| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/13/2010 01:44:38 AM · #226 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
None of the scriptures exist as originally written. |
Not 100%, but upwards of 90% of our Greek and Hebrew texts today are as they originally were written. No major Christian doctrine is called into question based on the remaining uncertainties, which occur at the rate of about 1 in 1000 words.
Originally posted by scalvert:
All of the earliest known texts had already been subject to interpretation, translation, revision, etc. |
Which is why textual criticism has been around for the last couple hundred years. If you didn't already know, textual criticism is a very precise science that is applied to all ancient texts, not just the Bible. But no ancient can be interpreted with the same level of certainty as the Bible, thanks to the plethora of extant manuscripts. In fact, there is more certainty regarding what the biblical texts originally said than there is regarding what Shakespeare's works originally said. If the Bible is to be deemed inaccurate, then the vast majority of texts written before the invention of the printing press would be inaccurate on the same basis, which would essentially call into question 99% of human history as we understand it.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The only branch of Christianity (not evangelical) that believes their English translation is infallible is the Catholic church, which uses the King James Version. |
Belief in biblical inerrancy by group (yet endorsing different Bibles):
Pentecostal / Foursquare: 81%
Assembly of God: 77%
Christian, non-denominational (mostly Fundamentalist) 70%
Baptist: 66%
Seventh-day Adventist: 64%
Church of Christ: 57% [/quote]
In regards to the Bible, inerrancy is not the same as infallibility. You're thesaurus might tell you otherwise, but in Christian circles inerrant means "without error", while infallible means "contains errors but is reliable in matters of faith". More Christians believe the Bible is infallible than inerrant.
ETA: I pointed this out because my statement was in regards to infallibility, while your poll represents the number of Christians that believe in inerrancy. If you found a poll for the number of Christians that believe in infallibility, the numbers would probably be higher.
Message edited by author 2010-09-13 01:51:50. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 01:48:52 AM · #227 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... which would essentially call into question 99% of human history as we understand it.
... |
This is undesirable? You don't sound like much of a philosopher to me...... |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 01:53:23 AM · #228 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... which would essentially call into question 99% of human history as we understand it.
... |
This is undesirable? You don't sound like much of a philosopher to me...... |
If you forget history you will repeat your mistakes. I would prefer not to have another Holocaust, World War, or 9/11. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 01:55:09 AM · #229 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If this whole thread isn't a joke, then I'm not sure what it is... |
What it is Doc, is a reflection of the religious intolerance exhibited by some zealots that live in this world. Sad, but nonetheless true.
Ray |
Come down to earth Ray. You don't make such a point by offering to burn a Bible. The other thread is doing a much better job of discussing it. This thread is the freak show. |
Nice to see you are still contributing to the freak show Doc...mind you you did manage to put a different spin on it. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 01:55:35 AM · #230 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In regards to the Bible, inerrancy is not the same as infallibility. You're thesaurus might tell you otherwise, but in Christian circles inerrant means "without error", while infallible means "contains errors but is reliable in matters of faith". More Christians believe the Bible is infallible than inerrant. |
Of course... It's a much more defensible position.....
Applied Optics (1972, 11 A14)
The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads,
Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days.
Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation
(H/E)4 = 50
where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300°K (273+27). This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798° absolute (525°C).
The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6°C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is 444.6°C. (Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)
We have then, temperature of heaven, 525°C. Temperature of hell, less than 445°C. Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.
....
but of course there is a refutation as well... It however assumes that souls are made of a gaseous form of matter and, therefore, occupy space... |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 01:56:21 AM · #231 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... which would essentially call into question 99% of human history as we understand it.
... |
This is undesirable? You don't sound like much of a philosopher to me...... |
If you forget history you will repeat your mistakes. I would prefer not to have another Holocaust, World War, or 9/11. |
Strawman... |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 04:43:18 AM · #232 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In regards to the Bible, inerrancy is not the same as infallibility. You're thesaurus might tell you otherwise, but in Christian circles inerrant means "without error", while infallible means "contains errors but is reliable in matters of faith". More Christians believe the Bible is infallible than inerrant. |
How much trust do you put in the text of the Koran? - Do you believe any of it?
|
|
|
|
09/13/2010 09:49:29 AM · #233 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
We have then, temperature of heaven, 525°C. Temperature of hell, less than 445°C. Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.
....
but of course there is a refutation as well... It however assumes that souls are made of a gaseous form of matter and, therefore, occupy space... |
Oh, so you think heaven and hell are physical locations in the universe?
