Why Do We Trust Ancient Texts as Accurate?

[Stevegp]

In discussions about "sacred" text (particularly about the Bible and Quran) there seems to be this strain of thought that there cannot be any substantive "errors". Debates about semantics, intent, and moral positions relative to the texts seem to imply that there would be something disastrous if the sacred texts got something wrong, at least from our current perspective. Examples are many. Is it so essential that the texts people base their faith on are so pristine that any misstep (from todays prespective) is a disaster? Why would that be?

I think two things are in confluence. One is that metaphysical thought is existential and therefore of supreme importance to some people. Another is that certain people (mostly conservatives) are less tolerant of ambiguity and inclined to seek certainty. With this confluence, if the existential basis is suspect (not that certain), the existential threat becomes unbearable. The result is that all sorts of semantic gymnastics and nuanced obfuscations ensue to mitigate or obscure the problems at hand. This is to be expected from certain personality types and probably won't change.

One solution for some is to view wisdom literature as testaments. They are the attempts of individuals and groups to sense and recount their own specific interpretation of the ultimate basis of reality based on the cultural milieu of the time and the concepts available. So, maybe they get it, in part, wrong, at least from our own particular current perspective. Is that so disastrous? And probably we'll get it wrong in some ways from what comes after we are gone. Perhaps some things will still remain valid in the future.

The ideas of past charismatic leaders and groups obviously resonate, at least in part, with many people today. Do they really have to have gotten it totally right? Only if the need for certainty is so overwhelming that any problem presents an existential threat.

 

[Richard Pickett]

In discussions about "sacred" text (particularly about the Bible and Quran) there seems to be this strain of thought that there cannot be any substantive "errors". Debates about semantics, intent, and moral positions relative to the texts seem to imply that there would be something disastrous if the sacred texts got something wrong, at least from our current perspective. Examples are many. Is it so essential that the texts people base their faith on are so pristine that any misstep (from todays prespective) is a disaster? Why would that be?

I think two things are in confluence. One is that metaphysical thought is existential and therefore of supreme importance to some people. Another is that certain people (mostly conservatives) are less tolerant of ambiguity and inclined to seek certainty. With this confluence, if the existential basis is suspect (not that certain), the existential threat becomes unbearable. The result is that all sorts of semantic gymnastics and nuanced obfuscations ensue to mitigate or obscure the problems at hand. This is to be expected from certain personality types and probably won't change.

One solution for some is to view wisdom literature as testaments. They are the attempts of individuals and groups to sense and recount their own specific interpretation of the ultimate basis of reality based on the cultural milieu of the time and the concepts available. So, maybe they get it, in part, wrong, at least from our own particular current perspective. Is that so disastrous? And probably we'll get it wrong in some ways from what comes after we are gone. Perhaps some things will still remain valid in the future.

The ideas of past charismatic leaders and groups obviously resonate, at least in part, with many people today. Do they really have to have gotten it totally right? Only if the need for certainty is so overwhelming that any problem presents an existential threat.

As with any historical documents the perception of the reader 1000 years after the fact are going to be set in the bias of the original writer. More so if the writer is penning from secondhand accounts. To me since the New Testament of the bible was written somewhere between 35 and 100 years after the fact, which is conjectural to me, I find that it is more set to the individuals level of Faith as well as perception. While we are at it let's throw skepticism into the mix. Where the bible is concerned also, we need to remember that not all bibles fell under the re-write of King James or the Council of Nicaea. That being said, we as a whole may not be all on the same page as far as perception is concerned. Nicely said by the way.

 

[wil]

The times of the nt authorship due vary...the earliest being Paul's letters....the gospels being written most likely after the eyewitnesses were dead and gone...

But those windows of time aren't open for much conjecture before those windows...as the time frame for events which we have dates on...that are discussed in those books create the earliest dates possible.

We have no contemporary discussion of the events

 

[Aupmanyav]

The ideas of past charismatic leaders and groups obviously resonate, at least in part, with many people today. Do they really have to have gotten it totally right?

They are discussing the scriptures, words of Lord God Himself. In one instance, passed on to His Chosen Messenger through the Chief Angel. Inviolable*. They are not words of any charismatic or other type of leaders.

* Inviolable:
1. prohibiting violation; secure from destruction, violence, infringement,or desecration:
an inviolable sanctuary; an inviolable promise.
2. incapable of being violated; incorruptible; unassailable:
inviolable secrecy.

 

[Craz]

They are discussing the scriptures, words of Lord God Himself. In one instance, passed on to His Chosen Messenger through the Chief Angel. Inviolable*. They are not words of any charismatic or other type of leaders.

