Innerancy, and Spiderman

[Sheepdog]

the prominent presumption regarding innerancy among many skeptics (and also some Christians, unfortunately) is that if there is a demonstratble discrephensy in the Bible, it must be thrown out. i ask, why? though we hold that the Bible is inspired, i have never translated "inspired" into perfect. furthermore, what if inspired meant "God directed the writing of the Bible, but left some literary liberties to the writers"? i believe this is a reasonable understanding of inspiration.

that said, i'd like to apply this presumption to the movie, Spiderman, as compared to the original comic books. now, some may gripe that this is a weak analogy, since the comic books are fiction in the first place. but is it? look at our movies and based on real events. only rarely are the movies 100% true to the historical event. even documentaries can't help but have some subjective bent to them as edited in and produced someone (i.e. note the hissy-fit Micheal Jackson had over the recent documentary on him).

so, if we hyperliteral Westerners can take literary liberties in our recounting of historical events, why couldn't have the Gospel writers?

but, back the the subject at hand, i noted several contradictions between the movie Spiderman and the comics:

Comics: Peter Parker bitten by a radioactively charged spider. (DeFalco, 20)
Movie: Peter Parker bitten by a genetically engineered "super spider."

Comics: Parker first realized his powers when leaping out of the way of a speeding car (and 30 feet up onto a building!) (ibid.)
Movie: Parker discovers his powers at school when he "webslinged" a food tray.

Comics: name of the wrestler Spderman wrestled was Crusher Hogan. (ibid.)
Movie: His name was Bonesaw

Comics: the robber who murdered Ben Parker was left unconscious and hanging in a spider web. (ibid.)
Movie: the robber fell out of a window

Comics: Spiderman used a special mechanism for webslinging, with a multi polymer for "web fluid." (ibid., 28)
Movie: Spiderman's webslinging "mechanisms" were a functioning part of his wrists.

Comics: The Green Goblin wore a green and purple costume. (ibid., 54)
Movie: The Green Goblin wore dark green body armor.

so, whats the point here? even though these glaring contradictions stick out, no one would doubt underlying story here: Peter Parker became Spiderman, and with all his abilities fights crime, leading him to an inevitable showdown with the Green Goblin. similarly, just because some of the details about Jesus don't seem to add up, doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't born of immaculant conception, led a three year ministry, taught the most important teachings of known history, and died of crucifixion only to be raised again three days later. it would take a high level of bias against Christianity to look at supposed contradictions and errors in details and toss out the story as a whole. good example of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"

just to let you know, i am an inerrantist, and am not advicating errancy. i just don't see why the big deal is made on supposed errors. as said elsewhere, there are even errentist scholars who are Christians.

sources,
DeFalco, Tom. Spiderman, The Ultimate Guide. Dorling Kindersley. New York. 2001.

Spiderman. movie. Columbia Pictures. 2002.

[johnransom]

Sheepdog:
i noted several contradictions between the movie Spiderman and the comics:

Comics: Peter Parker bitten by a radioactively charged spider. (DeFalco, 20)
Movie: Peter Parker bitten by a genetically engineered "super spider."

Comics: Parker first realized his powers when leaping out of the way of a speeding car (and 30 feet up onto a building!) (ibid.)
Movie: Parker discovers his powers at school when he "webslinged" a food tray.

Comics: name of the wrestler Spderman wrestled was Crusher Hogan. (ibid.)
Movie: His name was Bonesaw

Comics: the robber who murdered Ben Parker was left unconscious and hanging in a spider web. (ibid.)
Movie: the robber fell out of a window

Comics: Spiderman used a special mechanism for webslinging, with a multi polymer for "web fluid." (ibid., 28)
Movie: Spiderman's webslinging "mechanisms" were a functioning part of his wrists.

Comics: The Green Goblin wore a green and purple costume. (ibid., 54)
Movie: The Green Goblin wore dark green body armor.

You forgot:

Comics: Peter Parker's first girlfriend was Gwen Stacey.
Movie: Peter goes straight for Mary Jane.

Comics: Gwen Stacey is killed by the Green Goblin.
Movie: No Gwen for GG to kill.

Comics: Peter Parker's next girlfriend was Betty Brant (Jonah's secretary).
Movie: Peter ignores her and goes straight for Mary Jane.

[JCA]

Sheepdog:

so, if we hyperliteral Westerners can take literary liberties in our recounting of historical events, why couldn't have the Gospel writers?

but, back the the subject at hand, i noted several contradictions between the movie Spiderman and the comics:

Comics: Peter Parker bitten by a radioactively charged spider. (DeFalco, 20)
Movie: Peter Parker bitten by a genetically engineered "super spider."

Comics: Parker first realized his powers when leaping out of the way of a speeding car (and 30 feet up onto a building!) (ibid.)
Movie: Parker discovers his powers at school when he "webslinged" a food tray.

