Beyond IQ (I would just phrase it as faith=low curiosity and low tolerance of alternatives) its also worth noting that translations between multiple languages basically mean its not your ancestors bible, to say the least. For example there is a case that the core of the old testament if based on a book published as The Book of J. Not only is is fairly different, the structure indicates it was written by a woman. This is all up for discussion but the religious imbecility of the word can't even entertain that is might be the true origins of their 'faith'. Sorry if I am getting a bit aggressive, don't mean to be. Here is the book if you are interested: https://www.amazon.com/Book-J-Harold-Bloom/dp/0802141919/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=Book+of+J&qid=1613950268&sr=8-3
Since you like Harold Boom.
Have you heard of "The Book of J"?
it's co-authored by Harold Bloom and really opened up the Pentateuch for me.
I read this in college. It's at least partially in the direction you want: The Book of J https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0802141919/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_WX516424ZK6H6B8AE23F
Harold Bloom's The Book of J
>since some books of the claim inspiration or divine influence (for instance, prophetic works), the question is whether they are authentic. when isaiah says that "thus says yahweh", is it the word of yahweh, or not?
Now you are moving the goal posts. That does not address the authenticity of the text's allegedly divine source (eg, "Who really painted this picture?"). Nevertheless, the answer is still the same -- there's no objective way to discern from the text whether Isaiah was speaking for God, for himself, or for someone else (assuming arguendo someone by that name actually spoke those words in the first place). You gotta have faith or go home.
>in precisely the same way that geology studied in a good university doesn't disprove the global flood of noah. there are YECs that end up with college degrees in geology, and they make very similar arguments.
Your analogy fails for at least one very basic reason: scientists have a vast range of experience with floods and similar worldly phenomena. We know what causes floods, we know what sorts of signs they leave behind, and we know that the water has to come from somewhere. To believe in a worldwide flood, you would have to ignore what we know about floods, the conservation of matter, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc. A divine text, however, lacks that basis for comparison. There are NO texts objectively confirmed to be of divine origin, so that we can compare the Bible. There's no way to objectively identify the signs of divine intervention so that we can look for them in the Bible.
You are correct that I am not a scholar of textual analysis at any detailed level. It has been years since I read "The Book of J" (a modern book about these issues) and I do not recall the details. Nevertheless, I am well aware that the Bible is a patchwork of ancient texts amending and expanding earlier texts. You and I simply fail to draw the same conclusions from those facts, because you and I do not have the same expectations from a divinely inspired text.
>you've made a claim that can't be proved -- it's not my job to disprove your unfalsifiable claim.
Absolutely NOT! I have reported my subjective faith in the divine inspiration of the Bible, but that's distinct from a claim of objective knowledge. The only claim I have made is about what I believe, not about any objective fact. YOU, on the other hand, have affirmatively claimed that the text of the Bible objectively reveals on its face a lack of divine inspiration. It's not a claim you can support, but you have insisted repeatedly that you can. You gave yourself an impossible burden of proof, but you are unable or unwilling to see that. Shifting the burden is unacceptable -- it is still yours.
> any other assumption is nonsense, for the above reason. is the text different from human texts, or isn't it? if it is, why? if it isn't, why treat it like it is?
Those are the questions YOU must answer, to meet your burden of proof. To you, they are rhetorical questions with self-evident answers, but not to me. Again, we have no text (with an objectively confirmed holy source) for comparison. Precisely how should a divinely inspired text differ from a purely human text, and can you identify any objective reason for saying so?
Without accepting an improperly placed burden of proof, let me tell you how my beliefs address those questions:
If a deity exists at all, that deity clearly insists on faith (belief without objective knowledge). I have inductively concluded that it is impossible to logically or empirically prove the existence of a deity, but that does not in itself mean a deity does not exist, nor does it affect the likelihood of a deity's existence. Unlike natural phenomena (eg, electromagnetism or gravity), our hypothetical deity is volitional -- it can decide when, how and to what extent it will act, so that it can avoid empirical detection and therefore avoid mooting faith. If a deity exists, then that deity is sufficiently wise and powerful to avoid objective proof.
If a holy book were to clearly and objectively demonstrate divine origin, then that would necessarily establish the existence of the divine and thus moot the role of faith. Your claim boils down to a complaint that God won't submit to scientific tests. We knew that already, and we also knew that faith (or its absence) is the only factor determining whether one is religious. As a corollary, faith is also the only factor determining whether one will believe a particular book is holy. There is no objective test of the text which will change this.
>"seminary" generally means "catholic" or similar groups which are generally not "fundamentalist".
English. Do YOU speak it? Many, many protestant pastors graduate from protestant seminaries. While some may very well drop out and abandon their faith, that is a personal decision, the reasons for which you can only speculate about.
>>I have no reason to challenge the holy texts of other religions.
>so you accept that they are divinely inspired as well?
Really, are we even communicating? I meant what I said. Those other holy books might be divinely inspired or they might not -- I do not have an opinion.
>have you every considered the idea that you might be christian simply out of ignorance (or apathy) towards other religions which you think may or may not be valid? and that this might be worth looking into?
Of course. I'm Christian because I was reared that way and because my faith works for me. When my faith is stronger, I experience greater hope, love, joy, peace, strength, courage and compassion. Even if that's just a placebo effect (there's no way to objectively know), it is still an effect. I would be an irrational fool to risk losing it for no good reason.
>what makes the bible any different?
The Bible is the one that helps me, and that is enough of a difference for me.