Science and Theology, the sequel

02/11/2010 07:38:47 PM · #1051

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

This is likely true, if you are talking about English translations of the Bible. I would have no problem believing that there are more recent translations that are more accurate to the source texts - being better informed that prior translations because of ongoing scholarly research on the subject and modern archeological finds of either further source material or other illuminating texts.

So......you're saying that there are a fair amount of erroneous texts/transcriptions floating around that people lived by for centuries?

How erroneous? Are these people's faith & beliefs called into question because maybe they didn't have the correct text?

How do we know that even further study won't bring more of these errors into the light?

What is the current correct version? Whose opinion on that do I believe?

Message edited by author 2010-02-11 19:39:11.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/11/2010 07:59:28 PM · #1052

I think it's deja vu, all over again. We've had this conversation before. Check this quote and the link. It will give you all the info you are looking for Jeb.

If you want a different point of view than your source above, check out this paper. Admittedly it is presented on a Christian website, BUT it is cited and sourced. As an example for the reliability of the text of the new testament, we can see below the % of words in each book that have complete agreement among the seven major greek editions of the NT.

(% of words in agreement/ avg # of variances per page)
Matthew 59.9 / 6.8
Mark 45.1 / 10.3
Luke 57.2 / 6.9
John 51.8 / 8.5
Acts 67.3 / 4.2
Romans 75.5 / 2.9
1 Corinthians 75.7 / 3.5
2 Corinthians 78.1 / 2.8
Galatians 76.5 / 3.3
Ephesians 76.1 / 2.9
Philippians 70.2 / 2.5
Colossians 72.6 / 3.4
1 Thess. 68.5 / 4.1
2 Thess. 72.3 / 3.1
1 Timothy 81.4 / 2.9
2 Timothy 79.5 / 2.8
Titus 71.7 / 2.3
Philemon 76.0 / 5.1
Hebrews 77.2 / 2.9
James 61.6 / 5.6
1 Peter 66.6 / 5.7
2 Peter 52.5 / 6.5
1 John 72.4 / 2.8
2 John 61.5 / 4.5
3 John 73.3 / 3.2
Jude 72.0 / 4.2
Revelation 52.8 / 5.1

Roughly speaking 2/3rds of the NT has no disagreement in what the words say. The author goes on to say that if you then go with 6 of 7 or 5 of 7 you quickly raise that % to the upper 90s.

Read the link. It doesn't take too long and it's well-presented.

Message edited by author 2010-02-11 20:00:52.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/11/2010 08:02:24 PM · #1053

Bart Ehrman.

02/11/2010 08:05:46 PM · #1054

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

"Truthful and free of intentional deception" may be the way infallibility is defined in "Christian Theology," but in regular parlance - and, I would argue, in regular understanding by Christians, infallibility means "without error." We need not speculate that the Biblical authors were intentionally trying to deceive with what they wrote to question whether what they wrote is true. The writers of the Bible could have written "the truth" as they knew it, but still have been wrong.

Well, since this is a theology thread, I would prefer to clarify terms as they are used in the field of theology. So for our purposes in this thread, we should make a distinction between infallible and inerrant. I would prefer to avoid going into detail about this since it's a huge topic, but if someone has a specific question regarding the infallibility of Scripture I will try to address it.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

The problem is that any honestly read Biblical account demands that the world operate in ways for which there is no evidence in support. Christian Theology, at least the modern flavor, is the practice of rationalizing these discrepancies away so as to preserve faith. This may be "valid" - that is consistent with its own underlying assumptions - but it does not make it persuasive or intellectually honest.

Theology is the practice of trying to understand God based on how he has revealed himself through Scripture. The practice of rationalizing away discrepancies as you've described is a specific area of theology called apologetics. Obviously there is a lot more to theology than apologetics.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

I think you misconstrue my objection here. Your response is more toward what I was saying in regarding archeological contradictions as to historical claims made in the Bible. My point here is rather that you have appeared to take the stance that the current state of Christian Theology/Biblical interpretation is consistent with the historical state of Christian Theology/Biblical interpretation. E.g., Christians have always seen the Genesis creation myths (there are two, you know) as allegorical; have always understood that the Old Testament Hebraic laws did not apply after Christ (or have known which ones did and which ones did not); etc.

