| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/13/2010 01:38:10 PM · #251 |
Edited.
You've seen the questions.
Message edited by author 2010-09-13 13:51:26. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 01:45:22 PM · #252 |
| Just a friendly caution that it can sometimes be construed as baiting, and therefore poor form, to continually ask a question that goes unanswered. Nobody is obligated to answer (and silence is sometimes an excellent answer). |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 01:48:52 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Just a friendly caution that it can sometimes be construed as baiting, and therefore poor form, to continually ask a question that goes unanswered. Nobody is obligated to answer (and silence is sometimes an excellent answer). |
Too right... I shouldn't. But strawman arguments piss me off :) |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 05:39:25 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
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. |
I'm probably not the best person to ask. I love history, and I love studying history, so I can't give you a good reason why 99% of human history should be thrown out.
Originally posted by Louis:
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. |
How about a bunch of examples?
In the case of Matthew 12:47 specifically, you will notice that the verse can be found in the New International Version but it is not present in the English Standard Version which is a newer and more accurate version. Also note, that none of the "errors" listed on that website affect or call into question any doctrine of Christianity. The same Gospel message and basic tenants of Christianity are affirmed regardless of what translation or version you look at. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 06:44:12 PM · #255 |
Wow. That's an entertaining source, but hardly a credible one. As far as credentials, we find that this man is married to Josie, has three kids, lives in the land of Oz, and works at a circuit design company. He even offers a good example of a tautological fallacy, which we've recently discussed. No surprises, I suppose. If we are relying on this kind of authority for the relevance of our textual criticism, may I suggest that we consult a local Chinese restaurant I know for the worthiness of Confucian aphorisms as they apply to I Ching, since their menu is brimming with pithy quotes.
You previously claimed that "the errors, additions, and changes are significant" and once identified, were "thrown out". You have now reversed yourself by saying that "none of the 'errors' [quotation yours, as if to lessen the impact of the word 'error'] listed on that website affect or call into question any doctrine of Christianity". Also, you have not demonstrated anything that has been "thrown out" of the bible. To do so, you would need to provide passages that are not found in any existing version of the bible.
At any rate, to take an example of this person's so-called scholarship, he claims parallels of the entirety of Mark 16:9ff in other places in the new testament, oblivious to the fact that the books in question (e.g. John) were authored long after 16:9 was appended. As another example, it is a tautology to say that Christian doctrine is derived from the new testament, and that evidence of Jesus' resurrection does not need to be shown in Mark in order for Christian doctrine to remain unscathed, because the new testament shows evidence of Jesus' resurrection. Even leaving all this aside, his logic is scurrilous, his scholarship non-existent.
You should read a real textual critic's work, not the weekend musings of a dilettante. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 06:47:18 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm probably not the best person to ask. I love history, and I love studying history, so I can't give you a good reason why 99% of human history should be thrown out.
|
Wow... You think that because we examine it that we would need to "throw it out"? That would seem to indicate that you have no faith in the accuracy of history..
And to be clear the original statement was:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
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. |
And, aside from that, seriously, do you think 99% of what we understand about human history really comes from historical texts? Seems to me that archaeology has provided more than 1% of what we know... Then again, what do I know- I only studied archaeology in college and worked at several sites. (granted Chaco culture had jack-crap to do with the bible.) |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 08:10:18 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Wow. That's an entertaining source, but hardly a credible one. As far as credentials, we find that this man is married to Josie, has three kids, lives in the land of Oz, and works at a circuit design company. He even offers a good example of a tautological fallacy, which we've recently discussed. No surprises, I suppose. If we are relying on this kind of authority for the relevance of our textual criticism, may I suggest that we consult a local Chinese restaurant I know for the worthiness of Confucian aphorisms as they apply to I Ching, since their menu is brimming with pithy quotes. |
You asked for examples of text that have been removed from the Bible. This guy does so by referencing the USB4, which is one of the standard Greek texts used by scholars and is the product of hundreds of years and thousands upon thousands of hours of work. If you don't trust this guy, then go check out the USB4 or the NA27 and compare it to earlier Greek New Testaments like the USB2 and see the corrections for yourself. Before you begin your aimless criticism, why don't you think about what I'm trying to show and then ask yourself if the website I linked is suitable. I wouldn't expect you to quote Dawkins if I asked for a simple example. In all seriousness, just compare the USB4 or NA27 to an older Greek text if you don't believe me (or him).