Comics: name of the wrestler Spderman wrestled was Crusher Hogan. (ibid.)
Movie: His name was Bonesaw

Comics: the robber who murdered Ben Parker was left unconscious and hanging in a spider web. (ibid.)
Movie: the robber fell out of a window

Comics: Spiderman used a special mechanism for webslinging, with a multi polymer for "web fluid." (ibid., 28)
Movie: Spiderman's webslinging "mechanisms" were a functioning part of his wrists.

Comics: The Green Goblin wore a green and purple costume. (ibid., 54)
Movie: The Green Goblin wore dark green body armor.


just to let you know, i am an inerrantist, and am not advicating errancy. i just don't see why the big deal is made on supposed errors. as said elsewhere, there are even errentist scholars who are Christians.

sources,
DeFalco, Tom. Spiderman, The Ultimate Guide. Dorling Kindersley. New York. 2001.

Spiderman. movie. Columbia Pictures. 2002.

I agree :)

And actually, I thought in the Movie that Peter first discovered his powers running after the bus, and his hand ripping of the poster on the side of it..

See how easy it is for eye witnesses to get confused?! ;)

I agree that inspiration has NEVER meant dictation.. and that people should take that into account. People seem to read what they want to read into it most of the time anyway.. for instance, people quote that "every word can be used for correction.. etc.".. taken literally, that means I can take the word "snake", and use that word to correct other peoples doctrine with? Literalism can be taken to extremes, and often is.. just as someone can go way the other way.

Anyway, JMHO :)

Love and Peace

JCA

[Pilgrim]

Well said Sheep dog.

[Robyn Banks]

Sheepdog:
i noted several contradictions between the movie Spiderman and the comics:
These are not 'contradictions'. Careful study of Spiderman shows that what at first may appear to be 'contradictions' may easily be explained.

Sheepdog:
Comics: Peter Parker bitten by a radioactively charged spider. (DeFalco, 20)
Movie: Peter Parker bitten by a genetically engineered "super spider."
This is not a contradiction. The comic-writer simply noted different details than the movie-writer. If they said exactly the same thing, then Spiderman-skeptics such as Sheepdog would claim that they had colluded. But, that they say different things demonstrates the truth of Spiderman.

The alleged contradiction may be easily harmonized. The genetic engineering clearly caused the spider to be radioactive. Peter Parker was therefore bitten by genetically engineered super spider which had become radioactive.

In his rush to assume a 'contradiction', Sheepdog has misinterpreted Spiderman.

Sheepdog:
Comics: Parker first realized his powers when leaping out of the way of a speeding car (and 30 feet up onto a building!) (ibid.)
Movie: Parker discovers his powers at school when he "webslinged" a food tray.
Parker clearly forgot that he had his powers, and therefore 'discovered' them twice. Probably the shock of discovering that he had Spidy-powers caused him to temporarily forget his discovery.

Sheepdog:
Comics: name of the wrestler Spderman wrestled was Crusher Hogan. (ibid.)
Movie: His name was Bonesaw
Even today in the WWF, many wrestlers go by two different titles. Hulk Hogan is also 'the Hulkster'. This does not mean that they are different people, but just referred to by two different names.

Sheepdog:
Comics: the robber who murdered Ben Parker was left unconscious and hanging in a spider web. (ibid.)
Movie: the robber fell out of a window
After falling out of a window, the robber landed in a spider web and was left unconscious there.

No contradiction at all! Sheepdog shows his bias towards finding errors here.

Sheepdog:
Comics: Spiderman used a special mechanism for webslinging, with a multi polymer for "web fluid." (ibid., 28)
Movie: Spiderman's webslinging "mechanisms" were a functioning part of his wrists.
We may not know why Spiderman used a mechanism to do this, when he had the natural ability to do it himself. Maybe he ran low on the natural webslinging ability, and relied on the mechanism? Whatever the answer, we know that there ARE answers, and so this is not a contradiction.

Sheepdog:
Comics: The Green Goblin wore a green and purple costume. (ibid., 54)
Movie: The Green Goblin wore dark green body armor.
I change my clothes daily. Why can't the Green Goblin also?

Sheepdog:
so, whats the point here? even though these glaring contradictions stick out,
What "glaring contradictions"? Only the Spidy-skeptic imagines there are contradictions.


Sheepdog:
no one would doubt underlying story here: Peter Parker became Spiderman, and with all his abilities fights crime, leading him to an inevitable showdown with the Green Goblin. similarly, just because some of the details about Jesus don't seem to add up, doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't born of immaculant conception, led a three year ministry, taught the most important teachings of known history, and died of crucifixion only to be raised again three days later.
I happen to agree wholeheartedly with your main point, Sheepdog. But I thought I might also have a bit of fun with the methodology of 'inerrantists'. :)

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

johnransom:
Comics: Peter Parker's first girlfriend was Gwen Stacey.
Movie: Peter goes straight for Mary Jane.
Another spidey-skeptic shows his ignorance of Spiderman.

"Mary Jane" is not a literal figure, but obviously a typology. "Mary Jane" is slang for "marijuana". You have to study the contemporary use of the term "Mary Jane" to interpret this properly as typology.

