439 discrepancies - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/29/2010 08:04:09 AM · #1

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
What could you possibly mean by "According to whom?".

According to YOU, the highlighted words of a red-letter Bible are authoritative... even though there are competing red-letter bibles, they're no less subject to dispute than the recent Bibles they're based upon (which frequently include parables and quotes that simply did not exist in earlier texts), the canon of those Bible were selected from among many conflicting accounts hundreds of years later, the "original" manuscripts were translations and copies of translations of the claimed accounts, the accounts themselves were handed down by oral tradition for at least decades... and the results are selectively interpreted to fit your personal beliefs anyway.

Originally posted by Flash:
What you need to do is get a Harmony of the Gospels. It lays out Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in series side by side as BOTH 4 separate stories and as 1 single story. You can do all the comparison you wish from each author and discern all your bullsh!t discrepancies between the 4. In the end, I don't care who you use, NIV, KJ, New Jereselum, there isn't enough difference between them to matter - certainly not to me. A thee or a thou or some other extraneous piece of crap that you want to wage a war over is absolutely BS.

Different scholars, different Bibles, same words. How can that be if there is all this manmade infusion of error?

Well then let's just take a peek, shall we? It's hardly surprising that the first three would generally coincide given that Matthew was an elaboration OF Mark (there's no mention of virgin birth or the Lord's Prayer in Mark, for example), and Luke was written from both Mark and Matthew. John has Jesus preaching for three years (vs. one in the other three gospels), mainly in Judea (vs. Galilee), and in essay format (vs. parables and one-liners). Those are big discrepancies on the most basic historical accounts, yet we're supposed to think direct quotes are reliable? "In the gospel of John, the account of the Last Supper has no mention of Jesus taking bread and wine and speaking of them as his body and blood; instead it recounts his humble act of washing the disciples' feet." That's a huge distinction for those who take communion! The single most important miracle in John (the one that prompted his crucifixion) was raising Lazarus from the dead. Find that anywhere in the other three gospels.

Far from meaningless discrepancies, biblical contradictions extend right to the core principles of religion. Protestants often believe in salvation by faith alone, yet the Epistle of James directly contradicts that claim to the extent that Martin Luther considered it a forgery. They prefer Paul's declaration that faith alone is enough, yet Paul demanded that people heed his words over those of an angel from heaven. Anybody see a problem with that?

First you know full well that your post is NOT what I am talking about. I am talking about several different bibles translated by different scholars with the SAME words in each. Same books same stories same words attributed to the teacher. Same same same. How can that be if man is so egregious in his error. How can different scholars translate different bibles and come up with the same words?.
According to your argument there should be errors galore. Intentional mythologic errors. But alas they are absent. Strange eh?

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

11/27/2010 02:34:47 PM · #2

My first time back to DPC in a long time and there is a religious argument in the rant forum and the latest blue ribbon is a picture of the northern lights.

Progress!

11/27/2010 12:56:19 PM · #3

Originally posted by Flash:

What could you possibly mean by "According to whom?".

According to YOU, the highlighted words of a red-letter Bible are authoritative... even though there are competing red-letter bibles, they're no less subject to dispute than the recent Bibles they're based upon (which frequently include parables and quotes that simply did not exist in earlier texts), the canon of those Bible were selected from among many conflicting accounts hundreds of years later, the "original" manuscripts were translations and copies of translations of the claimed accounts, the accounts themselves were handed down by oral tradition for at least decades... and the results are selectively interpreted to fit your personal beliefs anyway.

Originally posted by Flash:

What you need to do is get a Harmony of the Gospels. It lays out Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in series side by side as BOTH 4 separate stories and as 1 single story. You can do all the comparison you wish from each author and discern all your bullsh!t discrepancies between the 4. In the end, I don't care who you use, NIV, KJ, New Jereselum, there isn't enough difference between them to matter - certainly not to me. A thee or a thou or some other extraneous piece of crap that you want to wage a war over is absolutely BS.

Different scholars, different Bibles, same words. How can that be if there is all this manmade infusion of error?

