| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/31/2008 07:39:05 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Isn't this making me prove a negative (something atheists really hate to do themselves)? |
Since we don't know what the originals were, there is no way to prove one way or the other whether there have been changes or not (unless we have several contradicting versions. How could we know which one is the correct one? And how would we know it corresponds to the original?). We can only make assumptions. And study the text. I don't think there could be a passage that would leave no doubt that it had been written exactly like this in the original. However, there could be (and there are, as Ehrman explains in the video) passages that could not have possibly been like this in the originals.
If you make claims about the accuracy or infallibility of a text, the burden of proof is on you.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as whether Jesus rose on a Sunday or not. Pfft. IF Jesus rose from the dead, do you think it matters what day of the week it occured? If a resurrection occurred, I'd be hard pressed to care if it happened on 14 Nisan or the next Sunday. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. |
If the text doesn't even get simple details like the date right, how can you trust the rest of it?
Let's continue the discussion when you have Internet access again and had the time to watch the video, ok?
Message edited by author 2008-07-31 19:41:29. |
|
|
|
07/31/2008 07:55:18 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
If you make claims about the accuracy or infallibility of a text, the burden of proof is on you. |
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing. We can make claims about the accurancy by the multitude of texts. If, as mentioned, 66% of the New Testament is in complete agreement between the seven most respected copies, then there is no reason to assume it is not the same as the original. To assume that all seven texts managed to make the same error separately or that they are all copies of a single errored text which is unknown is simply more ludicrous. Can I employ Occam's razor here?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as whether Jesus rose on a Sunday or not. Pfft. IF Jesus rose from the dead, do you think it matters what day of the week it occured? If a resurrection occurred, I'd be hard pressed to care if it happened on 14 Nisan or the next Sunday. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. |
If the text doesn't even get simple details like the date right, how can you trust the rest of it?
[/quote]
So we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater? You can read about the controversy here: Quartodecimanism Man, I'll give it to those guys, they could certainly come up with a name for everything... |
|
|
|
07/31/2008 08:09:35 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Dahkota's example of the Trinity is actually about the best example I'm aware of. It's quite interesting. Still, I'm not personally quite sure why it matters so much whether God is "three persons of one substance" or "three beings of one purpose" (like the Mormons say). Although that passage is the most direct reference to the trinity, others can be assumed such as the first verses of John. I also don't quite get how an addition by Erasmus in 1500s makes much of a difference when they were already discussing the point over a thousand years earlier? |
It bears a lot on the Christian Doctrine most people follow. The first verses of John seem to be more like quotes or paraphrases of Heraclitus than of God. Unless of course Heraclitus was divinely inspired. The addition of text by Erasmus just proves that additions that altered the text were done. The additions were done because there was no mention of the Trinity in the bible and the new translators felt there should be. The fact that a bunch of men had to gather together to decide what they thought the bible meant means that there were questions of meaning. What if the decision would have gone the other way? How would that have changed your views on the relation of Jesus to God? this is basic Christian doctrine here and is an argument that continues to this day.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, the passage is 1 John 5:7, not John 5:7. Also, most modern translations, leave the clause out: 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the [a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. is what my NIV says with the following footnote: 1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century) |
sorry I missed the 1. I was in a hurry. As I stated in my post, I know it has now been removed. But, it was in place for over 350 years, influencing many people.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The wiki is an interesting read: Comma Johanneum Certainly it appears the early church fathers supported the idea of the Trinity without the clause, thus whether it is actual or not doesn't seem to make much difference. |
Not the point. there were and still are others who don't agree with it. And, its not part of the biblical text, just an interpretation of it. It is no more valid than any other interpretation.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as whether Jesus rose on a Sunday or not. Pfft. IF Jesus rose from the dead, do you think it matters what day of the week it occured? If a resurrection occurred, I'd be hard pressed to care if it happened on 14 Nisan or the next Sunday. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. |
I wasn't pointing out the day of the week so much as the fact that the gospels don't agree on when the last supper was and so don't agree on the day of the crucifixion and so don't agree on the resurrection. Additionally it was my point that Christian Doctrine is often based on arbitrary decisions by a bunch of men sitting around making rules to enforce.