John Ransom is viewing Spiderman through his 21st-century Western viewpoint. However, when we view Spiderman through its own 'comic-culture', the apparent 'contradictions' soon turn out to be nothing but problems with our own mdoernist mindset.

johnransom:
Comics: Gwen Stacey is killed by the Green Goblin.
Movie: No Gwen for GG to kill.
The mere omission of a fact is not a 'contradiction'. Some Spidey-texts choose to tell the story of Spiderman in different ways. But mere differences do not amount to 'contradictions'.

johnransom:
Comics: Peter Parker's next girlfriend was Betty Brant (Jonah's secretary).
Movie: Peter ignores her and goes straight for Mary Jane.
Again, the Spidey-Skeptic is ignorant of typology and makes the mistake of assuming that a mere omission is a contradiction.

Robyn

[Socrates]

Sheepdog:

doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't born of immaculant conception,Point of information: this term (actually "Immaculate") refers to the conception of Mary without original sin (Roman Catholic dogma), not Jesus's. The latter is properly called the Virginal Conception.

[Sheepdog]

Socrates:
Point of information: this term (actually "Immaculate") refers to the conception of Mary without original sin (Roman Catholic dogma), not Jesus's. The latter is properly called the Virginal Conception.

doh! ok, thanks for the heads up.

[Sheepdog]

Robyn Banks:

These are not 'contradictions'. Careful study of Spiderman shows that what at first may appear to be 'contradictions' may easily be explained.

...{snip}...

forgive me for sounding condescending, but you missed the point. your satire is interesting, but nevertheless, the thread isn't about innerrancy, per se. it is about the fact that, even if there are a few contradictions are shown to exist in minor details of scripture, that does not negate the Bible as a whole. that is, unless you unless you find one where some critical teaching is at stake, which is seldom the case on those "1 Bazillion and 1 Bible Errors" lists out there.

[flipper]

Just because there are a number of books that detail Spiderman's antics, and that they have verifiable geographic and historical similarities with today's events, you accept the Spiderman story as real?

I'm sorry, but Peter Parker's miraculous powers are physical impossibilities. What extraordinary evidence do you have to back up these extraordinary claims you make before we delve into the inerrancy argument....

;)

I know, I'm evil. Point still stands, though.

[Sheepdog]

flipper:
Just because there are a number of books that detail Spiderman's antics, and that they have verifiable geographic and historical similarities with today's events, you accept the Spiderman story as real?

you are comparing apples to oranges. Spiderman is intended as fiction. Even the writer admits to it in the book i cited. The writers of the Bible, on the other hand, wrote what they aparently thought to be true. false analogy.

I'm sorry, but Peter Parker's miraculous powers are physical impossibilities. What extraordinary evidence do you have to back up these extraordinary claims you make before we delve into the inerrancy argument....

again, apples to oranges. the scope of the analogy was to show that perceived "errors" wouldn't be evidence against the Bible, since humans take liberties in reporting events all the time (whether fiction or fact).

furthermore, you presume that miracles are physical impossibilities and that extraordinary evidence should be required. i know of no reason to accept either of these.

[Robyn Banks]

Sheepdog:
forgive me for sounding condescending, but you missed the point.
You don't sound condescending, just a poor reader. I acknowledged that I agreed with your main point, and just wanted to have a bit of fun nevertheless.

Sheepdog:
your satire is interesting,
Interesting? It was intriguing!!

Sheepdog:
but nevertheless, the thread isn't about innerrancy, per se. it is about the fact that, even if there are a few contradictions are shown to exist in minor details of scripture, that does not negate the Bible as a whole.
Of course. And that is the "main point" that I said I agreed with. I'm not slow, Sheepdog - I mean, I quickly found reasons to show that inerrancy was a nonsense, for one thing. :)


Sheepdog:
that is, unless you unless you find one where some critical teaching is at stake, which is seldom the case on those "1 Bazillion and 1 Bible Errors" lists out there.
Even the odd error in a critical teaching (eg. eternal life versus no eternal life) is not detrimental - if your foundation for belief is not 'biblical inerrancy', but faith in God.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Sheepdog:
Spiderman is intended as fiction. Even the writer admits to it in the book i cited. The writers of the Bible, on the other hand, wrote what they aparently thought to be true. false analogy.
Jonah is (intended as) a fiction. The proverbs are fictions. The parables are fictions.

Sheepdog:
the scope of the analogy was to show that perceived "errors" wouldn't be evidence against the Bible, since humans take liberties in reporting events all the time (whether fiction or fact).
Go on - have a laugh, Sheepdog. If the doctrine of inerrancy can't be laughed at, what possible good is it?

Sheepdog:
furthermore, you presume that miracles are physical impossibilities
Miracles are 'physical' (natural) impossibilities by definition. They are attributed to some supernatural (non-natural) agency.