Originally posted by JH:
]
How much trust do you put in the text of the Koran? - Do you believe any of it? |
Zero and no. I'm not multi-religious. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 09:54:10 AM · #234 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by JH:
How much trust do you put in the text of the Koran? - Do you believe any of it? |
Zero and no. I'm not multi-religious. |
But what about the 1,500,000,000 people who do put their trust in the koran and believe it. Are they all wrong?
And how do you know your book is right, and theirs is wrong? - Have you compared the two? In fact, how do you know you picked the right religion? In fact, did you even pick your religion, or were you born to a Christian family, and just went along with it? |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 09:59:55 AM · #235 |
Originally posted by JH:
But what about the 1,500,000,000 people who do put their trust in the koran and believe it. Are they all wrong?
And how do you know your book is right, and theirs is wrong? - Have you compared the two? In fact, how do you know you picked the right religion? In fact, did you even pick your religion, or were you born to a Christian family, and just went along with it? |
I would prefer to answer questions like that in a PM, rather than in a public forum. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 11:25:44 AM · #236 |
Who wrote the bible(Qur'an)? How do you know? Should you trust it/them?
@johnny, please also address your previous strawman in a more appropriate fashion. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 11:26:37 AM · #237 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... which would essentially call into question 99% of human history as we understand it.
... |
This is undesirable? You don't sound like much of a philosopher to me...... |
If you forget history you will repeat your mistakes. I would prefer not to have another Holocaust, World War, or 9/11. |
|
|
|
|
09/13/2010 11:30:44 AM · #238 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Not 100%, but upwards of 90% of our Greek and Hebrew texts today are as they originally were written. No major Christian doctrine is called into question based on the remaining uncertainties, which occur at the rate of about 1 in 1000 words. |
ALL of the original manuscripts have been lost, therefore it is impossible know how they were originally written. At best, you can only claim accuracy to the earliest Greek and Hebrew copies, NONE of which were the originals, and there have been meaningful changes from those to modern bibles.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If you didn't already know, textual criticism is a very precise science that is applied to all ancient texts, not just the Bible. |
You must be new here. We've gone over textual criticism in many of these threads demonstrating errors, additions and changes in the bible. They are hardly insignificant.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
...in Christian circles inerrant means "without error", while infallible means "contains errors but is reliable in matters of faith". More Christians believe the Bible is infallible than inerrant. |
More Muslims believe the Koran is infallible than Christians do the Bible. So?
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by JH:
How much trust do you put in the text of the Koran? - Do you believe any of it? |
Zero and no. I'm not multi-religious. |
You don't believe any of it, yet they share much of the same material? |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 12:02:17 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The only branch of Christianity (not evangelical) that believes their English translation is infallible is the Catholic church, which uses the King James Version. |
Sorry jonnyphoto, but you have it wrong. You'll have to check on the history of the King James Version, but it's not that big with Catholics (too many thou's and thee's if you ask me). We use the Revised Standard Version (RSV) during mass.
Also, it's not the bible that's infallible, but the interpretation that is infallible. Remember, we have the Magisterium of the Church that's infallible as in Matthew 16. Otherwise, anybody with a bible and a room can call him/her self a minister and start preaching their interpretation as truth.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2010 12:23:23 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But no matter what you say or believe, proselytization and preaching are not always (or even usually) the same thing, and the distinction is a valid and valuable one. |
Equivocation fallacy. You're arguing from a different definition of preach...
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Christians are called to preach the Gospel. They are not called to force people to abandon their beliefs and believe the Gospel. That only happens by an individual's choosing, and by the grace of God. |
Merriam-Webster definitions for preach:
1. to deliver a sermon
2: to urge acceptance or abandonment of a course of action or idea
So is Johnny saying Christians are called upon to deliver a sermon or to urge acceptance? If only the former, then the message would be limited to themselves. Nobody else would know they were required to have faith in Jesus for salvation and the Jesus cult would have died out long ago. If it's the latter, then we're talking about preaching in terms of actively trying to persuade others to join the cause (the purpose of missionaries)— recruitment. This meaning is totally synonymous with proselytization, which also does not involve force and only happens by an individual's choosing. If the words were not synonymous, they would not be found together in so many thesauri (often as the first match or definition).
Message edited by author 2010-09-13 12:24:01. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 12:27:09 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But no matter what you say or believe, proselytization and preaching are not always (or even usually) the same thing, and the distinction is a valid and valuable one. |
Equivocation fallacy. You're arguing from a different definition of preach...