Originally posted by Louis:
You previously claimed that "the errors, additions, and changes are significant" and once identified, were "thrown out". You have now reversed yourself by saying that "none of the 'errors' [quotation yours, as if to lessen the impact of the word 'error'] listed on that website affect or call into question any doctrine of Christianity". |
First of all, a significant difference can be situation where two completely different verbs are used such as "washed" and "saved". That is considered a significant difference in textual criticism. However, that one word might not change the meaning of the entire sentence. I.e. "Jesus washed away my sins" or "Jesus saved me from my sins" (note this is not an actual example from the Bible, just a demonstration). When you consider the fact that each doctrine is supported by numerous passages of Scripture, it makes sense that one "significant difference" would not affect the doctrine. No doctrine of Christianity rests on one single verse. Even if there is uncertainty about one verse, the doctrine still stands on the bases of many other verses.
Originally posted by Louis:
Also, you have not demonstrated anything that has been "thrown out" of the bible. To do so, you would need to provide passages that are not found in any existing version of the bible. |
Okay... let's think about this. If error X was discovered in 1985, then only those Bible translations published after 1985 would have the error removed. All those Bibles published prior to 1985 would still include the error. I know this is the digital age, but "updates" don't just magically appear from printed books. This is why there such a thing as editions, so publishers can correct errors that are found.
Originally posted by Louis:
At any rate, to take an example of this person's so-called scholarship, he claims parallels of the entirety of Mark 16:9ff in other places in the new testament, oblivious to the fact that the books in question (e.g. John) were authored long after 16:9 was appended. |
Mark was the first of the four Gospels to be written, and it is a well known fact that Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel as a template when writing their Gospels, which is why there are parallels of the entirety of Mark in Matthew and Luke. Go read about the Synoptic Problem. There are parallels with John (though not as many) because it's the same story, and same events that are being reported.
Originally posted by Louis:
As another example, it is a tautology to say that Christian doctrine is derived from the new testament, and that evidence of Jesus' resurrection does not need to be shown in Mark in order for Christian doctrine to remain unscathed, because the new testament shows evidence of Jesus' resurrection. |
You could easily remove any one of the Gospels without destroying Christian doctrine. No one doctrine relies solely on one single book of the Bible, or one verse. Since the Bible is one unit, major themes run throughout, from start to finish.
Originally posted by Louis:
You should read a real textual critic's work, not the weekend musings of a dilettante. |
Ditto.
I'm done arguing with you on this Louis. You are a great debater, but sometimes you're obviously being overly particular for no apparent reason. I just don't have the time to respond to pointless criticism. You know the website I linked is not a major authority on textual criticism, so I see no reason why you need to pick apart the website. If you're truly interested in textual criticism, and you don't like the information I give you, then go read a book. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 08:42:39 PM · #258 |
Only one response needed: if you didn't want your source to be examined, you shouldn't have provided it. It was my duty to criticize it.
I'm pretty familiar with the scholarship, the sources, their age, and all the rest of it. It's usually a mistake to presume you know the extent of anybody's knowledge. For example, I never questioned yours (until you presented your source, that is).
I have no quarrel with the sources. I only dispute the application of the sources to uphold ideology, which is where your guy fails. Sorry, but that's neither science nor scholarship.
About the distinction of "significant" and "insignificant" features and your definition of them in relation to doctrine: you're moving the goalposts to suit your argument. Fallacy. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 09:01:27 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by Louis:
About the distinction of "significant" and "insignificant" features and your definition of them in relation to doctrine: you're moving the goalposts to suit your argument. Fallacy. |
When I discussed significant and insignificant above I was referring to issues of textual criticism and not issues of theology. Thus, a variant in readings of two different manuscripts can be classified as "significant" by a textual critic, but could be "insignificant" to a theologian. For example one manuscript might read "washed" and another might read "saved" which a textual critic would probably call a significant difference. However, if the overall meaning of the sentence is unchanged, then a theologian would probably call it insignificant. I'm not moving any goalposts. I'm saying a significant error in the text might be insignificant in theology. If you don't believe me then read a book on textual criticism. Many of them explain what is classified as a significant error.