[flipper]

Sozo:

*sigh* I was being mischievous. Yes, I realize that you don't take the Spiderman story to be anything other than fiction. You did say at the start of the thread.


furthermore, you presume that miracles are physical impossibilities and that extraordinary evidence should be required. i know of no reason to accept either of these.

I shall qualify that to say: "physical impossibilities without some supernatural intervention". If that's not the case, then how are these events in any way miraculous? If this is a fair definition, then I should think that extraordinary evidence is a requirement. Otherwise, why shouldn't you believe Benny "cures cancer" Hinn or Reinhardt "back from the dead" Boenhke? Lots of people do.

[Sheepdog]

Robyn Banks:

Jonah is (intended as) a fiction. The proverbs are fictions. The parables are fictions.

you won't mind if i am about as skeptical about that as you are of the Ressurection, would you?


Miracles are 'physical' (natural) impossibilities by definition. They are attributed to some supernatural (non-natural) agency.

I shall qualify that to say: "physical impossibilities without some supernatural intervention". If that's not the case, then how are these events in any way miraculous?

:huh:

hmm. i'll concede, but add that most events are not to be considered posible/impossible events, but rather high-probability/low-probability events. many events are seen as miracles because though they don't violate any know physical law, the probability of such an event is so low, some intelligent agent must be involved for it to occure. depending on the case the agent may or may not be supernatural.

for example, considering the most recent odds calculated of a life-bearing planet existing in our universe, it would be miraculous that the earth has life on it. if you 2 are interested, let me see if i can find the essay detailing this calculation.

If this is a fair definition, then I should think that extraordinary evidence is a requirement.

perhaps for you. however, a person who has a priori beliefs in favor of the supernatural will not agree to your criteria. only someone who presupposes naturalism would require extraordinary evidence.

that fact of the matter is, science itself is not naturalistic, nor supernaturalistic. science doesn't care either way-- it only tells us how the physical world around us works. indeed, all sceintific experiments are designed to minimize outside interference by intelligent agents (specifically, people). if it is found that an inteligent agent interfered with an experiment in a way that skewed the results, the results of the experiment are thrown out and the experiment is retried.

however, inteligent agents interfere with natural processes all the time. science can tell us the trajectory of a cannon ball. science, however, cannot tell us why a person shot the cannonball in the trajectory he/she has chosen. science can tell us how long it would take an apple to fall to the ground from a given height. science does not, however, account for when a humen catches the apple mid-air, takes a bite of it, then drops it to the ground. Modern medicine has saved many lives that would have been naturally doomed without some intervention by doctors.

many theologians today, like William Craig Lane, consider miracles in the same way-- that no known physical law is violated, but instead is countervened by a supernatural agent. if this is the case, then i don't see why miraculous events are seen with any more skepticism than stuff like the Battle of Waterloo, the historicity of Julius Ceasar and his life, or the Holocaust.

(note for the record, i never said it is wrong to be skeptical at all, but i only question the extent of the skepticism usually imposed to miraculous events. i am, after all, skeptical of "miracles" performed by Buddhist monks, many Eastern/herbal medicines, etc.)

Otherwise, why shouldn't you believe Benny "cures cancer" Hinn or Reinhardt "back from the dead" Boenhke? Lots of people do.

personally, i don't claim to know either way, regarding them. it may be that Hinn and Boenhke are performing real supernatural events, but may or may not be miracles in the sense that they are caused by the God of the Bible. or more likely, they are charlatons, but i until i study the evidence for/against them, i will not make and affirmative opinion either way.

i have actually been to one of Hinn's shows, and i can honestly say he draws off of emotionalism way too much. based on that it seems more likely that uses psychological suggestion to convince people he has healed them, than supernatural powers. but again, i can't really judge for sure until i see all of the evidence surrounding Hinn.

[Robyn Banks]

Sheepdog:
most events are not to be considered posible/impossible events, but rather high-probability/low-probability events. many events are seen as miracles because though they don't violate any know physical law, the probability of such an event is so low, some intelligent agent must be involved for it to occure. depending on the case the agent may or may not be supernatural.
So a 'miracle' can also involve a physical possibility, if it still involves a divine intervention? I guess so, by extension of the meaning of the term 'miracle'. It all starts to get less 'miraculous' when it's more ordinary - such as it raining or something, though.

Sheepdog:
for example, considering the most recent odds calculated of a life-bearing planet existing in our universe, it would be miraculous that the earth has life on it. if you 2 are interested, let me see if i can find the essay detailing this calculation.
I guess you mean the odds of life existing by natural processes. Is this the odds of a cell developing, then? Beats me how to calculate such 'odds'. It all sounds a little subjective, but if you want to post another thread on it, that would be kind of interesting. As long as it's not quite as ridiculous as the old 'odds of the Messianic prophecies being fulfilled' nonsense, I'd be keen to see it. :smile:

Sheepdog:
a person who has a priori beliefs in favor of the supernatural will not agree to your criteria. only someone who presupposes naturalism would require extraordinary evidence.
Hmmmm. I don't presuppose naturalism. But if someone asserts that a miraculous event occurred, I would require of them a higher standard of evidence than if they told me it rained yesterday or something.