Well then let's just take a peek, shall we? It's hardly surprising that the first three would generally coincide given that Matthew was an elaboration OF Mark (there's no mention of virgin birth or the Lord's Prayer in Mark, for example), and Luke was written from both Mark and Matthew. John has Jesus preaching for three years (vs. one in the other three gospels), mainly in Judea (vs. Galilee), and in essay format (vs. parables and one-liners). Those are big discrepancies on the most basic historical accounts, yet we're supposed to think direct quotes are reliable? "In the gospel of John, the account of the Last Supper has no mention of Jesus taking bread and wine and speaking of them as his body and blood; instead it recounts his humble act of washing the disciples' feet." That's a huge distinction for those who take communion! The single most important miracle in John (the one that prompted his crucifixion) was raising Lazarus from the dead. Find that anywhere in the other three gospels.

Far from meaningless discrepancies, biblical contradictions extend right to the core principles of religion. Protestants often believe in salvation by faith alone, yet the Epistle of James directly contradicts that claim to the extent that Martin Luther considered it a forgery. They prefer Paul's declaration that faith alone is enough, yet Paul demanded that people heed his words over those of an angel from heaven. Anybody see a problem with that?

RayEthier

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

11/27/2010 08:50:34 AM · #4

Originally posted by Flash:

... Different scholars, different Bibles, same words. How can that be if there is all this manmade infusion of error?

...What you are advancing is only true relative to the examples YOU give...and the fact that YOU don't care is no more valid as it relates to the veracity of the bible.

Ray

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/27/2010 08:46:18 AM · #5

Originally posted by Flash:

Furthermore- since the red letters are the referenced words of the teacher

Originally posted by scalvert:

According to whom? Those words can be totally different depending upon who told the story that was handed down orally from someone else, who interpreted it from Aramaic to Greek, who copied it from the original, who decided to include it in the canon and so on... right up to which version and language of red letter bible you're reading. They are less even reliable than the aforementioned quote attributed to Jefferson.

Originally posted by Flash:

How about because it questions the veracity of your, and anyone else's claim as to the authenticity of the words, and their intent. It amazes me how you puff and posture, sputter with righteous indignation, yet offer up not one shred of proof of this veracity. It's an entirely different matter to have direct, recorded quotes, as opposed to words attributed to, especially decades after the fact, in a primitive time where it's completely unreasonable to expect what we have with modern methods of recording accurate information. Just because some of us simply cannot grasp the bizarre concept that you are willing to accept this as fact does not make us wrong, it makes us cautious and skeptical. That's not bullshit.......it simply means we don't buy into it with no reasonable, supported evidence.

Originally posted by Flash:

I stated that the red letters are the "referenced" words of the teacher". Period. Every redletter edition I have read - whether NIV, New Jerurselum, KJ, etc have all "referenced" the words of Christ in red letters. YOU could do the very same with a yellow highlighter if you choose. No different than highlighting the words of Zues or King Arthur or Plato or Josephus.

Quite different......we acknowledge that Zeus and King Arthur are fabrications, and don't offer them up as a way to live. Not sure why you'd lump them in with Plato and Josephus other than to validate the idea that you can't tell fact from fantasy.

Originally posted by Flash:

The only one waging a war here is you......we simply ask for you to acknowledge that there is a great deal of latitude, and instance of inaccuracy. Again, your insistence in their accuracy is just that......your interpretation. Should any of us do exactly as you suggest, and take away a different interpretation than the one you hold dear will just be another example of how we don't see things "right" in your view.

Originally posted by Flash:

Different scholars, different Bibles, same words. How can that be if there is all this manmade infusion of error?

Back to.......ALL works of man, subject to error and interpretation. Your ranting and scorn of our disbelief does nothing to validate your position.

11/27/2010 12:07:21 AM · #6

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
Furthermore- since the red letters are the referenced words of the teacher

According to whom? Those words can be totally different depending upon who told the story that was handed down orally from someone else, who interpreted it from Aramaic to Greek, who copied it from the original, who decided to include it in the canon and so on... right up to which version and language of red letter bible you're reading. They are less even reliable than the aforementioned quote attributed to Jefferson.

Scalvert - here you go with your bullsh!t. Sometimes you are simply beyond any comprehension. What could you possibly mean by "According to whom?". This is one of the most idiotic questions you have ever asked. WTF difference does it make? Really?

