Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not!

[Into the Night]

No they don't. Probabilities combined with the other factors mention, makes it highly unlikely that one of the Disciples was literate in Aramaic, much less Greek.

Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX.
Logic errors: Pivot fallacy. Buzzword fallacies (probability). Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

The Bible is a book.

Wrong, Sock. The Bible is a collection of books.

 

[Into the Night]

gfm is the head of the hydra that talks in longer form.

There is no hydra here, Sock. You are hallucinating again.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no after the fact.

I guess tense is too tough for you to fathom. You still have trouble reading and understanding English.

If literacy in the Roman Empire was incredibly rare for all but the wealthy, it was incredibly rare.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

The demographics of the disciples is well covered.

Buzzword fallacy. Apparently you never learned what 'demographics' means.

They weren't the kind of people who were likely to be literate in Aramaic, much less Greek which was the original language of the gospels.

Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Attempt to use data as probability.
Logic errors: Bigotry. Omniscience fallacy.

Regardless of who was judging Peter and John and why, they were known to be illiterate, which perfectly aligns with their demographics. Again in the unlikely case they were literate, it wouldn't be in Greek.

Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Attempt to use data as probability.
Logic errors: Bigotry. Omniscience fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX.
Logic errors: Pivot fallacy. Buzzword fallacies (probability). Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Logic error: Failure to reason

 

[Into the Night]

Logic error: Failure to reason

You are describing yourself again, Sock. You cannot project your problems on anybody else.

 

[ZenMode]

You never learned tenses in English grammar, I see.

No way!!!! Really?

Yes, there is a past tense.

So, you're saying I go to school for nearly 2 decades and never learn past tense?

Once the past happens, the outcome is fixed and no longer subject to probabilities. I'm sorry but you can't get around that. Probabilities only apply to future events. Once they occur, the probabilities no longer apply.

Wait... so, I can't change the past???

Pro Tip: Don't attempt to discuss quantum mechanics until you wrap your head around what I just explained to you.

I'm curious, does this faux intellectual act work with most people?

Ergo, you will be wrong every time you pretend to claim that your speculation of the unobserved past, based on your declaration of irrelevant probabilities, is somehow "knowledge."

There are realities of the past. There is knowledge to be gained, now, from an understanding of the past. For example, what are the odds that Jesus carried a smart phone? Approximately 0%.

How does this empower you to declare specific individuals of the unobserved past to be illiterate?

No. Again, there are percentages in play here. We have a good idea of what the literacy rate was in the Roman Empire at the time. We also have an idea of who it was that was likely to be literate and who wasn't. We also have a good idea of the demographics of the the disciples. Those items, and more that I'm not aware of, are used to make a best guess about the situation.

The demographics of Jesus' disciples is well speculated, often by irrelevant probability fallacies.

Yet, your speculative believe about the disciples and the Bible are spot on, right?

Talk to me about Peter. Tell me how you know that his parents didn't have him learn Greek in school, or how you know that his parents didn't speak Greek at home.

I've been talking about the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the odds that the actually wrote any of them.

They weren't known to be illiterate.

They are also not known to be literate and there is more reason to believe they WEREN'T literate than reason to believe any of them WERE literate, for reasons I have detailed multiple times.

They were perceived to be ignorant by stupid people. Shall I take it that you don't understand the semantic chasm separating those two statements?

I know the meaning of the word that was translated, which I posted, along with a link to the source, earlier.

... and in the case in which Peter spoke Greek, your argument is FALSE.

Again... I'm talking about the gospels and I'm talking about the likelihood, or lack thereof , that any of them could read or write Aramaic, much less a second language.

 

[ZenMode]

You are describing yourself again, Sock. You cannot project your problems on anybody else.

Cool. In your case, I don't need to.

 

[Into the Night]

No way!!!! Really? So, you're saying I go to school for nearly 2 decades and never learn past tense?

Apparently.

Wait... so, I can't change the past???

Though you try, you can't.

I'm curious, does this faux intellectual act work with most people?

You are describing yourself again, Sock. No, it doesn't work with me.

There are realities of the past. There is knowledge to be gained, now, from an understanding of the past. For example, what are the odds that Jesus carried a smart phone? Approximately 0%. No. Again, there are percentages in play here. We have a good idea of what the literacy rate was in the Roman Empire at the time. We also have an idea of who it was that was likely to be literate and who wasn't. We also have a good idea of the demographics of the the disciples. Those items, and more that I'm not aware of, are used to make a best guess about the situation. Yet, your speculative believe about the disciples and the Bible are spot on, right? I've been talking about the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the odds that the actually wrote any of them. They are also not known to be literate and there is more reason to believe they WEREN'T literate than reason to believe any of them WERE literate, for reasons I have detailed multiple times.