Sheepdog:
science itself is not naturalistic, nor supernaturalistic. science doesn't care either way-- it only tells us how the physical world around us works.
Correct.

Sheepdog:
science can tell us the trajectory of a cannon ball. science, however, cannot tell us why a person shot the cannonball in the trajectory he/she has chosen.
Science deals with 'how'. Religion deals with 'why'.

Sheepdog:
many theologians today, like William Craig Lane, consider miracles in the same way-- that no known physical law is violated, but instead is countervened by a supernatural agent. if this is the case, then i don't see why miraculous events are seen with any more skepticism than stuff like the Battle of Waterloo, the historicity of Julius Ceasar and his life, or the Holocaust.
I imagine you judge alleged miraculous accounts according to a great deal higher standard, in actual fact. There are all sorts of conspiracy theories, supernatural accounts, superstitions, etc that we hear almost every day. Yet, we tend to ignore most of these, yet accept other ideas as representing 'facts' automatically.

Sheepdog:
(note for the record, i never said it is wrong to be skeptical at all, but i only question the extent of the skepticism usually imposed to miraculous events. i am, after all, skeptical of "miracles" performed by Buddhist monks, many Eastern/herbal medicines, etc.)
I thought you would hold miracles to a higher level of proof, or greater skepticism than everyday events. :smile:

Sheepdog:
personally, i don't claim to know either way, regarding them. it may be that Hinn and Boenhke are performing real supernatural events, but may or may not be miracles in the sense that they are caused by the God of the Bible. or more likely, they are charlatons, but i until i study the evidence for/against them, i will not make and affirmative opinion either way.
It is interesting that you say that "more likely" they are charlatans. Now, I agree with you. But I see that you employ a 'higher standard of proof' for these claims than others. You seem to have accepted, for example, that Hinn and Boenhke exist. But you consider it "likely" that they are charlatans. We share a demand for a higher standard of proof for miraculous claims.

Sheepdog:
i can't really judge for sure until i see all of the evidence surrounding Hinn.
You may not be able to judge "for sure", but it is interesting that you already consider it "more likely" that they are charlatans.

Robyn

[Sheepdog]

Robyn Banks:

So a 'miracle' can also involve a physical possibility, if it still involves a divine intervention? I guess so, by extension of the meaning of the term 'miracle'. It all starts to get less 'miraculous' when it's more ordinary - such as it raining or something, though.

i am still in doubt as to whether the definition skeptics allude to is proper in the first place-- but thats ok. but in the context of mircles that are physically possible, let me remind you that such an event requires very low odds before being considered as a possible miracle. for example, it is possible that a cannon ball shot in an eastern trajectory is directed in a north trajectory by wind resistance. however, if you saw such an event, would you consider it reasonable to conclude such has occured by natural forces? or, another example, if you won the lotery jackpot twice in two days, would you account that to luck, or to some supernatural intervention? (assuming no riging, or human interference, of course).

but, personally, i don't think miracles need be extraordinary; IMO, only sentimentalists like those who see "virgin" marys in potato chips and tree bark would require that mircales not be ordinary. if a miracle is defined as any act of God or supernatural being, as i do, then we could easily be surrounded by them and not even know it. quite frankly, i am not too concerned about that topic: if i saw a blatant miracle, i'd say, "heh, cool" and carry on my usual business. the only mircales i am concerned about are a select few said to have occured according to the Bible (i.e., the Ressurection)

I guess you mean the odds of life existing by natural processes. Is this the odds of a cell developing, then? Beats me how to calculate such 'odds'. It all sounds a little subjective, but if you want to post another thread on it, that would be kind of interesting. As long as it's not quite as ridiculous as the old 'odds of the Messianic prophecies being fulfilled' nonsense, I'd be keen to see it. :smile:

yeah, that woudl be it, though i also include the odds of a planet like earth forming given what we currently know about the universe; and the odds of a universe forming where the constants of certain physical laws are right for the production of sufficient oxygen and carbon to allow for life (you may have heard of the phrase, "fine tuned universe")

anyhoo, you are right that it is a bit subjective, but is also based on known principles and observed facts about the universe. it could turn out that in the future we are shown to be wrong about cetain things, but for now we ought to work with what we have. but, on top of posting here i have tests to study for and such. when i score sufficient free time, let me do some research on the subject, and when/if i do find enough data, i'll post it in a new post.

Hmmmm. I don't presuppose naturalism. But if someone asserts that a miraculous event occurred, I would require of them a higher standard of evidence than if they told me it rained yesterday or something.

ok. but to reapply another comparison i used earlier, would you require a higher standard than for a physically reasonable occurance that is difficult to verify? for example, the historical existance of Kangus(sp?) Kahn?