I stated that the red letters are the "referenced" words of the teacher". Period. Every redletter edition I have read - whether NIV, New Jerurselum, KJ, etc have all "referenced" the words of Christ in red letters. YOU could do the very same with a yellow highlighter if you choose. No different than highlighting the words of Zues or King Arthur or Plato or Josephus.

What you need to do is get a Harmony of the Gospels. It lays out Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in series side by side as BOTH 4 separate stories and as 1 single story. You can do all the comparison you wish from each author and discern all your bullsh!t discrepancies between the 4. In the end, I don't care who you use, NIV, KJ, New Jereselum, there isn't enough difference between them to matter - certainly not to me. A thee or a thou or some other extraneous piece of crap that you want to wage a war over is absolutely BS.

Different scholars, different Bibles, same words. How can that be if there is all this manmade infusion of error?

11/25/2010 05:40:30 AM · #7

Originally posted by Nullix:

Matthew was written for the Jews (thus the emphasis on David and Abraham). Luke was written for the gentiles, so there's not an emphasis on David and Abraham.

But do you get the point? When looking at two conflicting descriptions of historical events, they cannot both be right (or at the very least, the reader has to infer a lot of information to "make" it right).

Originally posted by Nullix:

When Jesus gave the commandment to "Love thy neighbor..." someone ask, who's my neighbor. Jesus responded with the Parable of the good Sumaritan. If you understand the dynamics between the Samaritians and the Jews to get the full picture. That covers some pretty complex fact-patters.

You seem to be agreeing with me? It is impossible to take the complex fact patterns and work out the rule for determining who is your neighbour. So it is up to the reader or the preacher to come up with a way to analyse the text and the background to it, and to decide themselves which parallels in a modern complex fact pattern are relevant, and for them to recommend an approach accordingly.

Unsuprisingly, many people read the same text with very different meaning and application as a result - not because any of them are fundamentally wrong, but because the text is so open to personal interpretation and many conflicting concepts are vague and ill-defined.

Ironically this is probably part of the reason for the success of the religion: people can adapt it for their own purposes and situations.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

11/22/2010 05:05:54 PM · #8

Originally posted by Matthew:

Matthew was written for the Jews (thus the emphasis on David and Abraham). Luke was written for the gentiles, so there's not an emphasis on David and Abraham.

Originally posted by Matthew:

The problem comes when there may be many alternative interpretations to a series of texts, and it may be applied differently in many contexts. Per the example I gave before, how does one interpret and apply the instruction to "love thy neighbour"? There is no clear instruction on how that instruction should be prioritised as against other instructions, or how other instructions should be read in that light. There is no clear objective "right" answer, nor a way to discover it.

Moreover, even if the author's intention could be clearly established (which it can't), the authors of the text will almost certainly not have had in mind the many complex fact-patterns to which the concept might apply. The author's intent cannot always be a litmus test for accuracy.

Accordingly, most people will have to adopt an approach that they choose - not one that is dictated objectively by any religious text.

11/22/2010 11:36:53 AM · #9

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Matthew:

johnnyphoto - please confirm in this context that you still believe that interpretation is not a matter of personal choice...

I believe that any piece of literature can be interpreted by any individual in any way. I also believe that every piece of literature has one correct interpretation based on the author's intent. You can interpret the Bible however you want to, but your interpretation might not be the right one. The same can be said for an article in the New York Times, or the latest bestseller at Barnes & Noble. I'm not a fan of the whole "I will discover my own truth" mentality.

I can understand this in the context of historical events. Judas either hanged or tripped to his death and there can only be one right answer.

It is worth noting that in some instances, one might accurately divine the author's intent but that does not make it accurate. For example, Jesus' lineage was either via David and Abraham (per Matthew) or 77 generations back to Adam (per Luke) - not both.

The problem comes when there may be many alternative interpretations to a series of texts, and it may be applied differently in many contexts. Per the example I gave before, how does one interpret and apply the instruction to "love thy neighbour"? There is no clear instruction on how that instruction should be prioritised as against other instructions, or how other instructions should be read in that light. There is no clear objective "right" answer, nor a way to discover it.

Moreover, even if the author's intention could be clearly established (which it can't), the authors of the text will almost certainly not have had in mind the many complex fact-patterns to which the concept might apply. The author's intent cannot always be a litmus test for accuracy.