* Inviolable:
1. prohibiting violation; secure from destruction, violence, infringement,or desecration:
an inviolable sanctuary; an inviolable promise.
2. incapable of being violated; incorruptible; unassailable:
inviolable secrecy.

Yes, they deify their book.

 

[Thomas]

In discussions about "sacred" text (particularly about the Bible and Quran) there seems to be this strain of thought that there cannot be any substantive "errors".

Equally there seems to be a strain of thought that there are ...

One solution for some is to view wisdom literature as testaments.

Well ... er ... quite. That's what they are.

They are the attempts of individuals and groups to sense and recount their own specific interpretation of the ultimate basis of reality based on the cultural milieu of the time and the concepts available.

Yes. I fail to see however what concepts are available today that would make any difference.

So, maybe they get it, in part, wrong, at least from our own particular current perspective.

Why? That's an assumption.

Is that so disastrous?

It's not disastrous, it's just an assumption. The decisions one makes on that assumption might well be ...

Do they really have to have gotten it totally right?

The question is void, really.

 

[Thomas]

There's a lot of opinion and assumption, more or less accurate, but no actual substantive argument as to why we should not trust Ancient Texts.

I think the point here is non-believers expect believers to give credibility to their assumptions, yet those assumptions are no firmer founded, and often less so, that the assumptions the believer holds to be true.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

The question is void, really.

Why is the question void? Curious.

 

[Stevegp]

Yes. I fail to see however what concepts are available today that would make any difference.

Take things like the virgin birth or homosexuality. We have a scientific perspective on those things. People may think that based on our understanding of reproduction, the claim for virgin birth is not a reasonable "fact" to believe in. Today it appears that sexual orientation is not so much a choice but a predisposition that people are not responsible for. The religious right, in particular, view homosexual acts as a terrible sins. The authors of the biblical texts may have also seen homosexuality as a violation of divine law. Today, we have different concepts of what is going on.

There's a lot of opinion and assumption, more or less accurate, but no actual substantive argument as to why we should not trust Ancient Texts.

I think the point here is non-believers expect believers to give credibility to their assumptions, yet those assumptions are no firmer founded, and often less so, that the assumptions the believer holds to be true.

No substantive argument? What about that the ancient texts often have very different takes on ultimate reality? Different ontologies, "soteriologies", epistemologies, etc. And besides the Bible, Quran, Vedas, Tao Te Ching, etc. there are all sorts of other ancient metaphysical texts. There are people who have not been immersed in a religious tradition who may also be seeking some form religious sentiment. What would the argument be that one in particular is true or better over-against another?

 

[Thomas]

Take things like the virgin birth or homosexuality.

OK ...

We have a scientific perspective on those things.

Oh dear. Are you assuming a scientific education precludes a religious belief?

People may think that based on our understanding of reproduction, the claim for virgin birth is not a reasonable "fact" to believe in.

I would image the claim for virgin birth was as incredible then as it is now, surely? They might not have known in forensic biological detail, but they obviously knew enough to know such an event could be considered 'miraculous'.

Today it appears that sexual orientation is not so much a choice but a predisposition that people are not responsible for. The religious right, in particular, view homosexual acts as a terrible sins. The authors of the biblical texts may have also seen homosexuality as a violation of divine law. Today, we have different concepts of what is going on.

OK.

Still doesn't really prove your point.

No substantive argument? What about that the ancient texts often have very different takes on ultimate reality? Different ontologies, "soteriologies", epistemologies, etc.

Different paradigms. Each according to its own.

And besides the Bible, Quran, Vedas, Tao Te Ching, etc. there are all sorts of other ancient metaphysical texts.

Indeed there are. Each has to be taken on its values.

There are people who have not been immersed in a religious tradition who may also be seeking some form religious sentiment. What would the argument be that one in particular is true or better over-against another?

Again that would be the argument of the paradigm in question.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Oh dear. Are you assuming a scientific education precludes a religious belief?

No it does not. But it can. Too many people are limited by their religious beliefs. If one does not accept the biological evidence of what makes one homosexual, for example, but goes by the religious doctrine then homosexuals can be 'cured' of their evil deeds with prayer.

Or what to make of the fact that two of the current Republicans running for President of the United States believe the world is only 6,000 years old? Can these men really make informed decisions when they have such a belief structure? Decisions that can potentially affect the entire planet? They make their decisions based on religious belief rather than scientific evidence. That can not have a good outcome.

There is no reason religious beliefs and scientific ones cannot exist quite comfortably together. Unfortunately there are too many examples where religious beliefs preclude scientific ones - and that is a very dangerous thing.

 

[Stevegp]

Strange. First you complain about the lack of substantive arguments and then you address comments with short statements with no elaboration. Without any explications, it's impossible to understand what your arguments are.