Science deals with 'how'. Religion deals with 'why'.

exactly! good to see we are on the same page somewhere :) (BTW, is that a paraphrase of something said by a popular scientist? i have heard that phrase before)

I imagine you judge alleged miraculous accounts according to a great deal higher standard, in actual fact. There are all sorts of conspiracy theories, supernatural accounts, superstitions, etc that we hear almost every day. Yet, we tend to ignore most of these, yet accept other ideas as representing 'facts' automatically.

more or less, true. however, an interesting case study, do you remember when FOX aired a special detailing the evidence that we Americans never landed on the moon? you would be amazed at how many people believed what they reported. or how many urban legends survive despite the glaring impossibilities in the details (i.e. the jet propelled car. (http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1995-04.html) {reader beware, some profanity contained in that artical}). the fact of the matter is, we as a culture put too much emphasis on believability than we do on scrutinizing the evidence, both for and against (when applicable). i believe that any events that are worthy of our atention should be scrutinized apart from our biases.

It is interesting that you say that "more likely" they are charlatans. Now, I agree with you. But I see that you employ a 'higher standard of proof' for these claims than others. You seem to have accepted, for example, that Hinn and Boenhke exist. But you consider it "likely" that they are charlatans. We share a demand for a higher standard of proof for miraculous claims.

i suppose, but generally i demand a higher standard of proof for any a posteri claim. i have no reason to doubt their existances-- i have physically seen Hinn with my own eyes.

but in summary, it seems we do agree that a higher degree of scrutiny is to be aplied to miracles than most trivial of [i]a priori[/a] claims. where i believe we disagree, however, is the extent that degree should differ from other claims that require evidence. an example right from our headlines, i'd personally seek about the same level of evidence for miracles as i would for the claim that Iraq currently has weapons of mass destruction. this is probably not a good example there are many ways of looking at the evidence (i.e. i am convinced they do at least have something to hide(likely weapons), by the fact that Iraq continually gives the UN inspectors the run-around, have been squirming around politically, and refuse to produce evidence that the weapons we knew existed were destroyed. others may require that the actual weapons be found for the world community to be seen. nevertheless...)

[ItalianGold]

[QUOTE]Sheepdog:



many theologians today, like William Craig Lane, consider miracles in the same way-- that no known physical law is violated, but instead is countervened by a supernatural agent. if this is the case, then i don't see why miraculous events are seen with any more skepticism than stuff like the Battle of Waterloo, the historicity of Julius Ceasar and his life, or the Holocaust.

That is truly an amazing statement. You honestly believe that being skeptical about the supernatural can be compared with being skeptical about the Holocaust???????



:eek:

[Sheepdog]

hmm. given the sensitivity surrounding the topic, i probably shouldn't used the Holocaust as an example. but since the box is open, let me note that there are indeed websites out there that question the reality of the holocaust. of course, they probably aren't reasonably sound nor use good evidence for their claims, but nevertheless one can be skeptical of many seemingly [i]a priori[/a] pieces of knowledge.

an alternative example may be Marco Polo's adventure in China, which Till has latched onto recently as a myth.

[Socrates]

A few things: Craig's view of miracles (following C.S. Lewis) is that they are additions to the laws of nature. And since God is the creator of nature, there is nothing illogical about believing that He can add to nature. One example would be Archimedes principle which implies that objects heavier than the fluid they displace will sink. But it is not violated if a person doesn't sink because a helicopter is holding him up. Nor is it violated if Jesus Christ the Creator can apply a counterbalancing force to stop Himself from sinking.

"Science deals with 'how'. Religion deals with 'why'." This is simplisitic. The Bible never bifurcates "facts"/history and faith/morality. Actually, Genesis 1 ("religion") DOES tell us how, when and over what time frame: living things were created to reproduce "after their kinds" in three of the six days of Creation Week, about 6000 years ago. Science tells us "why" apples fall -- because of the Law of Gravity.

See http://www.nizkor.org for refutations of Holocaust denial. But yes, people deny the Holocaust for the same reason they deny the Resurrection of Jesus: a priori dismissal of reliable eye-witness testimony because of an over-riding ideology, either anti-miraculous bigotry or anti-semitism.

[neonmagek]

Did Peter Parker inspire the authors? Just curious.

[John Powell]

. . . and died of crucifixion only to be raised again three days later. it would take a high level of bias against Christianity to look at supposed contradictions and errors in details and toss out the story as a whole. good example of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"


POWELL:
But if Jesus died on Friday and was raised three days later then that would be on Monday. You see, Saturday would be one day later, Sunday two days later, and Monday three days later.

Apparently, you support Mark's language of "after 3 days" rather than the language of Matthew, Luke, and Paul of "on the third day."

If it were established that Jesus had resurrected then the question about how many days it was after the crucifixion would be rather academic. The point here is because the resurrection hasn't been established as a historical fact and, yet, the belief in the resurrection relies on the reliability of the N.T. writers, if they weren't reliable about things we can check (such as internal consistency) then that makes it less probable they were correct about the other things they claimed.