Accordingly, most people will have to adopt an approach that they choose - not one that is dictated objectively by any religious text.

Message edited by author 2010-11-22 11:40:00.

11/22/2010 09:25:59 AM · #10

Originally posted by Flash:

Furthermore- since the red letters are the referenced words of the teacher

11/22/2010 09:18:48 AM · #11

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Matthew:
...in the absence of an explicit clause, people decide for themselves what is important. In your case, as you say (and I underline in your text), you choose the red words as taking priority.

And if everyone used the red letters asa the clause then there would be less interpretation.

You're not even challenging Matthew's point- you're EMPHASIZING it. The contention that there would be less interpretation if everyone agreed with your regard for a particular red letter bible would be true of ANY text regardless of its content. However, it doesn't change the fact that entirely different people already had to choose from multiple gods to yours, from quotes and events in spoken Aramaic to Greek, from folklore to written form, from original to copies, from hundreds of gospels to canon, from many bibles to the King James Version and from different red letter bibles to whichever one you prefer. Each step, as well as the final results, are subject to interpretation... and we're starting at step four. Paul even declares in Galatians 1:8-9 that people should listen to his interpretation over that of an angel from heaven!

11/22/2010 09:04:25 AM · #12

Furthermore- since the red letters are the referenced words of the teacher, not using them as the clause is akin to ignoring the message. How could any student or practioner claim to be a follower of any teacher if they ignored the words attributed to that teacher.

11/22/2010 08:25:23 AM · #13

Originally posted by Matthew:

And if everyone used the red letters asa the clause then there would be less interpretation.

Texting from my blackberry and can't quite see the text. Sorry for any misspellings.

11/22/2010 12:05:40 AM · #14

Originally posted by Matthew:

johnnyphoto - please confirm in this context that you still believe that interpretation is not a matter of personal choice...

I believe that any piece of literature can be interpreted by any individual in any way. I also believe that every piece of literature has one correct interpretation based on the author's intent. You can interpret the Bible however you want to, but your interpretation might not be the right one. The same can be said for an article in the New York Times, or the latest bestseller at Barnes & Noble. I'm not a fan of the whole "I will discover my own truth" mentality.

11/21/2010 06:24:28 PM · #15

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Matthew:
My original point (which you challenged) was that people are forced to come up with their own rules of interpretation.

No. Your position was that the Bible did not contain any "Clause" language and I replied that for me it does - the red letters -

I even requoted and underlined my point from the previous point - and you've told me once again that I misunderstand my own words. Let me say it again as clearly as possible, underlining once again the text that you want to ignore - The bible doesn't come with a clause like that - and it means that people make up their own [rules of interpretation].

Originally posted by Flash:

Matthew - this is bizarre for sure - You wrote that the Bible did not contain a clause like other long contracts and I said it does for me. Period. Nothing else. Nothing added. Plain and simple - the Bible does contain a clause for me - like other long contracts. Now at this point you can argue that the red letters do not equate to a "clause" or you can post a position that you disagree and why - but to argue anything else is to totally miss my posted position on your claim that the Bible contains no such clause - to me it does. Period.

So I guess that you agree with my original point - in the absence of an explicit clause, people decide for themselves what is important. In your case, as you say (and I underline in your text), you choose the red words as taking priority.

johnnyphoto - please confirm in this context that you still believe that interpretation is not a matter of personal choice...

RayEthier

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

11/21/2010 06:13:13 PM · #16

Originally posted by Flash:

...Erm this is rather bizarre - you appear to have criticised me, then rather selectively (mis)quoted my post in order to justify your criticsm - perhaps forgetting that my original post is still there for anyone to see? [Matthew - this is bizarre for sure - You wrote that the Bible did not contain a clause like other long contracts and I said it does for me. Period. Nothing else. Nothing added. Plain and simple - the Bible does contain a clause for me - like other long contracts. Now at this point you can argue that the red letters do not equate to a "clause" or you can post a position that you disagree and why - but to argue anything else is to totally miss my posted position on your claim that the Bible contains no such clause - to me it does. Period.]

I don't believe that anyone is disputing the fact that for YOU, the red letters equate to a clause. That being said, the issue is still one open to interpretation since if indeed this was something accepted by all, then there would be no discussing in this regard...at least not amongst practicing Christians.