This is simply, and quite demonstrably false. Biblical interpretation and Christian practice has been in an almost constant state of flux from the earliest days of Christian history. See the link that Louis provided earlier in this thread or in the other in regard to some of the scholarship that is being done in regard to the heated competition between factions in early Christianity. The theology you are being taught in school now is not the theology you would have been taught even a couple of decades ago. Christian theology "evolves" in response to competition of ideas and interpretations within Christianity (Catholicism vs. Protestantism, to point to simply the most prominent modern example) and from without (other religions, the advancement of scientific knowledge, etc.)

You are mostly correct. Christian theology is always evolving. However, theology seeks to better understand God, and God does not change. The Bible does not change, but interpretations do change. The important thing to remember is that Scripture today says the same thing it said 2,000 years ago, and all of it's implications, meanings, and teachings are exactly the same. Interpretation of The Bible is unfortunately mishandled as soon as the person studying it takes the focus off God and focuses on self or on contemporary issues. The error lies in false interpretations, which can be catastrophic, not in Scripture itself.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Religious claims are truth claims in the same manner that scientific claims - each are claims about the way the world works. You could have a vast and rich understanding of the mythology of Middle Earth, and such knowledge could be fascinating and provide you with a rich intellectual life. It would not, however, mean that elves, dwarves and magic actually exist.

Thanks for the laugh! I hope you're not seriously comparing LOTR to The Bible. That's funny though!

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Read your Aristotle. It's a cave, and you are the one who appears unwilling to leave and is satisfied with mere shadows on the wall.

I left the cave for a long time shutterpuppy. I left Christianity and my life fell apart, so I returned to Christ and I'm glad that I did. You might think I'm chasing shadows, but for years I chased after the world, science, my own pleasures, etc... and I was left damaged and in shambles. You might not understand why I decided to go back into the cave (Christianity) but I did and I assure you I'm a better person for it.

02/11/2010 08:15:48 PM · #1055

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think it's deja vu, all over again. We've had this conversation before.

And agin.....

Where might the originals of these writings be that they are studied and verified so that there is no question?

Yes, this discussion has been had before, but you know......somehow it escapes me what your answer to this question was.

Must be old age causing my memory to fail.

02/11/2010 08:19:08 PM · #1056

Originally posted by Louis:

Bart Ehrman.

This was in response to my question on whose opinion I can trust on Biblical interpretation, right?

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/11/2010 08:20:51 PM · #1057

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Thanks for the laugh! I hope you're not seriously comparing LOTR to The Bible. That's funny though!

Why is that funny? They're both good stories, and neither is provable. LOTR is written better, though.....

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/11/2010 08:35:36 PM · #1058

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You can learn all about it on the wiki for Textual criticism. The New Testament is unique among ancient texts in that there are so many copies available that statistical analysis can be applied to show when and where errors have come into existance. This allows the errors to be removed by referring to copies which do not contain them. (That's, of course, a very very simplistic explanation.)

That is, of course, only half the story.

No serious modern scholar attributes most biblical books to the named authors. So while they may be reasonably good copies of ancient texts, the "original" texts themselves were cobbled together from a wide variety of sources (and many of the authors had a personal political agenda):

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of_the_Bible

02/11/2010 08:43:34 PM · #1059

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can learn all about it on the wiki for Textual criticism.

You missed the point entirely. I'm quite well aware of the work that goes into verifying, and validating ancient works.

The problem is that there will still be errors made simply because the person who made the errors cannot be consulted to see if perhaps there were mitigating circumstances surrounding the supposed error.

And just like the original errors, there *will* be assumptions made, or conclusions reached that may very well be found in error in the future.

My point was.....where is that first Bible that it can be researched, and doublechecked by the learned translators of today.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The New Testament is unique among ancient texts in that there are so many copies available that statistical analysis can be applied to show when and where errors have come into existance. This allows the errors to be removed by referring to copies which do not contain them. (That's, of course, a very very simplistic explanation.)

Your simplistic explanation makes my point. So many copies? Okay, copies of what?

Let's bypass the copies entirely and talk about the original since that'd be the way to go to eliminate the issues with transcription, now wouldn't it?

The oldest complete Bible that exists is the Codex Sinaiticus which was written in the 4th century. But there are numerous manuscripts that date back to the early second century. Some of the manuscripts that we have were written within one generation of the people who actually wrote them. In other words, people that personally knew Paul, John, Peter, James, and Jude would have been alive when some of the manuscripts that we have were written. Those people would have been able to confirm the accuracy of those manuscripts. Think of it like this: J.R.R. Tolkien has been dead for more than 40 years, but people who personally knew him and read his original copies are probably still alive today. If some guy printed some handwritten copies of LOTR that had major mistakes in them, one of those people that personally knew Tolkien would probably say something.

