Is the bible racist?

Jan 2019
297
Montreal, QC
You presented it it very lucidly thank you, with the erudition of a theology scholar! A pleasure to read.

Re the Oral Torah, I would suggest this article on Chabad.org-
What is the "Oral Torah"?
The Oral Torah was eventually committed to writing around 200CE as the Mishnah (which with the debates upon it by scholars in the Gemara forms the Talmud.)
Thank you very much! Sometimes it's hard to keep one's cool on the Internet, especially in discussion forums, but I'm glad someone got something out of it.

Marvelous, thanks for the link. I look forward to reading that a bit later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: benzev
Feb 2011
1,091
Scotland
Thank you very much! Sometimes it's hard to keep one's cool on the Internet, especially in discussion forums, but I'm glad someone got something out of it.

Marvelous, thanks for the link. I look forward to reading that a bit later.
Yes, thank you- it's nice to see your views and learning nicely laid out and easily comprehensible even for a layman; definitely worthwhile to explain and also always a great thing to keep cool! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cepheus

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
FROM THE HISTORUM POSTING GUIDE:

I just finished telling you the three basic requirements that conversation must meet if it is going to become discussion, that is profitable for learning. I would like to give you some of the rules that we have to observe to make discussion profitable in this way. These rules fall into two large groups: first, a set of rules governing the use of your mind in discussion; second, a set of rules governing the control of your emotions in discussion.

The five "intellectual" rules:

  1. Be relevant, which means "find out what the issue is and stick to it." Divide the issue into its parts; every complex issue has parts, and move along from one part to another.
  2. Don't take things for granted. State your assumptions and see if you can get the other participants to state theirs. Make an effort to find out what the other person's assumptions are.
  3. Try to avoid arguing fallaciously. Don't cite authority as if they were conclusions. Don't argue ad hominem -- that means, don't argue against the person as opposed to against the point. Don't say to the other person, "Oh, that's the kind of thing Republicans say or Democrats say or Socialists say," as if calling it by that kind of name necessarily proves it wrong. That is a terrible fallacy of guilt by association.
  4. Don't agree or disagree with the other person until you understand what that person has said. This rule requires you in the course of discussion to say to the other person, "Now let me see if I can say in my own words what you have just said." And then having done that, you turn to them and say, "Is that what you mean?" And if they say, "Yes, it is; that's exactly what I mean," then you are for the first time privileged to say, "I agree with you," or "I disagree with you," and not one moment sooner.
  5. If, after understanding the other person, you do disagree, state your disagreement specifically and give reasons why. You can tell the other person what is wrong with their argument in four very sharp, specific ways. You can say: 1) "You are uninformed of certain relevant facts and I will show you what they are." 2) "You are misinformed. Some of the things you think are relevant facts aren't facts at all, and I will show you why they are not." 3) "You are mistaken in your reasoning and I will show you the mistakes that you have made." 4) "You don't carry your reasoning far enough. There is more to say than you have said and I will tell you what it is." These are all very polite and much to the point.

https://historum.com/threads/on-posting-a-guide.46025/#post-13470

post #1 (highlighting and underlining are mine)



Edited: removed all my comments.
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,272
Caribbean
Since this is in the Historum posting guide I wonder if we can use it ?
I won't discuss the issue of Biblical Racism, but I will comment on discussion by posing the question of - who is willing to apply the usual rules to this book in particular.

For analogy, suppose someone where to ask about the writings of Von Clausewitz. There would be two aspects of discussion.
1. What did VC say and mean?
2. Critical review - was VC right or wrong; applicable, etc.

How could any discussion of the Bible proceed to number 2, when most resist doggedly that number 1 is possible to determine? This was posted. "Congratulations you have managed to accomplish something two thousand years of theological study has failed to do."

The Bible is unknowable? You linked to fallacies. So, generically, can you identify the inherent fallacy of the quoted claim - though, I'd call it more of a paradox than a fallacy.
 
Last edited:

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
For analogy, suppose someone where to ask about the writings of Von Clausewitz. There would be two aspects of discussion.
1. What did VC say and mean?
2. Critical review - was VC right or wrong; applicable, etc.

How could any discussion of the Bible proceed to number 2, when most resist doggedly that number 1 is possible to determine?
It all depends on what we can support and the evidence we have. We cannot make claims without some support to back them up. How well do our claims support our conclusions? Nothing else really matters.

From a historians perspective, our job should be to understand to the best of our ability what VE meant. He could only be "right" or "wrong" in our POV in regard to the evidence or support for the conclusion that we make.

As a historian we perform an exegesis on VC's comments, provide our evidence and set up our syllogism (argument). The important part is that we show how we developed our argument so that our readers can see if our argument is sound or unsound, valid or invalid.

However, logic is not interested in right or wrong.

Logic, is just looking for sound/unsound or valid/invalid statements. IOW, how good is our reasoning when we look at our premises (claims) in regard to our conclusion.

So, the assumption that an exegesis has to explain whether something is right or wrong is false.

Biblical exegesis explores the history, possible meanings and other variables related to trying to understand what is going on. The person making the exegesis must "show their work" for the reader to determine if the proposition put forth is sound or unsound, valid or invalid.

This takes several tools. Mainly a syllogism. The syllogism is basically the argument deconstructed. IOW, how is the CONCLUSION or PROPOSITION being made relatable to the PREMISES found in the syllogism.