Ray

11/21/2010 04:05:10 PM · #17

My reply in BOLD...

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Matthew:
My original point (which you challenged) was that people are forced to come up with their own rules of interpretation.

No. Your position was that the Bible did not contain any "Clause" language and I replied that for me it does - the red letters -

"In any long contract one includes a clause that explains in the event of inconsistency which sections are to be read with priority (acknowledging that in any long set of governing rules under multiple authorship there will be inconsistencies). The bible doesn't come with a clause like that - "

Erm this is rather bizarre - you appear to have criticised me, then rather selectively (mis)quoted my post in order to justify your criticsm - perhaps forgetting that my original post is still there for anyone to see? [Matthew - this is bizarre for sure - You wrote that the Bible did not contain a clause like other long contracts and I said it does for me. Period. Nothing else. Nothing added. Plain and simple - the Bible does contain a clause for me - like other long contracts. Now at this point you can argue that the red letters do not equate to a "clause" or you can post a position that you disagree and why - but to argue anything else is to totally miss my posted position on your claim that the Bible contains no such clause - to me it does. Period.]

Originally posted by Matthew:
In any long contract one includes a clause that explains in the event of inconsistency which sections are to be read with priority (acknowledging that in any long set of governing rules under multiple authorship there will be inconsistencies). The bible doesn't come with a clause like that - and it means that people make up their own.
[Your conclusion that people make up their own is based on your statement that the Bible does not contain a clause - but it does. Therefore that particular phrase had no weight in my reply as my reply waas directed at ONLY your conclusion that the Bible had no such clause]

In an argument where I alleged that the spoken word is open to being re-interpreted for a political agenda before being written down, it is rather ironic that you are re-interpreting even my written word to suit your political agenda.

Your other points are downright bizarre. [What is bizarre is your failure to get such a simple position] On the one hand you stress the importance of the red words [No my only stressing of the red words is as they would relate to YOUR requirement of a "clause" in long contracts. The Bible does contain a "clause" and that "clause is the red words], and on the other hand you state the irrelevance of their accuracy [The accuracy doesn't matter to my point of using the red lettered words as they apply to the "clause". In a long contract with a "clause" the "clause" words could be inaccurate - but that doesn't change them form being the "clause" words. This is simple. Again you could argue that you disagree that the red letters meet the definition of a "clause" - but so far I have not read that.] If the precise words are irrelevant, then presumably the whole religion is just a vague sensibility? In which case, how can any specific position ever be justified? [what does this have to do with either the red letters fit the definition of a long contract clause or they don't. that is the ONLY item at hand.]

If there was ever a conversation to prove that religions are interpreted by the individual then this is it.

11/21/2010 03:14:52 PM · #18

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Matthew:
Again historians don't believe that the apostles wrote the gospels, so your circular reasoning on the literacy of the apostles is somewhat broken.

Some historians don't believe that the apostles wrote the gospels. Many do.

Let's be clear - scholarly dialogue has not seriously contemplated this for centuries. Except perhaps religious scholars - who are distinctly not obective. Wiki does have some nice summaries of the discussion. E.g.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

That's my point. By that standard no ancient texts are credible. There are very few ancient events for which there are more than one eyewitness account. When there are multiple accounts, they are never exact. The fact that there are four eyewitness accounts of Jesus life and they are all shockingly similar means that the gospels are among the most credible ancient texts.

This is where we come totally unstuck. All serious debate considers how the texts borrow from each other - I think that you really undermine your credibility if you genuinely think/argue that these four texts were written completely independently of each other, and that their similarity is down to duplicated experience.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Once again you are wrong. I only use one translation of the Bible, and only for the sake of those that cannot read Hebrew or Greek. I have not selected specific texts from specific translations, I have only examine the texts in the original languages that have been questioned. There are many possible ways to read any text, not just the Bible. However, there is only one correct way to read any text, and that is how the author intended it to be read. I could think of a number of possible ways to read something like this quote from Shakspeare: "It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night like a rich jewel in an Ethiope's ear."

We really are speaking at cross purposes. You keep on demonstrating my point. The written word is a fundamentally incomplete and inaccurate record of the spoken word. Translation further reduces accuracy.