Here's a little chart for you from the ESV Study Bible (you can check these numbers if you don't trust me).
Histories--------------------Oldest Manuscripts----------# of surviving manuscripts
Livy 59 BC - AD 17-----------4th century AD--------------27
Tacitus AD 56-120------------9th century AD--------------3
Suetonius AD 69 - 140--------9th century AD--------------200+
Thucydides 460 - 400 BC------1st century-----------------20
Herodotus 484 - 425 BC-------1st century AD--------------75
New Testament----------------c. 100 - 150 AD-------------c. 5,700 Greek manuscripts; 10,000 Latin manuscripts; 1,000,000 Bible quotations from early church fathers

Obviously you can see that if historians believe Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius etc. are accurate (which they do) then we should also believe that the NT is accurate. Some historians have claimed that even if every single Bible were destroyed, the New Testament would be able to be completely pieced together and fully restored based solely on preserved quotations from early church fathers (some of whom knew the apostles personally).

Regarding "the first Bible"... you need to realize that a "book" or "codex" as we think of it today did not exist in the time of the early church. In the time of Christ and the apostles, people wrote on scrolls. The codex did not come into existence until around AD 300. The Codex Sinaiticus was written sometime between AD 325 - 360. That means the Codex Sinaiticus was written less than 60 years after books first started to replace scrolls. However, we have manuscripts that are much older than that.

Regarding "errors" or words that textual critics are unsure of... Those occur at the rate of about 1 word out of 1,000 words, and none of these discrepancies affect any Christian doctrine. Of those 1/1000 discrepancies, less than one percent of those are considered "meaningful and viable". An example of this is in Romans 5:1. Some manuscripts say, "we have peace" while others say, "let us have peace". The first in Greek is echomen and the second is echōmen. As you can see, this is a very subtle difference that has no affect on the meaning. This is the extent of uncertainties regarding what The Bible originally said. (This information is from the ESV Study Bible and from class notes)

ETA to fix chart.

Message edited by author 2010-02-11 20:45:34.

02/11/2010 08:56:50 PM · #1060

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Thanks for the laugh! I hope you're not seriously comparing LOTR to The Bible. That's funny though!

Why is that funny? They're both good stories, and neither is provable. LOTR is written better, though.....

The Bible is waaay more complex than LOTR. LOTR was written by one author, in one lifetime. The Bible was written by numerous authors over centuries, with the same overarching theme and fulfilled prophecies (there are 300 specific prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament that were fulfilled, some of which are verifiable by pagan histories). There is no comparison between the two. I find it hysterical that you think there is... It's like comparing a matchbox car to a Ford Taurus.

Have you considered what would actually need to happen for The Bible to be a conspiracy or human creation? For all those stories and prophecies to be intertwined by chance? For all those authors to have agreement without ever collaborating or meeting each other? The probability of that being able to happen is astronomically small. You could convince me to believe Macro-Evolution before convincing me that The Bible is a conspiracy.

02/11/2010 09:11:50 PM · #1061

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

No complete Bible 'til 300 years or so later???? And there are documents dating back to within 100 years or so???? That's your basis for the origin of this book?

Well, there's some seriously indisputable facts for ya!

I ask you where the original Bible is that it can be sourced and researched, and you tell me there wasn't a complete Bible 'till over 300 years later, and you want me to accept that it's accurate?

I personally knew Geoffrey Healey, and he told me that his dad, Donald, told him that his favorite model of all the cars that he designed and built was the Bugeye Sprite.

You can take that as an absolute truth, right? Irrefutable, correct?

That sound reasonable to you?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Think of it like this: J.R.R. Tolkien has been dead for more than 40 years, but people who personally knew him and read his original copies are probably still alive today. If some guy printed some handwritten copies of LOTR that had major mistakes in them, one of those people that personally knew Tolkien would probably say something.

Think of it like this......in a court of law that'd be hearsay, and dismissed out of hand.

And what if those people couldn't agree on the item in question. Then what?

Since Tolkien's dead, there'd be no way to verify what he said or meant, really, would there?

The more you delve into this, the worse it seems on a rational and logical basis, without even getting into the ludicrous concept of being able to verify what was originally written.

Apparently, from what you're telling me about the origin of these writings, it is absolutely impossible to verify them if you are honest about it.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

02/11/2010 09:31:27 PM · #1062

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The Bible is waaay more complex than LOTR. LOTR was written by one author, in one lifetime.