Generally, the first thing I do when reading a comment is to identify the conclusion or proposition so that I can start looking for the premises.

Usually arguments are not well formed and the premises are unclear. So then I have to identify the conjunction or disjunction in the statement. This is where you see me asking "right ?". I am trying to sort exactly what you are saying by asking if my understanding is true or false. This is the boring part of logic. This aspect of logic is commonly known as logic tables or truth tables.

#1 What VC said will be subject to our conclusion based on our premises.

#2 VC can only be "right" or "wrong" or applicable to a specific thing. We can apply our conclusion from #1, again in the form of a argument (syllogism) where we make our premises and conclusion. Our work, evidence should be available to everyone so that they can judge for themselves if our argument is valid / invalid, sound / unsound.

Further, if we don't have enough information or evidence then we may not be able to fully thrash out #1 or #2.

We are helped or hindered due to our ability to make premises that we can support and how well we are able to tie (conjunction) those premises to our conclusion.
 
Last edited:

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
The Bible is unknowable? You linked to fallacies. So, generically, can you identify the inherent fallacy of the quoted claim - though, I'd call it more of a paradox than a fallacy.
I see multiple unsupported claims on your part here. I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just trying to point out the issues here from a logic perspective.

For example:

Why is there an inherent fallacy involved here ?

Why is there a paradox involved ?

What does it mean when you say "the Bible is unknowable"? This does not even make sense from a logical perspective. It is like a syllogism that only has one premise and is missing another premise and a conclusion. However, it is in the same sentence as, what seems to me to be, unsupported claims. How does this all this fit in together ? See what I am wondering here?

Again, I am not being rude. I am just showing how I use the boring and tedious application of logic to evaluate your comments.

Now, by method, I am going to ask you if I am right. This is where I go "right"? I am looking to see if the disjunction I THINK I see is true or false.

This is your cue to either acknowledge an incomplete argument OR you will identify the components of the argument that are there and that I have missed.

Please don't take any of this as personal. It is simple how logic analysis work when comments are being made that are unclear are seem to be not logical.

Further, it is best to do all of this work BEFORE we can even start to claim a fallacy. Some fallacies are very obvious, but, at other times the statements can be very tricky to figure out.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,272
Caribbean
Why is there a paradox involved ?
I don't see anything rude in that question.

The claim was that for 2,000 years, no one has figured out the book. To find the paradox, one would have to answer the question - what would someone have to know, in order for that assessment to be correct?

The paradox may be easier to find by making the question less abstract. So, suppose you are a math teacher. You tell the class, no one answered the question correctly. What one thing must you know for your assessment to be valid?

However, logic is not interested in right or wrong.
That sounds like pathetic fallacy. Logic is a tool. A hammer has no "interest" in nails. Logic is also a tool. It tells you if you are using the hammer correctly, or backwards. And that transitions nicely to...

This takes several tools. Mainly a syllogism. The syllogism is basically the argument deconstructed. IOW, how is the CONCLUSION or PROPOSITION being made relatable to the PREMISES found in the syllogism.
Syllogisms are deduction. Most of what goes on here is induction. That is, forming generalizations from pieces of evidence. The very question of the OP calls for generalization.

A text book will tell you that induction may be weak or strong, but in my view, it is always weak - because it is never proof. All your premises could be correct and your conclusion can still be wrong. Every inductive argument is subject to criticism. Induction is more useful for ruling out the worst generalizations.

FWIW, it is much better to be able to use common sense then it is to know than the terminology used to try to explain it.

So, it sounded to me like you don't agree with my generalization that discussion involving the Bible are discernibly different than discussions of Clausewitz?
And by that I mean in ways that Clausewitz is not significantly different than Machiavelli.
 
Last edited:

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
I don't see anything rude in that question.

The claim was that for 2,000 years, no one has figured out the book. To find the paradox, one would have to answer the question - what would someone have to know, in order for that assessment to be correct?

The paradox may be easier to find by making the question less abstract. So, suppose you are a math teacher. You tell the class, no one answered the question correctly. What one thing must you know for your assessment to be valid?

That sounds like pathetic fallacy. Logic is a tool. A hammer has no "interest" in nails. Logic is also a tool. It tells you if you are using the hammer correctly, or backwards. And that transitions nicely to...

Syllogisms are deduction. Most of what goes on here is induction. That is, forming generalizations from pieces of evidence. The very question of the OP calls for generalization.

A text book will tell you that induction may be weak or strong, but in my view, it is always weak - because it is never proof. All your premises could be correct and your conclusion can still be wrong. Every inductive argument is subject to criticism. Induction is more useful for ruling out the worst generalizations.

FWIW, it is much better to be able to use common sense then it is to know than the terminology used to try to explain it.

So, it sounded to me like you don't agree with my generalization that discussion involving the Bible are discernibly different than discussions of Clausewitz?
And by that I mean in ways that Clausewitz is not significantly different than Machiavelli.
I can't help you.

Good luck in all your endeavors.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,551
Republika Srpska
The claim was that for 2,000 years, no one has figured out the book. To find the paradox, one would have to answer the question - what would someone have to know, in order for that assessment to be correct?
But is there a 100% correct assessment of the Bible? It can be interpreted in many different ways and in fact is.