Message edited by author 2010-09-13 21:03:30. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 09:22:05 PM · #260 |
Some of these arguments are old dogs that won't hunt.
The argument that somehow the resurrection was "invented" later because it does not explicitly show up in Mark are weak. If we take Mark to be the earliest gospel we must not forget "Q" which, one can interpolate has the resurrection story and must have been written before Matthew and Luke. Also, Paul's early epistles are earlier than Mark and they refer to the resurrection many times. In fact, Paul appears to quote gospels at a few occasions and that would imply earlier gospels than Mark (or an earlier date for Mark).
BTW, You guys are butchering the term "tautology"... |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 09:33:20 PM · #261 |
Tautology has more than one meaning. But feel free to correct me, I enjoy learning new things.
I was not disputing the existence of the doctrine of the resurrection in the nt. Isn't that kind of foolish? Self-referencing authorities are not authorities; that was one point I was making, because jp brought up errors not affecting doctrine without anyone's help.
"Q" is considered a book of Jesus quotes if I remember correctly, and would probably not have "accounts" like the resurrection. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 09:46:12 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Tautology has more than one meaning. But feel free to correct me, I enjoy learning new things.
I was not disputing the existence of the doctrine of the resurrection in the nt. Isn't that kind of foolish? Self-referencing authorities are not authorities; that was one point I was making, because jp brought up errors not affecting doctrine without anyone's help.
"Q" is considered a book of Jesus quotes if I remember correctly, and would probably not have "accounts" like the resurrection. |
"Q" stand for the german word for "source" (I forget what it is). And while I think I've heard someone speculate it was a quotes book, I'm not sure how we'd know that since we don't have it.
Thanks for clearing it up about the resurrection. There are some crazy arguments going on here so I'm not sure what is being argued anymore.
So in the self-referential authority thing, would the Constitution be "authoritative"?
Message edited by author 2010-09-13 21:46:45. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 09:59:32 PM · #263 |
| "Quelle" -- I'm a Kraut, remember? :P The speculation about a book of quotes comes from what Is similar in the books that used it as a source, and from precedent in other ancient sources for such works. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 10:09:39 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by Louis:
"Quelle" -- I'm a Kraut, remember? :P |
I thought you were a hoser! ;-P |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 10:21:52 PM · #265 |
| You can be both Kraut and Canuck. Kanuck? Krauser? |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 10:33:45 PM · #266 |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 10:40:55 PM · #267 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we take Mark to be the earliest gospel we must not forget "Q" which, one can interpolate has the resurrection story and must have been written before Matthew and Luke. |
And what do you think Q might have been? History? Aphorisms a la Thomas, or something more...dramatic and entertaining, perhaps? ;-) |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 10:45:38 PM · #268 |
| Just to sow it up, Thomas isn't considered by any scholar to be a source for or of Q. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 10:47:39 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Just to sow it up, Thomas isn't considered by any scholar to be a source for or of Q. |
Ian Fleming is. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 10:49:26 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Just to sow it up, Thomas isn't considered by any scholar to be a source for or of Q. |
Right, thus the a la part.
edit: Dug this one up, though...
Message edited by author 2010-09-13 22:56:09. |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 11:06:24 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
Just to sow it up, Thomas isn't considered by any scholar to be a source for or of Q. |
Ian Fleming is. |
I can't believe I had to think about that for a minute. :P |
|
|
|
09/13/2010 11:07:32 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by Louis:
Just to sow it up, Thomas isn't considered by any scholar to be a source for or of Q. |
Right, thus the a la part.
edit: Dug this one up, though... |
oopsie... coolio! |
|
|
|
09/14/2010 02:10:47 PM · #273 |
Well the Qur'an burning pastor should be sent to Kashmir. His political stunt could costs lives.
Blowback from Florida pastor hits Christians in Kashmir
|
|
|
|
09/15/2010 12:06:14 PM · #274 |
|
|
|
09/15/2010 03:04:05 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by Article:
Yogendra Pathak, 44, has been charged with fraud under $5,000 and pretending to practice witchcraft. |
Odd, if he was really practice witchcraft, would he still be arrested? Also, how can you pretend to practice witchcraft?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 04:55:01 PM EDT.