Well, first, I was kidding, but second, if you want to get right down to it, no, the LOTR Trilogy is a much more complex and involved story.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The Bible was written by numerous authors over centuries, with the same overarching theme and fulfilled prophecies (there are 300 specific prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament that were fulfilled, some of which are verifiable by pagan histories).

But, wait!!! The OT is to be ignored except in an allegorical context, right? No facts there! That's waht you've said before.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

There is no comparison between the two. I find it hysterical that you think there is... It's like comparing a matchbox car to a Ford Taurus.

As I said.....I was kidding. LOTR is much better written, consistent, and nobody is trying to convince anyone that each and every word is true.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Have you considered what would actually need to happen for The Bible to be a conspiracy or human creation? For all those stories and prophecies to be intertwined by chance? For all those authors to have agreement without ever collaborating or meeting each other? The probability of that being able to happen is astronomically small. You could convince me to believe Macro-Evolution before convincing me that The Bible is a conspiracy.

Okay........C A R E F U L L Y go back through all of my posts and please show me where I *ever* said anything about, used the word conspiracy, or alluded to it in any way whatsoever.

If I was supposed to try and convince someone that the Bible you have on hand is accurate, and given what you have produced in this discussion tonite, I wouldn't even bother because you haven't given me anything whatsoever to hang my hat on....to say that there were people alive that could verify the accuracy of what someone else intended when they wrote something simply doesn't wash as legitimate.

This brings us full circle, really.....all most of us who have questions ask is for you to give us something verifiable, yet your most sacred publication, your basic text, cannot truly be verified. You ask anyone who asks you for proof to disprove it, well, we don't really have to 'cause you cannot even verify it yourself.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/11/2010 09:49:35 PM · #1063

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You're confusing "infallible" and "inerrant". Infallible (when referring to The Bible) simply means that what The Bible says true, and that it does not intentionally mislead or deceive. Inerrant is more specific and generally means that there are no errors, not even textual errors. Most Christians believe that The Bible is infallible and that it is trustworthy and not intentionally misleading. Many Christians question whether the Bible is inerrant as a result of minor textual discrepancies in translation through the centuries. But still every Bible believing Christian believes that it's trustworthy.

Not really- Why would an infallible being knowingly create a flawed testament? Is this not intentionally misleading, as you stated?

02/11/2010 10:25:24 PM · #1064

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You don't get it... Books did not exist until 300 years after the New Testament manuscripts were originally written, so no complete Bible in one book could have existed. The complete Bible did exist in the form of numerous scrolls, and some of those scrolls have survived until today.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I personally knew Geoffrey Healey, and he told me that his dad, Donald, told him that his favorite model of all the cars that he designed and built was the Bugeye Sprite.

You can take that as an absolute truth, right? Irrefutable, correct?

That sound reasonable to you?

lol... if only it were that simple I wouldn't be laughing so much! Try taking Geoffry and Donald and adding their testimony to those of thousands of other people, all of which are in complete agreement. Then it's reasonable.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

The more you delve into this, the worse it seems on a rational and logical basis, without even getting into the ludicrous concept of being able to verify what was originally written.

Apparently, from what you're telling me about the origin of these writings, it is absolutely impossible to verify them if you are honest about it.

Sorry to bust your bubble Jeb, but even non-Christian historians believe that The Bible as we have it today is extremely close to the original, immensely reliable, and verifiable with certainty. This is not just Christian propaganda. The more you delve into textual criticism of The Bible, the clearer it becomes that it is actually very reliable and trustworthy. Secular historians agree.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

02/11/2010 10:29:38 PM · #1065

"Lamb", by Christopher Moore. The Book of Biff, Joshua's best bud as they were going up. Joshua bar Joseph, son of Mary, who was a virgin at the time of Joshua's birth but then had a bunch of other kids. Biff, aka Levi, is writing his book. He's already been a bit miffed by Matthew's book that doesn't even start until Joshua is 30. 30! And he was very irritated that he (Biff) wasn't even mentioned!

02/11/2010 10:35:10 PM · #1066

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Well, first, I was kidding, but second, if you want to get right down to it, no, the LOTR Trilogy is a much more complex and involved story.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

This brings us full circle, really.....all most of us who have questions ask is for you to give us something verifiable, yet your most sacred publication, your basic text, cannot truly be verified. You ask anyone who asks you for proof to disprove it, well, we don't really have to 'cause you cannot even verify it yourself.