Equally there seems to be a strain of thought that there are ...


Well ... er ... quite. That's what they are.


Yes. I fail to see however what concepts are available today that would make any difference.


Why? That's an assumption.


It's not disastrous, it's just an assumption. The decisions one makes on that assumption might well be ...


The question is void, really.

OK ...


Oh dear. Are you assuming a scientific education precludes a religious belief?


I would image the claim for virgin birth was as incredible then as it is now, surely? They might not have known in forensic biological detail, but they obviously knew enough to know such an event could be considered 'miraculous'.


OK.

Still doesn't really prove your point.


Different paradigms. Each according to its own.


Indeed there are. Each has to be taken on its values.


Again that would be the argument of the paradigm in question.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

I think the point here is non-believers expect believers to give credibility to their assumptions, yet those assumptions are no firmer founded, and often less so, that the assumptions the believer holds to be true.

This seems to be spot on for the vast majority of non-believers. Some legitimately don't know or don't care what level of assumption they are allowing for their side as opposed to the other.

Take things like the virgin birth or homosexuality. We have a scientific perspective on those things. People may think that based on our understanding of reproduction, the claim for virgin birth is not a reasonable "fact" to believe in.

So you are comparing a "MIRACULOUS BIRTH" to that of an ordinary birth and saying that it is FALSE due to the fact that it is not capable of being recreated? That's the point of a MIRACLE. It stands outside the capacity of physical laws.

Today it appears that sexual orientation is not so much a choice but a predisposition that people are not responsible for.

This is a highly debated issue, I wouldn't be so quick to call "Gay from Birth" a "fact". Plenty of evidence still shows there is a possible correlation to environmental and behavioral factors in the early stages of life. And if we actually review scripture, we find that the feeling is not the sin, but rather the action. A homosexual has a choice on one, not so much on the other, whether they are born into it or it is a learned behavior.

The religious right, in particular, view homosexual acts as a terrible sins.

It is ordained as such in all Abrahamic Scriptures. Assuming there is a God, and these Books are revelations of such, Who are we to question his authority and judgement of such.

The authors of the biblical texts may have also seen homosexuality as a violation of divine law. Today, we have different concepts of what is going on.

Or they weren't concerned with the why or how it came about, but rather how they could better acknowledge and obey their creator. Again. I think the main issue with your analysis is you are assuming all the texts are constructs of man, without divine influence. This leads to many dangerous assumptions of faith in general. try being objective, look at those same issues you are bringing up in the eyes of someone who believes in a deity.

No substantive argument? What about that the ancient texts often have very different takes on ultimate reality? Different ontologies, "soteriologies", epistemologies, etc.

The problem is you are only looking in terms of differences. What about the Similarities? What about the common principles amongst any set of those religions. With exception to the non-prophetic traditions, a substantial amount of ideas are shared throughout most religions.

And besides the Bible, Quran, Vedas, Tao Te Ching, etc. there are all sorts of other ancient metaphysical texts. There are people who have not been immersed in a religious tradition who may also be seeking some form religious sentiment. What would the argument be that one in particular is true or better over-against another?

Then it is up to the individual to read and determine which is correct, or most correct, whichever their disposition lies. The Quran challenges people to find errors in it. If there is an issue, that cannot be resolved in some way, then it is not from the 1 true God. If it were a revelation from an entity which is superior to all the minds of the world combined, don't you think his revealed book might be the most accurate book ever written?

No it does not. But it can. Too many people are limited by their religious beliefs. If one does not accept the biological evidence of what makes one homosexual, for example, but goes by the religious doctrine then homosexuals can be 'cured' of their evil deeds with prayer.

While I've already addressed the first part DA, the second seems to be a big talking point for Agnostics and Atheists. While it is unlikely to "cure" homosexuality, it may help to "cure" the person from the need to fulfill those desires, and although rare, there are some accounts of it working. although these might have been coincidence, or even false antics of churches while the "cured" plays along.

Or what to make of the fact that two of the current Republicans running for President of the United States believe the world is only 6,000 years old? Can these men really make informed decisions when they have such a belief structure? Decisions that can potentially affect the entire planet? They make their decisions based on religious belief rather than scientific evidence. That can not have a good outcome.

I agree, though I fail to see how this is on topic. The scary thing is there are enough people out there trying to prove they "believe" so much that they are willing to do anything to prove it.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

There is no reason religious beliefs and scientific ones cannot exist quite comfortably together. Unfortunately there are too many examples where religious beliefs preclude scientific ones - and that is a very dangerous thing.