You are taking words from a Greek text (at the very least a translation from the original spoken word, and likely one communicated in various forms for several decades before being recorded like this). You are interpreting the words yourself, differently to the interpretations in other bibles, and you are looking to find a way to reach a specific conclusion (that the bible was perfect even against today's knowledge). Unsurprisingly, you are able to read and infer meaning into words in order to find a meaning that supports your aim.

The fact that interpretation is subjective can be demonstrated quite quickly. If you were to take unhelpful meanings for each translation, you could quickly conclude that the bible is imperfect. If you use helpful translations, you can conclude that it is accurate. Whether you read the bible as accurate or not is down to you - not the text. Exactly my point.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Wrong again. There are many early Christian documents that explain the correct teaching/interpretation of the apostles.

How can pointing at someone else's personal and subjective guide to interpretation (to achieve their own political objectives in their own context) be any more definitive than making up your own? The fact that many people over many centuries have seen fit to write their own guides as to how to read the bible (a tradition you seem to be maintaining) is once again proof that there is no single objective truth - it is open to interpretation and re-interpretation.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

11/20/2010 10:03:53 PM · #19

Originally posted by Matthew:

Again historians don't believe that the apostles wrote the gospels, so your circular reasoning on the literacy of the apostles is somewhat broken.

Some historians don't believe that the apostles wrote the gospels. Many do.

Originally posted by Matthew:

If there were detailed notes, why doesn't Paul seem to have them?

Why do you say that? How do you think Paul knew about Jesus so well then?

Originally posted by Matthew:

Modern standards of assessing the veracity of a text are not rendered ineffective merely because a text is ancient. For example, the fact that there appears to be collusion between authors undermines the credibility of a text regardless of whether or not contemporary standards would have seen it so.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Of course the fact that the bible can be read in many ways is lost upon you. Witness your strained attempts to find a way to make sense of a text in the modern context. Your examples merely strengthen my case: you are able through the selection of specific texts from specific translations able to find a way to make a text say what you need it to say (eg explain why the bible is not wrong to say that insects have four legs). There are of course many other (more common) ways to read that text, which is pretty obvious and very much my point.

Originally posted by Matthew:

More important than the veracity of reported history is the vagary of the spiritual instruction. Again, there was no specific guide to interpretation, so you are always left with subjective and personal interpretation.

Wrong again. There are many early Christian documents that explain the correct teaching/interpretation of the apostles.

Other early church documents.

Message edited by author 2010-11-20 22:07:37.

rossbilly

Nikon D200

11/20/2010 08:27:43 PM · #20

a few discrepencies, and it wouldn't be a big deal.

four HUNDRED and thirty nine???

yeah, not worth every frikkin xtian on earth having a different 'explanation'.

THAT is not hard to figure out, now is it? I get so absolutely flabbergasted at the number of people who believe every one else has it wrong, except their flavor of coolaid.

again, NOT worth the battles (and there are MANY with believers).

IF there is some omniscient being, then it will understand my confusion.

Message edited by author 2010-11-20 20:52:44.

11/20/2010 08:09:17 PM · #21

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Jesus did speak Aramaic. He (and his disciples) almost certainly spoke Greek as well. The Greek language was the common language of the Roman Empire during the first century, and since Palestine was part of the Roman Empire there is little reason to doubt that Jesus was bilingual. Koine = "common" in Greek.

but I don't think that anyone seriously argues that the gospels transliterated jesus' words - they would likely have been in Hebrew and Aramaic, then translated into Greek for the most part by the authors of the gospels. At the very least there was this translation.

Whether you accept the likelihood that Jesus words were or were not subject to a contemporaneous recording seems likely to be down to your purpose. Historical analysis of texts: unlikely. In order to prop up a belief system: credible.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Once again, my arguments are being misconstrued. I did not argue that first century attitudes toward accuracy were poor (as you claim I did). I was arguing that modern day attitudes toward first century standards of accuracy are poor. There is a huge difference. I do believe that the disciples were very careful to record the words and teachings of Jesus. They were literate (as is evidenced by the fact that they wrote the books of the New Testament) and they regarded Jesus as an important teacher. In fact, they thought he was so important that they left their homes, families, and jobs and dedicated their lives to following him. If you gave up your life to follow someone and regarded them as an important teacher, wouldn't you take notes?