I am not speculating, Sock. YOU ARE.
Math errors: Failure to specify boundary. Failure to specify randX. Attempted use of data as probability.

I know the meaning of the word that was translated, which I posted, along with a link to the source, earlier.

You can't change the Bible, Sock.

Again... I'm talking about the gospels and I'm talking about the likelihood, or lack thereof , that any of them could read or write Aramaic, much less a second language.

Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Attempted use of data as probability.
Logic errors: Omniscience fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

Cool. In your case, I don't need to.

Apparently you do, since you try to do so constantly.
You can't deny your own posts, Sock.

 

[gfm7175]

The first part comes just from lifting it off the internet, but there isn't any way thereafter for Cypress to support it without claiming omniscience.

... and Crypress definitely isn't omniscient because he seems to get most things wrong. Poor Crypress.

 

[IBDaMann]

There are realities of the past.

You don't get to declare that you know what they are if you don't know what they are. Speculation is not knowledge, regardless of which fallacy you assert for your claimed omniscience.

There is knowledge to be gained, now, from an understanding of the past.

You don't get to declare the past that you don't know. There is no knowledge to be gained, only disinformation, from historical revisionism.

Again, there are percentages in play here.

Nope. You have resumed being too stupid to learn. I provided you a clear explanation. Either go with that or continue babbling.

We have a good idea of what the literacy rate was in the Roman Empire at the time.

Nope. You have your own confidence in your own speculation, but you have never verified anything about your speculation because you don't have a time machine and you have no eye witnesses and no YouTube videos.

We also have an idea of who it was that was likely to be literate and who wasn't.

You have no idea. You have only your speculation.

Yet, your speculative believe about the disciples and the Bible are spot on, right?

I don't recall stating any belief on the matter. I'm an atheist. I have merely commented on your outrageous omniscience fallacy.

I've been talking about the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the odds that the actually wrote any of them.

... and you know that probabilities do not apply to events that have already occurred.

They are also not known to be literate

Everything you mention is simply not known.

and there is more reason to believe they WEREN'T literate than reason to believe any of them WERE literate,

BINGO! We have a winner! State your speculation as your beliefs, not as what you pretend to know. State your beliefs and support them with a rational basis.

I know the meaning of the word that was translated,

You made it clear that you don't. The term, as used in the gospel, had a meaning other than the modern day literal translation. You see a littany of such examples on JPP every day, and yet you claim to know that there was no such usage in ancient Greek. Brilliant.

Again... I'm talking about the gospels and I'm talking about [my probability fallacy]

I get it.

 

[ZenMode]

You are describing yourself again, Sock. You cannot project your problems on anybody else.

Nope. I am most definitely describing you.

 

[ZenMode]

You don't get to declare that you know what they are if you don't know what they are. Speculation is not knowledge, regardless of which fallacy you assert for your claimed omniscience.


You don't get to declare the past that you don't know. There is no knowledge to be gained, only disinformation, from historical revisionism.


Nope. You have resumed being too stupid to learn. I provided you a clear explanation. Either go with that or continue babbling.


Nope. You have your own confidence in your own speculation, but you have never verified anything about your speculation because you don't have a time machine and you have no eye witnesses and no YouTube videos.


You have no idea. You have only your speculation.


I don't recall stating any belief on the matter. I'm an atheist. I have merely commented on your outrageous omniscience fallacy.


... and you know that probabilities do not apply to events that have already occurred.


Everything you mention is simply not known.


BINGO! We have a winner! State your speculation as your beliefs, not as what you pretend to know. State your beliefs and support them with a rational basis.


You made it clear that you don't. The term, as used in the gospel, had a meaning other than the modern day literal translation. You see a littany of such examples on JPP every day, and yet you claim to know that there was no such usage in ancient Greek. Brilliant.


I get it.

There are educated people (scholars, historians, etc) who study the Bible, and the many writings that were excluded from the Bible, as historical writings, as opposed to religious doctrine. They compile what they know and, when there is uncertainty, they take into account their level of confidence. For example, a serious scholar is not going to believe that Jesus never existed, because there is significant reason to believe he did exist.

What you and Into the PaddedRoom are saying is that a belief about who wrote the Gospels should be equal regardless of whether or not either of the two statements below are true:

1. There was 10% literacy in the Roman Empire during the life of Jesus and his disciples and those who were literate were almost exclusively the wealthy and almost all literacy was in the Aramaic language.

Or
(For the sake of argument, let's assume ALL disciples were known to work as fisherman)

2. There was 10% literacy in the Roman Empire HOWEVER, among fisherman, there was 95% literacy in the Greek language.

 

[Kafka]

There is no hydra here, Sock. You are hallucinating again.

