You are totally incorrect, as always, about most of the above. You are however quite correct that I do not want it to be correct to say that "divine intervention" Is logically an invalid conclusion. That is certainly my desire, that it not be proven wrong, just as it is my intense desire that an apple a day would cure cancer. But I am open to factual arguments. Your arguments may not destroy my faith, I hope not.GregD wrote:
I took a shot at your analysis process.
There are some people past and present that assert, more or less, the following: Everything in the Bible is correct. As a matter of logic, with this type of assertion, any counter example proves the assertion false. Remember the bits about "the water above"? It is painfully clear that this bit of the Bible has been proven false, first by astronomy and second by space travel. Your attempts to contort the meaning of the text to fit the data is exactly confirmation bias. I come back to this example because it is simple and clean: the reality is completely clear and the text is clear enough to see that the two cannot be reconciled in any reasonable way. So clearly not everything in the Bible is correct. And yet you don't readily concede this inescapable conclusion.
You have asserted that some things in the Bible are true and could not have been known to be true by the authors without divine intervention. As a matter of logic, with this type of assertion, you cannot prove anything without controlling for all other relevant factors. You never attempt to do that, so what you present is not a cogent argument. It is an expression of confirmation bias - you want this assertion to be true. Jesus drank vinegar and died, therefore vinegar killed Jesus. This example has the same logic flaws as your argument. In both cases there is more to the story, but in your case you do not acknowledge that. Further, as a matter of logic, "divine intervention" is an invalid conclusion because that is nominally the most unlikely situation imaginable; although it is simple to imagine it has innumerable unlikely dependencies. The logically invalid conclusion in such cases is "I don't know". I suspect you object, probably passionately, to the statement that "divine intervention" is logically an invalid conclusion. You really don't want that to be true.
But still, if you were able to prove to me that some Zionist wrote these prophecies after the state of Israel became a nation again, after the Holocaust and even the earlier expulsion from England and Spain and the Spanish Inquisition etc etc, I will simply have to accept your proof. Hopefully I would keep on believing anyway, as I had my faith long before I began studying these things. But you cannot offer any proof of that Moses or the other prophets did not write these things thousands of years ago, can you? Not even the slightest smidgen of evidence that these verses were not written thousands of years ago? Thousands of years before any one knew about quarantine or how it was a good idea to go outside the camp. with your shovel, so you could bury your waste? Or that it would be a good idea, according to "The God who heals you" to expose the bowls and utensils of the sick to flame, and how otherwise any one must wash in running water and with what turned out to be antiseptic after various contamination? Or being forbidden to eat anything found dead, etc etc? It seems you refuse to admit that these and dozens of other verses are even there. All of that even before the prophecies.
You, are apparently blinded by a bias that will not allow you to see these facts for what they are. You seem to object to facts. As you said before, you will never consider that God did it. That means no matter what the evidence, you will not consider it. So there it is in black and white, but you will not admit that it says what it says and that it was written far before anyone could have known these facts. I am admitting to you that, so far, in one instance, I can not really make my argument that by "waters above" Moses meant the vast amount of water in outer space, since a verse a paragraph or two later invalidates that. But on all the others? You seem to have the opinion that because you have shown this one verse to not be a good argument, that you do not even have to consider the other verses. Do you do that with scientific studies? If some one came up with a study today offering evidence that smoking is good for you, would you throw out all of the other studies?
You do not keep going back to the example of "the waters above" just because it is clean, but because it is- so far - all you have. I have of course conceded that to you long ago, that is a win for your team. Even though the verse about "The waters above" by itself appears to be totally correct by what we know from modern science, the addition of the other verse a little later on cannot be made to work with my original understanding of the first verse. I have admitted this to you long ago. I don't expect to be able to win every point, or explain everything about the Bible and God's Word, just as you say you can not about evolution or the big bang or origins. Considering that I cannot understand all the ways of God, as His thoughts are far above my thoughts, no surprise that I can not explain everything.
But as far as I know, that is your only clear 'win". Once you have gotten that "win", and just because I admit I cannot make that verse work together with the following verses to support my original claim about "the waters above", it appears you will no longer even discuss the dozens of other verses I have provided. Many of those verses have to do with science. I have provided quite a few of those, from Moses and other books of the Bible. I assert that what they have said corresponds with modern Scientific knowledge. Except for that one verse of the dozens, I have seen no valid argument from you(or anyone else) yet that the other verses are scientifically incorrect, or any decent attempt to explain them away. And I've now added to this many, many verses from the prophets, and yet not a single comment from you that I am aware of. Shouldn't all of these prophecies be clearly wrong, and simply wild guesses and easily shown to be so? It seems to me that if they were, someone would be able to make a really good argument for that. And so far you seem to have enjoyed taking the opposite of every point I have ever tried to make, starting with my thread about Thanksgiving Day Proclamations and the idea that the nation was founded in Christian principles. So if you're silent on the prophets-or even all of the other verses that seem to be correct scientifically, or both - it seems reasonable that is because you simply have nothing to say, no good argument to make. I certainly can't believe that is simply because you're not interested in proving me wrong. Or better yet, proving the Bible wrong.