Actually, The Bible is MORE verifiable than other historical documents from antiquity. The Bible is more verifiable than Tacitus, Pliny, Thucydides, etc... If you want me show you a photograph of Jesus himself, you're not going to get it, just like you're not going to get a photograph of Emperor Constantine, Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, etc... The verification that you're demanding NikonJeb simply doesn't exist.

Do you believe that Alexander the Great was a real person? If so, you should at least believe that Jesus was a real person. You don't need to believe that he was the Son of God, but at least tell me that you believe Jesus Christ was a real human being so that I know I'm not just wasting my time with you.

02/11/2010 10:41:52 PM · #1067

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Not really- Why would an infallible being knowingly create a flawed testament? Is this not intentionally misleading, as you stated?

First of all, I never said that The Bible is flawed. Second, why is God required to create something perfect? If God truly is all-powerful can't he create whatever he wants? You're assuming that God would make everything crystal clear and sugar coated. This is why you (and many people) don't believe in God. The God in The Bible isn't what you want him to be, so you don't want to believe in him. You'll only believe in God if he's exactly what you want. Ever think that God might just be a little more righteous and holy than you are? Do you renounce Obama as your President if he signs a document that has a grammatical error? I doubt it. So why renounce God just because The Bible might have a typo or two?

Message edited by author 2010-02-11 22:42:28.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

02/11/2010 11:55:47 PM · #1068

Leave for dinner and the conversation gets away from you.

To Matthew: I'm not sure I care about who the actual authors were. Other books, such as many of the Pauline epistles, for example, are universally agreed upon as being authored by the person they claimed.

To Louis: Did you read the link I posted? Erhman is explicitly discussed.

To Jeb: Did you read the link because you are starting to look somewhat ignorant (just saying). I didn't answer your question because the answer is obvious. We do not have the "original" scroll on which the texts were written. This does not particularly bother people who's careers are textual criticism, so it really shouldn't bother you either. Can you list ANY ancient document of consequence where we have the original?

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/12/2010 12:30:09 AM · #1069

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Not really- Why would an infallible being knowingly create a flawed testament? Is this not intentionally misleading, as you stated?

First of all, I never said that The Bible is flawed. Second, why is God required to create something perfect? If God truly is all-powerful can't he create whatever he wants? You're assuming that God would make everything crystal clear and sugar coated. This is why you (and many people) don't believe in God. The God in The Bible isn't what you want him to be, so you don't want to believe in him. You'll only believe in God if he's exactly what you want. Ever think that God might just be a little more righteous and holy than you are? Do you renounce Obama as your President if he signs a document that has a grammatical error? I doubt it. So why renounce God just because The Bible might have a typo or two?

It's highly pretentious for you to assume to know why I don't believe in God (and wrong, as well). Secondly, my point is that The Bible is not, as you noted, inerrant, and contains historical errors that God clearly would have been aware of. If God purposefully put these in, is that not willful deception? I never said God couldn't create whatever he wanted, but the creation of a purposefully misleading testament contradicts your earlier point that The Bible is infallible.
Lastly, if you're going to say that God is beyond consideration because we cannot God is beyond all comprehension, then this whole discussion is moot. You have very carefully removed yourself from any and all rational discourse by doing this.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

02/12/2010 01:23:22 AM · #1070

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Excuse me for being pretentious. But honestly, am I really that far off? If God was everything you wanted him to be, and The Bible said everything you wanted it to say, I'm sure you'd be more inclined to believe it. My point is that most people who don't like The Bible are offended by it in some way. That's all.

Just because an error might exist, doesn't mean that God put it there purposefully. God was well aware of the potential for human error when he inspired the human authors to write the Scriptures. God could have written the Scriptures himself like he did on Mount Sinai when he gave Moses the Ten Commandments. God chose to use humans to write The Bible for a reason. Whatever the case, errors do not make God deceptive, they make humans flawed. The difference between "we have" and "let us have" may be an error but it is not deception because it's not hiding any truth. No textual variation that has been discovered among the thousands of Bible manuscripts brings into question any doctrinal truth in scripture.

God is beyond comprehension, but The Bible is not beyond comprehension. God himself cannot be understood completely because he's God and we're human. However, God reveals himself to us in two ways; general revelation and special revelation. General revelation is basically what we can see and observe in the world that God has created. Special revelation is any sort of divine intervention (i.e. miracle) and Scripture.