I agree, to the point of if one precludes the other, it is a dangerous thing. If they do not compliment each other (one says the sky is green the other blue) then one or the other must be mistaken, then comes the old proof to show which is the one that is wrong (or both)

 

[Thomas]

No it does not. But it can. Too many people are limited by their religious beliefs.

OK. But this is to do with people, not the texts. You can't blame the texts as, for nearly 2,000 years, they have been read without such limitations.

Unfortunately there are too many examples where religious beliefs preclude scientific ones - and that is a very dangerous thing.

But then we have to look where the root of the problem lies. I'm afraid such problems are largely yours. As a Brit, I don't want to make too much of this, but we do rather stand in 'fear and trembling' at what new nonsense the 'religious right' (which is in fact the neo-political right hijacking religion for its own agenda) will get up to. This is not a fault with the text, it's a fault with a reading of the text. Where I more often clash here, is I do not see the opposite position of the net-political religious left – Bishop Spong and the Jesus Seminar being prime examples – as a solution, but simply another extreme. Locally I can see they might appear as a counter-balance, but from further out, it's a different picture.

But again, this is not about the texts ...

If one does not accept the biological evidence of what makes one homosexual, for example, but goes by the religious doctrine then homosexuals can be 'cured' of their evil deeds with prayer.

That's not a doctrine of my religion, but I do take your point.

Or what to make of the fact that two of the current Republicans running for President of the United States believe the world is only 6,000 years old?

I'd like to ask why such people are not laughed off the podium, but I fear I know. We have similar problems here, although the problems stay within the remit of politics.

 

[Thomas]

Strange. First you complain about the lack of substantive arguments and then you address comments with short statements with no elaboration. Without any explications, it's impossible to understand what your arguments are.

OK. Let me say it simply: The lack of evidence is not evidence. Therefore, your initial question asks why the believer cannot accept 'substantive errors' – to which the answer is, what errors? Why is it reasonable to suggest the believer accepts there are errors, when no-one has evidenced that there are errors?

 

[Richard Pickett]

No it does not. But it can. Too many people are limited by their religious beliefs. If one does not accept the biological evidence of what makes one homosexual, for example, but goes by the religious doctrine then homosexuals can be 'cured' of their evil deeds with prayer.

Or what to make of the fact that two of the current Republicans running for President of the United States believe the world is only 6,000 years old? Can these men really make informed decisions when they have such a belief structure? Decisions that can potentially affect the entire planet? They make their decisions based on religious belief rather than scientific evidence. That can not have a good outcome.

There is no reason religious beliefs and scientific ones cannot exist quite comfortably together. Unfortunately there are too many examples where religious beliefs preclude scientific ones - and that is a very dangerous thing.

Holy smokes DA, it would seem as though there is another point where we can actually come to some sort of consensus. Religion and Science must co-exist. Could it not very well be that Science has explained Gods intent on many things?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

There is no sensible reason why religion and science cannot co-exist at ease with each other. It can be done. It should be done. Unfortunately, as you know, too many people want to throw out road blocks for any such reasonable coexistence to happen. And the flying excrement comes from both sides of the fence. Getting past the naysayers is the genuine challenge. So yes we do have a consensus on what is possible.

Your last statement I would not word the same way. For science to explain the intent of Gods one must first acknowledge what those intents are, (no simple thing as so many people seem to disagree on what those intents are depending on their brand of religion), and more to the point, acknowledge that Gods exist at all. The fact that most scientists are atheist or agnostic makes it difficult for me to agree they are confirming intent on what the majority believe are fictional creations.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

OK. But this is to do with people, not the texts. You can't blame the texts as, for nearly 2,000 years, they have been read without such limitations.

Hmmmm. Not so sure I an agree here. As the discussion is on why people trust ancient texts as accurate, how people act is determined upon how they interpret the texts. You are saying it can't be the fault of the texts if people misinterpret them - this is based on your belief that they are indeed misinterpreting the texts. They would say it is you who is doing the misinterpreting. The accuracy of the texts is accepted by both sides, but the conclusions differ greatly depending on the interpretation. This is a problem.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

But then we have to look where the root of the problem lies. I'm afraid such problems are largely yours. As a Brit, I don't want to make too much of this, but we do rather stand in 'fear and trembling' at what new nonsense the 'religious right' (which is in fact the neo-political right hijacking religion for its own agenda) will get up to.

Believe me, those of us, apparently in the minority, who see the religious BS for what it is live in much greater fear than you across the pond as we are stuck with what these whacko's decide is appropriate for our nation. Most of the rest of the world looks at us and think we have gone insane as a country. And you would be right to think so. I don't know if you can imagine how embarrassed and ashamed I am of my country, having lived for a number of generations watching the pendulum swing more and more to the conservative extreme with each passing year.