "major world event".
2. Show that the Bible predicted all major world events OR (show that it was never wrong in its predictions AND show that these predictions occur throughout the text).
3. Show that the Bible is a better predictor of major world events than other religious and nonreligious predictors, not only from its time but from more modern sources as well, in ways that don't involve the Bible or Christianity calling itself the best.
#2-- basically yeah, except why does a prediction have to be repeated "throughout the text" a prediction stated once that comes true is enough...
#3 This is a pretty high standard, one you would not ask of science. That is, believing one faith doesn't mean that you say everything in every other faith is false. In fact, to persist, any religion must have portions of "the" truth. If Chemistry and Geology both predict something similar, it doesn't take away from either line of thinking, it tends to give more credibility to the prediction. Similarly, many religions dance around some of the same truths. You have to look at the whole, not just bits and pieces. One prediction, one idea that is true doesn't necessarily prove a religion correct. Often it just means multiple religions have grasped some fundamental truth.
Or, put it another way... ever play telephone? Or just read the newspapers for science "facts". If you compare what is published in the journals to what is put forward was "fact" in the media, you get a wide range of variation. The Bible, for a Christian, is equivalent to the science journal. Church doctrine, dialogue, etc are more like the newsprint. Some are more accurate than others.
GreecePwns wrote:On top of that, such a viewpoint involves combining the question of whether or not Almighty Stuff exists with the question of deciding a "correct" religious text and interpretation of that text. These questions are separate, and treating them as one and the same inherently involves acting on knowledge of the supernatural that no one has, making the position unfalsifiable until we know for sure that Almighty Stuff exists.
TL;DR Those on the religious side continue to dance around the glaring unfalsifiability and circularity problems, despite their best attempts to distract from it.
It just a false question. You want to set up demands that just don't exist. Religion is not science. Religious texts were not set up with the same fact standards as science. This doesn't mean fiction versus fact, it means that the people reading and viewing these texts have a very different way of viewing the world, percieving things than modern science does.
The best example I can give would be in the many gross misunderstandings or disdainfull assessments of Native American knowledge. Only now have we reached, well a "maturity" perhaps to recognize that not everything they said was garbage, even if the logic upon which it was based, the way of analysis, etc were or just seemed different from the western way of thinking. Ironically, we now are often as critical of many things considered "fact" or "unquestionable" as we are of Native American ideas, perhaps more. I saw plenty of very upright and religious people in CA who did not wear long woolen stockings and heavy caps in 100 degree heat (some Mennonites and such, though they usually don't wear wool anymore). BUT here is the thing... if you talk to folks in the 1800's or even modern folks who adhere to one of the very concervative groups, they will often declare that they must dress how they do because God dictates it (more or less.. there are nuances there). However, there is no place in the Bible where it says this. There is a declaration to dress modestly, but "modesty" is a contextual concept that varies in time and place. There is talk of wearing your head covered, but it is written in the context of a particular place and situation.
The fundaments of Christianity were set out in the Bible "Love thy God and love thy neighbor as thyself". "Believe in him and ye shall be saved". The rest of the Bible falls into a variety of categories. Some is history, history as interpreted by individual people, but with the guidance of God. Are they false because they differ or is this a recognition that if you ask 2 people to describe ANY event they will give you slightly different accounts? Also, just saying that you give different accounts and saying that one falsifies the other are 2 different issues. If I stand on a streetcorner and someone else is on a roof, and a third down the street from an event we will all see different things and give different, but each true, accounts. Most scholars say that variations in the recording of events falls into that category, along with the idea that different people actually want to give slightly different messages.. much like you can learn the same subject from 2 different professors and while the fundamentals will be the same, the details may vary greatly (and each be true and valid!).
Again, you basically say that for a Bible, religious text to be true, it must be like a detailed scientific text... But that is a standard that even most science texts actually don't meet fully. Religious texts don't even try to make that base. In fact, they are made/written for people who largely have little concept of our modern idea of science that that type of thinking, that type of proof requirement. Their whole way of approaching the world differed from that of a scientist, so naturally any texts passed down will not be science texts. Demanding they are is like missionaries who saw natives dressed in skimpy clothing declaring that they lack sense and morals becuase they did not act as the Europeans did.