91–100 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden of proof rests on those who make fantastical claims, not on everyone else to disprove their claims.
The point is that science can’t comment on the “divine inspiration” claim, except to note that it’s outside its purview. Burden of proof is a whole different discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And not even among the ones that believe is sacred agree which parts are valid or not, not even mentioning the translations which it's own interpretations each.
I don’t disagree, but also don’t see in what way this is relevant to the original question or opposing my answer. If anything, two billion people care so deeply about it that they can have arguments about what’s “valid” and what the meaning is.
Isn't the whole bible a collection of fictional stories / articles? Who cares if some one tacks on extra "forged" chapters? What does forged even mean in this context?
It isn't, according to my Catholic upbringing. It's the word of God, which he dictated through the people who originally wrote it. There are supposedly 1.345 billion Catholics. So, I think there are many people who care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Naturalism insists that anything which is supernatural cannot be scientifically investigated, by definition. No, that is not what naturalism is. That would be circular. Naturalism is the philosophical stance that things that cannot be observed do not exist. Alleged supernatural phenomena cannot ever be definitively ruled out (because new observations may confirm their existence) but to date there has never been an…
Under naturalism there can never be a supernatural phenomena that would prove supernatural things exist. Because once the phenomena reaches a state where it can be measured it ceases to be supernatural and becomes a thing of scientific investigation. And while its not in a state that could be measured there is nothing to investigate. Or put it another way - naturalism is a world view that would kill any supernatural…
It’s a worldview that reproducibility goes out the window once you introduce supernatural forces. If the weather where actually responsive to a god who regularly changed things because they got mad, then it would be inconsistent over short time periods.
It does classify things that are reproducible and testable as part of the natural world even if we don’t understand them such as gravity. Finally things that don’t have a detectable influence don’t exist.
This is subtly different from materialism or physicalism which both define how reality operates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but just a couple lines. Most of the mystique is probably from the Book of Enoch et al.
The Book of Enoch certainly has mystique, but even the brief mentions of Enoch in canonical scripture attract a lot of commentary, because they say he never died: “Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.” (Genesis 5:5, ESV) “Thus all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died.” (Genesis 5:8, ESV) “Thus all the days of Enosh were 905 years, and he died.” (Genesis 5:11, ESV) “Thus all the days…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The Books of Enoch" by Paul C. Schnieders is an interesting read if you're curious about their contents. The general consensus from my understanding is that none of the ones we have today are the one referenced in The Bible
Thanks for the reference. I have read Enoch 1 and it is a wild story that in my view is pure fantasy (e.g., giants were 300 cubits tall!?). I have always just assumed that Jude and Peter were quoting some authentic version from earlier and the version I have read was the creation of an imposter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Book of Enoch certainly has mystique, but even the brief mentions of Enoch in canonical scripture attract a lot of commentary, because they say he never died: “Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.” (Genesis 5:5, ESV) “Thus all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died.” (Genesis 5:8, ESV) “Thus all the days of Enosh were 905 years, and he died.” (Genesis 5:11, ESV) “Thus all the days…
That's enough for a curiosity but not, in my judgement, for a minor cultural icon. You need a tiny bit more meat on the legend for that.
The book of Enoch (a non-canonical pseudopigraphal book) is a wild story that expounds on the strange events of Genesis 6:1-4 and is quoted by Jude and Peter. The fact that some of the DSS versions contain forgeries is interesting. I have always suspected there were a very ancient Enoch texts that are now lost and what we do have contains many forgeries.
So is a text from, say, 200 B.C. that changes some things from an older version from 300 B.C. a forgery? Or is it just a different version of the same story and is neither more authentic than the other (the 300 B.C. version may not be the true original either)?
It seems to me that something is only a forgery if, say, someone in the year 500 invents an entire new text whole-cloth and then tries to pretend it's actually from 200 B.C. But if it originates from the same culture and traditions as the Hebrew bible then it's one version of an authentic text.
And even someone invents something whole-cloth – like, say, claiming to find golden plates with Egyptian hieroglyphs in the US – then can we define this as a "forgery"? It quickly becomes a matter of faith.
The book of Enoch (a non-canonical pseudopigraphal book) is a wild story that expounds on the strange events of Genesis 6:1-4 and is quoted by Jude and Peter. The fact that some of the DSS versions contain forgeries is interesting. I have always suspected there were a very ancient Enoch texts that are now lost and what we do have contains many forgeries.
This got me thinking: what exactly defines a forgery here? Ancient Jewish texts were almost certainly based on previous oral tradition and underwent all sorts of changes over the years before they came to be written down as the texts we know today, and there were probably different versions of the written texts too – the non-canonical ones just got mostly lost as they didn't get copied so much (or at all). So is a te…
When in reality it is very hard to know truth, even in the present time, even in one's own experience.
So, if that is the case, why make such an outlandish claim?
Well, there is value to someone if they can say 'I have the truth' and other people believe them.
The initial lie, once believed, takes on a life of its own thanks to the belief that becomes invested in it, especially when it is under someone's external control.
The book of Enoch (a non-canonical pseudopigraphal book) is a wild story that expounds on the strange events of Genesis 6:1-4 and is quoted by Jude and Peter. The fact that some of the DSS versions contain forgeries is interesting. I have always suspected there were a very ancient Enoch texts that are now lost and what we do have contains many forgeries.
The Catholic Church at the Council of Rome formally defined what books were considered authentic and which ones were not (and this list was, with some reduction, also used by Protestants). The Book of Enoch was a bit contentious because of the quotation in an inspired book - but it was ultimately determined to be not inspired, and the quotation not necessarily either. (I.e. Imagine if scripture quoted a Roman decree…
So, for me, the question of forgeries is interesting because if forged texts were used someone had an interst in doing it. If a text is not a "forgery", it doesn't mean the text states objective truths so.