Again historians don't believe that the apostles wrote the gospels, so your circular reasoning on the literacy of the apostles is somewhat broken.

If there were detailed notes, why doesn't Paul seem to have them?

Modern standards of assessing the veracity of a text are not rendered ineffective merely because a text is ancient. For example, the fact that there appears to be collusion between authors undermines the credibility of a text regardless of whether or not contemporary standards would have seen it so.

Of course the fact that the bible can be read in many ways is lost upon you. Witness your strained attempts to find a way to make sense of a text in the modern context. Your examples merely strengthen my case: you are able through the selection of specific texts from specific translations able to find a way to make a text say what you need it to say (eg explain why the bible is not wrong to say that insects have four legs). There are of course many other (more common) ways to read that text, which is pretty obvious and very much my point.

More important than the veracity of reported history is the vagary of the spiritual instruction. Again, there was no specific guide to interpretation, so you are always left with subjective and personal interpretation.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

11/20/2010 06:12:41 PM · #22

Originally posted by scalvert:

Conflicting accounts of creation, winged creatures walking on all fours, and writing about something as specific as a particular musical instrument in Daniel 3:5 that wasn't invented until 200 years after the death of the supposed author are irreconcilable facts readily available to anyone who cares to look up the passages. Conflating the word "theory" in the hypothetical sense with a scientific theory demonstrates that you don't understand the basic difference between evidential knowledge and personal supposition. Therefore, you're wasting your time trying to convince me of your unsupported personal beliefs and I'm wasting mine on someone who doesn't comprehend or care what facts are anyway.

You fail to understand that you are reading the Bible in an English translation from a 21st century mindset. You also fail to realize that you have no understanding of how ancient Hebrew and Greek were used differently from modern English. Thus, you read the English translation, find something that doesn't make sense, and call it a contradiction or an error. This is poor reasoning. What seems to be an error in the translation might not be an error in the original. What is the semantic range of the word? What is the authors intent? What is the context of the passage? These are all important questions that you are ignoring. The Hebrew word for "go" in Leviticus 11:20 can also be translated "walk". Therefore, if you consider that grasshoppers use their two back legs for jumping, is it that difficult to understand why someone would say that the other four legs are used for walking? The instrument that you are referring to in Daniel 3:5 corresponds with the word symphōnia. Did you know that this word can also be used as an adjective? It that's how the word in functioning here, then it is not referring to a specific instrument and there is no problem.
Info on Daniel.
Info on musical instruments in Daniel 3:5.

Again, you're confusing facts and theories. The "theory" that the two creation accounts are conflicting is not a "fact". The "theory" that symphōnia in Dan. 3:5 is functioning as a noun rather than an adjective is not a "fact". The "theory" that "walk on all fours" in Lev. 11 refers to the total number of legs that grasshoppers have rather than the means by which grasshoppers move is not a "fact". Is that clear enough for you?

K3Master

Pentax K-3

11/20/2010 05:00:22 PM · #23

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I am interested in research and evidence, but ultimately they are not as important as belief.

End of discussion. When reality is not as important as belief, there can be no possibility of rational debate.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Maybe you've convinced yourself to believe so strongly in other theories (like the big bang, evolution, or whatever else you believe) that you've also convinced yourself to believe these biblical theories.

Conflicting accounts of creation, winged creatures walking on all fours, and writing about something as specific as a particular musical instrument in Daniel 3:5 that wasn't invented until 200 years after the death of the supposed author are irreconcilable facts readily available to anyone who cares to look up the passages. Conflating the word "theory" in the hypothetical sense with a scientific theory demonstrates that you don't understand the basic difference between evidential knowledge and personal supposition. Therefore, you're wasting your time trying to convince me of your unsupported personal beliefs and I'm wasting mine on someone who doesn't comprehend or care what facts are anyway.

Gee Shannon, it only took you about 300,000 Rant posts to come to this conclusion? lol.

11/20/2010 04:50:17 PM · #24

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I am interested in research and evidence, but ultimately they are not as important as belief.

End of discussion. When reality is not as important as belief, there can be no possibility of rational debate.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Maybe you've convinced yourself to believe so strongly in other theories (like the big bang, evolution, or whatever else you believe) that you've also convinced yourself to believe these biblical theories.