****
The differences I posted earlier were ones I found quickly, in less than 5 minutes and off the top of my head. For those who know Greek or know they came from the different/same/later translations, they are similar. To those who are not so educated, they make a difference. you might know that preaching is a noun but ask 90% of the population and they will tell you its a verb. Hence, there is a difference between preaching and message preached. You might know that corinthians was referring to homosexuals but other people might not.
At any rate, these are not my ideas. Dr. asked for examples from Ehrman. I am providing them. I don't really care one way or the other. I am not a Christian nor do I care what Christians believe as long as they don't make assumptions about my beliefs. |
|
|
|
07/31/2008 08:26:49 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Are these differences in translation because they used different texts as their greek base or are they differences in translation because the translators felt the words more closely followed the undisputed greek text? |
Precisely what we can (probably) never know for sure -- hence the basis of the whole issue at hand. |
|
|
|
07/31/2008 08:37:40 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The assumption can be made that the text is faithful unless there is reason to believe it isn't. |
Wouldn't the plethora of known mistranslations, alterations, and additions and omissions inspire at least a smidgen of a suggestion that there are probably further deviations from the "original" version(s), and quite possibly significant ones?
BTW: I believe the prevalent language among the actual participants of the relevant NT events was Aramaic (or maybe Latin for the Imperial occupation forces), not Greek, so even your purported "originals" are translations of what were probably oral histories, or perhaps just stories ... |
|
|
|
07/31/2008 08:45:20 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
It bears a lot on the Christian Doctrine most people follow. The first verses of John seem to be more like quotes or paraphrases of Heraclitus than of God. Unless of course Heraclitus was divinely inspired. The addition of text by Erasmus just proves that additions that altered the text were done. The additions were done because there was no mention of the Trinity in the bible and the new translators felt there should be. The fact that a bunch of men had to gather together to decide what they thought the bible meant means that there were questions of meaning. What if the decision would have gone the other way? How would that have changed your views on the relation of Jesus to God? this is basic Christian doctrine here and is an argument that continues to this day. |
Well, I'm off to Eugene so this will be my last post. A good discussion, but I feel I am still arguing from a position of strength. I would point out to you Dahkota that you may have proven my very point that we have so many manuscripts of the New Testament that it is pretty easy to spot when someone is adding something. Textual criticism has done its job and modern translations leave out the Johanneum Comma. Could there be other additions? Anything is possible. Does it take a large leap of faith to assume there are not any doctrine changing additions? No. I'll still point out that this phrase only tries to highlight a doctrine that was already in place for 1200 years. Yes, we can talk about the fact doctrines have been argued and changed over time. It's, once again, irrelevant to the argument at hand unless you can show (as you at least attempted to with the 1 John passage) it's due to variance in the texts.
The bit about the day of resurrection is again chasing rabbits. The difference comes from difference between gospels rather than from differences arising from versions of the same gospel. Again, a whole different argument. |
|
|
|
07/31/2008 08:47:28 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The assumption can be made that the text is faithful unless there is reason to believe it isn't. |
Wouldn't the plethora of known mistranslations, alterations, and additions and omissions inspire at least a smidgen of a suggestion that there are probably further deviations from the "original" version(s), and quite possibly significant ones?
BTW: I believe the prevalent language among the actual participants of the relevant NT events was Aramaic (or maybe Latin for the Imperial occupation forces), not Greek, so even your purported "originals" are translations of what were probably oral histories, or perhaps just stories ... |
Statistics will tell us the answer is "no". Having more and more copies, even if they are not all exact, tend to cancel out the errors and bring the true text to light. It's a bit dicey if you have three copies, but if you have 10,000, well, your job is a bit easier... :) |
|
|
|
07/31/2008 08:51:25 PM · #233 |
So you are saying that if a shortstop boots 19 consecutive grounders, he's likely to field the 20th cleanly because he's gotten a glove on every ball?