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Christians are called to preach the Gospel. They are not called to force people to abandon their beliefs and believe the Gospel. That only happens by an individual's choosing, and by the grace of God. |
Merriam-Webster definitions for preach:
1. to deliver a sermon
2: to urge acceptance or abandonment of a course of action or idea
So is Johnny saying Christians are called upon to deliver a sermon or to urge acceptance? If only the former, then the message would be limited to themselves. Nobody else would know they were required to have faith in Jesus for salvation and the Jesus cult would have died out long ago. If it's the latter, then we're talking about preaching in terms of actively trying to persuade others to join the cause (the purpose of missionaries)— recruitment. This meaning is totally synonymous with proselytization, which also does not involve force and only happens by an individual's choosing. If the words were not synonymous, they would not be found together in so many thesauri (often as the first match or definition). |
Damn dude, even I know the difference here. You're so full of it on this one.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2010 12:31:06 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But no matter what you say or believe, proselytization and preaching are not always (or even usually) the same thing, and the distinction is a valid and valuable one. |
Equivocation fallacy. You're arguing from a different definition of preach... |
You're preaching to the converted, Shannon. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 12:38:19 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
ALL of the original manuscripts have been lost, therefore it is impossible know how they were originally written. At best, you can only claim accuracy to the earliest Greek and Hebrew copies, NONE of which were the originals, and there have been meaningful changes from those to modern bibles. |
A common misconception. We can know what the original manuscripts said with great certainty thanks to hundreds of years of textual criticism. Textual criticism is a precise science, and it works very well. Textual criticism is able to recognize those "meaningful" changes and eliminate them. We know the Bible better today than 2nd century Christians did.
Originally posted by scalvert:
You must be new here. We've gone over textual criticism in many of these threads demonstrating errors, additions and changes in the bible. They are hardly insignificant. |
The errors, additions, and changes are significant, which is why it is really great that textual criticism allows us to identify them and eliminate them so that the original text can be restored. Do you realize that once those errors are identified they are thrown out? It would be silly to keep them. Advancements in textual criticism and biblical archaeology allow us to understand the original text of the Bible more accurately all the time. This is why updated translations are published every couple decades. You might think the many different translations of the Bible show how inaccurate it is, and how many different interpretations there are. This thinking is false. Many translations are simply updated versions of earlier translations that take into account the latest and most accurate textual criticism. For example, the English Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version are both updates of the Revised Standard Version, which is an update of the American Standard Version. The New American Standard Bible was also derived from the American Standard Version. Needless to say, there are more similarities than differences. The King James and New King James are very different at times because they originate from the Greek texts that were available 400 years ago, and they have not been updated to take into consider newly discovered manuscripts or recent developments in textual criticism. The paraphrase translations (NLT, The Message, etc.) are very different, because they are written to be fluid and natural to the average English reader, rather than being translation literally word for word. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 12:39:33 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Damn dude, even I know the difference here. You're so full of it on this one. |
Then add it to david_c's list as #301.
Originally posted by JH:
You're preaching to the converted, Shannon. |
;-) |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 12:45:41 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The errors, additions, and changes are significant... Do you realize that once those errors are identified they are thrown out? |
Let's have an example. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 12:48:07 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The only branch of Christianity (not evangelical) that believes their English translation is infallible is the Catholic church, which uses the King James Version. |
Sorry jonnyphoto, but you have it wrong. You'll have to check on the history of the King James Version, but it's not that big with Catholics (too many thou's and thee's if you ask me). We use the Revised Standard Version (RSV) during mass.
Also, it's not the bible that's infallible, but the interpretation that is infallible. Remember, we have the Magisterium of the Church that's infallible as in Matthew 16. Otherwise, anybody with a bible and a room can call him/her self a minister and start preaching their interpretation as truth. |
That's what I was trying to say. Catholics view the interpretation as infallible, rather than the actual original Biblical text as God revealed it. I will give the Catholic Church credit though, they do emphasize and encourage the study of Scripture more than they used to, but they still rely heavily on the Church's historical interpretation of the Bible. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 12:49:48 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
We can know what the original manuscripts said with great certainty thanks to hundreds of years of textual criticism. Textual criticism is a precise science, and it works very well. Textual criticism is able to recognize those "meaningful" changes and eliminate them... The errors, additions, and changes are significant, which is why it is really great that textual criticism allows us to identify them and eliminate them so that the original text can be restored. Do you realize that once those errors are identified they are thrown out? It would be silly to keep them. |
You mean like THIS and THIS? Have those sections been thrown out of the bibles you referenced? I didn't check. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 12:58:01 PM · #248 |
| I wanted him to cite those. :( |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 01:05:40 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I wanted him to cite those. :( |
Sorry, I was writing when you posted. Not to worry, though, there are many more. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 01:22:09 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
We know the Bible better today than 2nd century Christians did. |
Considering there was no bible (as you know it today) in the 2nd century CE, I'd say...yeah, you're right. :D |
|