John Powell

[Shadowboy]

POWELL:
But if Jesus died on Friday and was raised three days later then that would be on Monday. You see, Saturday would be one day later, Sunday two days later, and Monday three days later.

Apparently, you support Mark's language of "after 3 days" rather than the language of Matthew, Luke, and Paul of "on the third day."

If it were established that Jesus had resurrected then the question about how many days it was after the crucifixion would be rather academic. The point here is because the resurrection hasn't been established as a historical fact and, yet, the belief in the resurrection relies on the reliability of the N.T. writers, if they weren't reliable about things we can check (such as internal consistency) then that makes it less probable they were correct about the other things they claimed.

John Powell

No offence John, but lets say I ordered something of the internet to my door and then somebody asks how long it took before I got it, would it make a big difference between the following two comments.

1) I receieved it on the third day

2) I receieved it after the third day

[shunyadragon]

the prominent presumption regarding innerancy among many skeptics (and also some Christians, unfortunately) is that if there is a demonstratble discrephensy in the Bible, it must be thrown out. i ask, why? though we hold that the Bible is inspired, i have never translated "inspired" into perfect. furthermore, what if inspired meant "God directed the writing of the Bible, but left some literary liberties to the writers"? i believe this is a reasonable understanding of inspiration.

that said, i'd like to apply this presumption to the movie, Spiderman, as compared to the original comic books. now, some may gripe that this is a weak analogy, since the comic books are fiction in the first place. but is it? look at our movies and based on real events. only rarely are the movies 100% true to the historical event. even documentaries can't help but have some subjective bent to them as edited in and produced someone (i.e. note the hissy-fit Micheal Jackson had over the recent documentary on him).

so, if we hyperliteral Westerners can take literary liberties in our recounting of historical events, why couldn't have the Gospel writers?

but, back the the subject at hand, i noted several contradictions between the movie Spiderman and the comics:

Comics: Peter Parker bitten by a radioactively charged spider. (DeFalco, 20)
Movie: Peter Parker bitten by a genetically engineered "super spider."

Comics: Parker first realized his powers when leaping out of the way of a speeding car (and 30 feet up onto a building!) (ibid.)
Movie: Parker discovers his powers at school when he "webslinged" a food tray.

Comics: name of the wrestler Spderman wrestled was Crusher Hogan. (ibid.)
Movie: His name was Bonesaw

Comics: the robber who murdered Ben Parker was left unconscious and hanging in a spider web. (ibid.)
Movie: the robber fell out of a window

Comics: Spiderman used a special mechanism for webslinging, with a multi polymer for "web fluid." (ibid., 28)
Movie: Spiderman's webslinging "mechanisms" were a functioning part of his wrists.

Comics: The Green Goblin wore a green and purple costume. (ibid., 54)
Movie: The Green Goblin wore dark green body armor.

so, whats the point here? even though these glaring contradictions stick out, no one would doubt underlying story here: Peter Parker became Spiderman, and with all his abilities fights crime, leading him to an inevitable showdown with the Green Goblin. similarly, just because some of the details about Jesus don't seem to add up, doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't born of immaculant conception, led a three year ministry, taught the most important teachings of known history, and died of crucifixion only to be raised again three days later. it would take a high level of bias against Christianity to look at supposed contradictions and errors in details and toss out the story as a whole. good example of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"

just to let you know, i am an inerrantist, and am not advicating errancy. i just don't see why the big deal is made on supposed errors. as said elsewhere, there are even errentist scholars who are Christians.

sources,
DeFalco, Tom. Spiderman, The Ultimate Guide. Dorling Kindersley. New York. 2001.

Spiderman. movie. Columbia Pictures. 2002.

There is a problem with this analogy. The author of Spiderman and those that produced the moveies never intended to be recording events and beliefs accurately. The authors that recorded the Bible sincerely believed ehat they were recording was true and accurate. The authors believed literally and sincerely that there was a world flood ordered by God to kill all except for a chosen few.

[John Powell]

No offence John, but lets say I ordered something of the internet to my door and then somebody asks how long it took before I got it, would it make a big difference between the following two comments.

1) I receieved it on the third day

2) I receieved it after the third day

POWELL:
Of course. To receive it after the third day would mean you received it on the fourth, fifth, or whatever day. Or, if you're talking about daylight periods, it could be a night following the third day.

Is there any difference between those statements and "before the third day"?

John Powell

[Shadowboy]

POWELL:
Of course. To receive it after the third day would mean you received it on the fourth, fifth, or whatever day. Or, if you're talking about daylight periods, it could be a night following the third day.

Is there any difference between those statements and "before the third day"?

John Powell

John, that wasn't my point.

What I said was would it make a big difference. If somebody told you one of those comments and then told you the other, would you then believe they lied about getting the item through the post?

What I meant was, it's not a big deal. This is something that everybody does every now and again.

[John Powell]

John, that wasn't my point.

What I said was would it make a big difference. If somebody told you one of those comments and then told you the other, would you then believe they lied about getting the item through the post?

What I meant was, it's not a big deal. This is something that everybody does every now and again.