If every one of those 10,000 versions (NOT "copies") contains one or more errors, why would you assume that any new-found version would (or could) be error-free? The logic does not compute to me ... |
|
|
|
07/31/2008 09:13:59 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A good discussion, but I feel I am still arguing from a position of strength. |
You still haven't even watched the video. "Ignorance is Strength"... |
|
|
|
07/31/2008 09:40:14 PM · #235 |
 DrAchoo, as I said, I think you should watch the video before we continue the discussion on accuracy.
However, let me ask you a quick side question. You have stated several times that the New Testament is more widely available and more accurate nowadays than ever. You have also said that we can be reasonably certain that it doesn't contain any significant errors. I conclude that you believe the currently available versions of the New Testament to be sufficiently close to the originals and therefore the word of God. And as a faithful Christian, I assume that you wish to follow God's word, right?
So, do you agree that disobedient children should be killed? (just to pick one example)
Jesus demands this in Mark 7:9-10 (This rule is also mentioned several times in the old testament, Exodus 21:15, for example. We can thus be even more certain that God really means it.):
Originally posted by Mark:
And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'" (New International Version) |
|
|
|
|
07/31/2008 10:15:51 PM · #236 |
DrAchoo has said he's not interested in discussing whether or not the bible is the word of God. Clearly he thinks so. This is why discussing the legitimacy of the extant texts compared to whatever the originals were is ultimately fruitless. Whatever discrepancies exist are irrelevant in the face of faith. Whatever the true (unknowable) history of the text is ultimately doesn't matter. Every person of faith will happily admit to not requiring evidence for their beliefs, much less a detailed history of their holy book.
But it does lead to absurdities, such as the suggestion that what we have now is as close to the original as it can be (despite it being impossible to know what the originals were), that any errors are minor (even though we have nothing to compare our current sources with), and that the abundance of latter-day copies somehow represents evidence that the spirit of the originals is at hand. |
|
|
|
08/01/2008 12:00:20 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by Louis:
This is why discussing the legitimacy of the extant texts compared to whatever the originals were is ultimately fruitless. |
Agreed. My point about the Qur'an being far more accurate a text should make it clear that the accuracy of transmission of a religious text has absolutely no relevance as to the validity of its contents.
The accuracy of the text should matter if you believe that the text is the word of god - a believer has a huge vested interest in pursuing the accurate body of work rather than a "chinese whispers" image of the original text. However, the video's point is that those few people who believe that the bible is god's word AND who bother to read it (amazing that anyone might believe the bible to be the word of god and yet cannot be bothered to read it!!) may not be aware that the text contains disputed and inaccurate text.
It would be a very bad argument to argue that any modern text is a perfect version of God's word. We can demonstrate that it is not and in addition there is a blank period of 150 years or so (per the video) before the earliest recorded bible fragments still surviving. It is inconceivable that manual copying perfectly preserved the original words during this time because, historically, manual copying of long tracts almost always resulted in the introduction of mistakes.
Some of those copying mistakes have introduced biblical verses that have had very serious negative consequences for followers through the centuries (per the video and below).
I heard a statement (cannot remember if it was the video or a radio interview I heard this morning on a similar subject) that Tyndale recorded by annotation over 40,000 inconsistencies between manuscript texts when he created the first full English translation of what was to become the authoritative bible text of the 16C and the basis for the KJ version. He was executed in part because of the disputes raised in his choice of words (eg interpreting the "church" as the "congregation", and "do penance" as "repent" and thereby challenging the influence of the Catholic church and strengthening reformist concepts).
|
|
|
|
08/01/2008 12:07:29 PM · #238 |
"If God wrote the bible the fist words would have been "It's Round""
-Eddie Izzard |
|
|
|
08/01/2008 01:01:08 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm simply going to limit my future conversation on this thread to the original topic, the reliability of the New Testament...
Did you read the link? No, I have not watched the video because an hour and 39 minutes is a bit too long for a simple thread like this when I'm fairly sure I know what he's going to say anyway. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nope, I still haven't watched the video... I'm really telling you though, he's not going to say anything earth-shattering. |
You have repeatedly expressed confidence in your knowledge of this material and a willingness to debate its value as truth even as you show no interest in learning its actual content, the validity of its sources, or any possible motivation of the author. Hmm... this seems familiar.