Yeah, sure, gfm. Sure.

 

[IBDaMann]

There are educated people (scholars, historians, etc) who study the Bible,

Great. That would be me. Go on.

... and the many writings that were excluded from the Bible, as historical writings, as opposed to religious doctrine.

Yep, I've read many of those.

They compile what they know

Nope. They compile their speculations. They don't have time machines and cannot verify any of their speculations.

... and, when there is uncertainty,

No amount of certainty and confidence somehow transforms speculation into knowledge.

... they take into account their level of confidence.

... which is what makes them scheisters, not scholars. They might as well be on the IPCC.

For example, a serious scholar is not going to believe that Jesus never existed,

There are serious scholars who believe that Jesus existed and there are serious scholars who think that Jesus Christ is a snowballed urban legend.

As a side note, the pastor who performed my wedding ceremony was a PhD in physics and a big fan of Jesus.

... because there is significant reason to believe he did exist.

Finally, you worded one correctly.

What you and Into the PaddedRoom are saying is that a belief about who wrote the Gospels should be equal regardless of whether or not either of the two statements below are true:

Nope. You have totally changed your tune from your previous position of claiming omniscience to now recognizing that your beliefs are merely that which you believe.

1. There was 10% literacy in the Roman Empire during the life of Jesus and his disciples and those who were literate were almost exclusively the wealthy and almost all literacy was in the Aramaic language.

I notice you clinging to your probability fallacy. Argument discarded. You can't translate probabilities into knowledge of specific individuals.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. I am most definitely describing you.

LIF. Grow up.

 

[Into the Night]

There are educated people (scholars, historians, etc) who study the Bible, and the many writings that were excluded from the Bible, as historical writings, as opposed to religious doctrine.

Expertise fallacy (false authority fallacy). You cannot change the Bible using 'experts', Sock.

They compile what they know and, when there is uncertainty, they take into account their level of confidence. For example, a serious scholar is not going to believe that Jesus never existed, because there is significant reason to believe he did exist.

You don't get to speak for all 'scholars', declare who is 'serious', or use them as a reference to the Bible, Sock.

What you and Into the PaddedRoom are saying is that a belief about who wrote the Gospels should be equal regardless of whether or not either of the two statements below are true:

No one is saying the authors of the various books in the Bible are equal, Sock. You are hallucinating again.

1. There was 10% literacy in the Roman Empire during the life of Jesus and his disciples and those who were literate were almost exclusively the wealthy and almost all literacy was in the Aramaic language.

Or
(For the sake of argument, let's assume ALL disciples were known to work as fisherman)

2. There was 10% literacy in the Roman Empire HOWEVER, among fisherman, there was 95% literacy in the Greek language.

Argument from randU fallacy, Sock. You can't just make up numbers and use them as 'data'. Omniscience fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

You don't get to declare that you know what they are if you don't know what they are. Speculation is not knowledge, regardless of which fallacy you assert for your claimed omniscience.


You don't get to declare the past that you don't know. There is no knowledge to be gained, only disinformation, from historical revisionism.


Nope. You have resumed being too stupid to learn. I provided you a clear explanation. Either go with that or continue babbling.


Nope. You have your own confidence in your own speculation, but you have never verified anything about your speculation because you don't have a time machine and you have no eye witnesses and no YouTube videos.


You have no idea. You have only your speculation.


I don't recall stating any belief on the matter. I'm an atheist. I have merely commented on your outrageous omniscience fallacy.


... and you know that probabilities do not apply to events that have already occurred.


Everything you mention is simply not known.


BINGO! We have a winner! State your speculation as your beliefs, not as what you pretend to know. State your beliefs and support them with a rational basis.


You made it clear that you don't. The term, as used in the gospel, had a meaning other than the modern day literal translation. You see a littany of such examples on JPP every day, and yet you claim to know that there was no such usage in ancient Greek. Brilliant.


I get it.

Yes, it's speculation... an educated guess based on available information. There are some things that are believed with a higher level of confidence than others.

But, for reasons that are obvious, you avoided my last question because, like answering the question about health, you knew it would force you to admit what you don't want to admit and you seem to enjoy the role of faux intellectual.

 

[ZenMode]

Expertise fallacy (false authority fallacy). You cannot change the Bible using 'experts', Sock.

You don't get to speak for all 'scholars', declare who is 'serious', or use them as a reference to the Bible, Sock.

No one is saying the authors of the various books in the Bible are equal, Sock. You are hallucinating again.


Argument from randU fallacy, Sock. You can't just make up numbers and use them as 'data'. Omniscience fallacy.

Actually, I can make up numbers. It's called a hypothetical, which is used to make a point. A point that both you and IDDaMann avoided responding to... for reasons that are as obvious as the sky is blue.