POWELL:
No, I wouldn't think they lied, but that they didn't know how to count integral days. Apparently, Jesus didn't know how to count integral days either because allegedly he said "for 3 days and 3 nights" and elsewhere said "on the third day" and "after 3 days." Do you think he also thought it meant "before the third day"? Inquiring minds want to know.

John Powell

[Shadowboy]

POWELL:
No, I wouldn't think they lied, but that they didn't know how to count integral days. Apparently, Jesus didn't know how to count integral days either because allegedly he said "for 3 days and 3 nights" and elsewhere said "on the third day" and "after 3 days." Do you think he also thought it meant "before the third day"? Inquiring minds want to know.

John Powell

Fair enough John, I believe you got an answer in your post with the poll. I hope it's an adequate explanation. It seems it was down to a cultural difference in counting days.

[John Powell]

Fair enough John, I believe you got an answer in your post with the poll. I hope it's an adequate explanation. It seems it was down to a cultural difference in counting days.

POWELL:
I think the cultural difference isn't what people claim it was. I don't think it was that it was proper in their culture to count "3 days and 3 nights" as any part of 3 days, but I think specific persons may have very well done so in error, such as Jesus of Nazareth (assuming he was historical) and modern Christians. In other words, I don't think the King's scribe would have made that error. Also, I don't think it was proper in their culture for "on the third day" to mean the same as "after 3 days" but specific persons may have very well done so in error, such as Jesus of Nazareth and modern Christians.

What I think is a cultural difference is that we tend to avoid counting integral days, rather when we speak of days we're thinking of about 24 hours of time or we refer to the specific weekday such as Friday. Those two methods tend to produce less confusion than using integral days. So, if some modern Jesus were predicting his resurrection he would say something like "I'll die on Friday and resurrect on Sunday" or "You'll kill me, but 1 1/2 days later, I'll resurrect."

John Powell

[Clubbaseal]

There is a problem with this analogy.Well, all analogies break down eventually. Some sooner than others. :wink:
The author of Spiderman and those that produced the moveies never intended to be recording events and beliefs accurately. The authors that recorded the Bible sincerely believed ehat they were recording was true and accurate. The authors believed literally and sincerely that there was a world flood ordered by God to kill all except for a chosen few.
I don't know about the authors, but the readers certainly like to believe it literally.
The Old Testament works much better as allegory. If the writers of the OT were going for inspirational and instructive, they got it. If they were going for historical, they didn't do so well.

The New Testament seems to have been written by people who were, rather conspicuously, not Jesus. If you wanna talk about the writers (and editors) of the NT, there's much to learn through what was left out of the bible!

But if you're still looking for instruction and inspiration, that's still there, too. As long as you realize that there was no stenographer working next to Jesus as he spoke! The work is not infallible (nor inerrant!), and it's still up to you what you do with it.

I really dig the Spider Man analogy. I've used it myself to illustrate what the word "faith" means to me.
I just read the first graphic novel of "Ultimate Spider Man." It's a new beginning to the old story, updated for modern advances. Discrepancies between Stan Lee's original work and this new one may exist, but the new artists faithfully updated the work, and showed reverence and respect for the Spider Man story.
This is awfully significant, because Spider Man is like Marvel's Jesus! Updating the original story is extremely sensitive work, and because they showed it love and worked with sincere faith (and inspired skill), the result was absolutely stunning.

This is still an appropriate biblical analogy, because of translations of the bible. I couldn't make sense of my old King James, and my buddy gave me a New International Version. I suspected further corruption, but the introduction assured me that they went back to the original manuscripts and brought them to a modern audience.
If they've done this with love and faith, this should keep the spirit of the scripture intact.. as long as you read it receptively to that spirit.

[Doug Shaver]

even documentaries can't help but have some subjective bent to them as edited in and produced someone (i.e. note the hissy-fit Micheal Jackson had over the recent documentary on him).

so, if we hyperliteral Westerners can take literary liberties in our recounting of historical events, why couldn't have the Gospel writers?

You mean, if I can distinguish between fact and fiction when I'm watching a movie, then it's OK for me to distinguish between fact and fiction when I'm reading the Bible?

Sure, I'll accept that.

[Sparko]

except...

spiderman is fiction and everyone understands that so historical accuracy is not required.

:eek:

[Sparko]

oh crap. Powell reanimated a dead thread

:mummy:

[Clubbaseal]

except...

spiderman is fiction and everyone understands that so historical accuracy is not required.

:eek:
Oh, no. The rabid fans of Spider Man can be just as demanding and scathing as the rabid fans of Jesus. Spider Man's history is well-documented, and Marvel fans would be very upset if their most famous hero wasn't treated faithfully.

At this point, Jesus' own history is a matter of legend. Nobody alive today can verify the historical accuracy of the New Testament. But Christians already know all the stories they want to know. If we built a time machine and filmed the actual history of the gospels, Christians wouldn't want to know the truth if it contradicted the scripture...