There is a whole field of theology called "Natural Theology" which seeks to understand God simply through studying general revelation. For example, we can observe nature and conclude that God creates order. We can observe human beings and conclude that God creates feeling. Etc., etc... From this, we can use philosophy to build a "theology" about God. Most types of theology of course build on what The Bible says (special revelation) to help us understand God. Put it this way... We can only know as much about God as he tells us. We can't test God like he's some sore of microorganism in a petri dish. The Bible is how God has specifically made himself known to us and so it contains everything that we can comprehend about God.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/12/2010 02:28:39 AM · #1071

Yes, you are that far off. My lack of belief has nothing to do with my purported dislike of the concept of God. I haven't even said my opinions on God as a construct, so it's interesting that you've assumed they have a negative connotation. My lack of belief has nothing to do with what I "like" and everything to do with what verifiably "is." My approval does not enter into the determination of reality, it is merely reflection, an opinion after the fact. It would be nice and I would like the fact that some benevolent THING is watching over me and I'll never die, but it isn't so. I can say and think how much I want to ride a purple brontosaurus all I want (it would be seriously awesome)- that doesn't bring it about though.
I couldn't care less about "we have" and "let us have." I'm speaking of historical inaccuracies. If you asked me for directions to a store, and I reply "head down this road for 2.5 miles, you'll pass a Costco on the left" but I know it's actually a Target and say Costco anyway, am I not purposefully misleading you? God knows historical fact. If God says "this happened" instead of "that happened" it is willful deception. If you say that this is the error of man, then how erroneous is The Bible and how accommodating are you going to be before you rob it of all veracity?
How do you accept a source that derives its authority from itself? I'm legitimately asking this question and not trying to bait you.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/12/2010 08:17:24 AM · #1072

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To Jeb: Did you read the link because you are starting to look somewhat ignorant (just saying). I didn't answer your question because the answer is obvious. We do not have the "original" scroll on which the texts were written. This does not particularly bother people who's careers are textual criticism, so it really shouldn't bother you either. Can you list ANY ancient document of consequence where we have the original?

That's my point. Since you cannot verify this to an absolute, which you cannot, you have to leave the door open for error.

You, and all too many like you, refuse to do so, thereby invalidating your credibility as it pertains to its veracity.

If the most learned biblical scholars in the world have issues, albeit minor ones, how can you possibly decide to be more adamant than they?

BTW, your cointinued obfuscation concerning other publications/manuscripts/whatever, is not the question, it's THIS publication we're talking about. You're not claiming absolute truth of any other document, are you?

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/12/2010 08:25:07 AM · #1073

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The Bible is how God has specifically made himself known to us and so it contains everything that we can comprehend about God.

Considering the reading abilities of the general population of the time, one would think that a benevolent God would have made things much simpler thereby enabling all to understand.

Here we are centuries later and even learned scholars are still stuck on interpretations.

What puzzles me the most is why a God who created all of mankind opted to share his wisdom with only a small segment of the world, leaving the rest to fend for themselves, knowing that even if they live exemplary lives they will never have the chance to sit by his side.

Ray

02/12/2010 08:27:56 AM · #1074

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Actually, The Bible is MORE verifiable than other historical documents from antiquity. The Bible is more verifiable than Tacitus, Pliny, Thucydides, etc...

So you *claim*......

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

If you want me show you a photograph of Jesus himself, you're not going to get it, just like you're not going to get a photograph of Emperor Constantine, Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, etc...

Okay....so you have some grasp of the obvious.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The verification that you're demanding NikonJeb simply doesn't exist.

I'm not demanding anything. I'm just asking yopu to realize that there are flaws, errors, and contradictions in the Bible, ones that learned men acknowledge, yet you, who obviously thinks that he has a better idea of what it's all about insist otherwise.

I really don't care all that much. At this point, it's sort of a twisted fascination for me how some of you can be so insistent in your stance despite your people of your own persuasion stating otherwise.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Do you believe that Alexander the Great was a real person? If so, you should at least believe that Jesus was a real person. You don't need to believe that he was the Son of God, but at least tell me that you believe Jesus Christ was a real human being so that I know I'm not just wasting my time with you.

It doesn't matter what I think or believe.....I'm not the one making claims that absolutely, positively, can *NOT* be proven.

Acknowledge that there are issues, and that you choose to accept the publication as your choice in faith and belief, and then it's real.

But to claim that it's infallible, inerrant, and/or absolute truth is just wrong. And all your little semantics games won't change that. In most people's lives you'll find that there are things that they feel and believe......but only the most closed-minded would state that they're absolute truths without any possibility that there are other factors that could change their views. Too many facts have been proven wrong over too many years to close that door.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D