Message edited by author 2008-08-01 13:36:21. |
|
|
|
08/01/2008 01:33:54 PM · #240 |
| ...and just a reminder that, some time ago, I took time out to read a rather long tract by Lewis at your suggestion, DrAchoo, even though I also suspected what it would be about, and though his views are of course in direct opposition to mine. Just sayin'. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/01/2008 01:45:08 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by Louis:
...and just a reminder that, some time ago, I took time out to read a rather long tract by Lewis at your suggestion, DrAchoo, even though I also suspected what it would be about, and though his views are of course in direct opposition to mine. Just sayin'. ;-) |
"My mind's made up -- don't confuse me with the facts."
--my dad's interpretation of the "conservative" mantra |
|
|
|
08/01/2008 02:20:53 PM · #242 |
Me thinks God made more idiots than wise men.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2008 04:32:11 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
. Hmm... this seems familiar. |
As does the brazen condescension. |
|
|
|
08/01/2008 11:32:42 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
. Hmm... this seems familiar. |
As does the brazen condescension. |
I have read Scalvert's comments and truly fail to see where you would identify anything that is "Condescending". Perhaps you would care to elaborate.
Ray
Message edited by author 2008-08-01 23:50:12. |
|
|
|
08/02/2008 12:15:43 AM · #245 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
. Hmm... this seems familiar. |
As does the brazen condescension. |
I have read Scalvert's comments and truly fail to see where you would identify anything that is "Condescending". Perhaps you would care to elaborate.
Ray |
Why certainly Ray. Here's one of only around a thousand in all of these "God is great", "Your God doesn't exist" topics.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Maybe SDW's words were given by God, complete with typos and grammatical errors..... |
Frankly though, I lack the time or inclination to spend in these threads so I probably shouldn't have said anything to begin with; however, it does perplex me that the baiting and side mouth belittleing of people aren't really tolerated in any other threads except for those on religion.
Either way, s'cool. I have a plethora of things I should be doing rather than watching people play tennis without a ball. Nobody ever wins, they just wear themselves out - and after a while all the swings look the same. |
|
|
|
08/02/2008 01:15:27 AM · #246 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Here's one of only around a thousand in all of these "God is great", "Your God doesn't exist" topics.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Maybe SDW's words were given by God, complete with typos and grammatical errors..... |
|
However I meant that literally, not sarcastically. Both SDW and the authors of the Gospels apparently called on God for inspiration, and both include typos and grammatical errors. Other authors have posted content similar to SDW's in these threads, so should we assume on faith that his posts are the Word of God?
Message edited by author 2008-08-02 01:17:39. |
|
|
|
08/03/2008 04:06:11 AM · #247 |
The Bible is a living document and can only be read properly by a believer with interpreting help of the Holy Spirit. It is the history of God's dealings with mankind and as such it has the same earthly limitations that all ancient history does in terms of scholarship. It is only through diligent study, prayer, and reflection that it's truths can be gleaned. You really can't get much from it unless you have faith. I didn't become a believer because somebody shoved a Bible in my hand. I became a believer because of God's dealings in my life. The Bible helps me to understand God.
To those who believe it is eternal life and for those who don't it is foolishness. |
|
|
|
08/03/2008 09:28:27 AM · #248 |
|
|
|
08/03/2008 02:24:11 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
The Bible is a living document and can only be read properly by a believer with interpreting help of the Holy Spirit. |
So who is reading the Word of God "properly"... Jerry Falwell, the Pope, Warren Jeffs, Martin Luther, you? Each could make that claim, and then the others would point out that anything they don't agree with was read from the wrong version, out of context, misinterpreted, yadayadayada... It's interesting that an omniscient deity would leave his Will open to such wide interpretation by imperfect, self-serving humans. Imagine standing in court before a judge who tosses your lawyer's reading of the law aside with the claim that your rights can only be properly understood by a believer with the interpreting help of Thomas Jefferson's ghost. You would only believe the interpretation that happened to agree with whatever way YOU think it should be. |
|
|
|
08/03/2008 05:42:05 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
The Bible is a living document and can only be read properly by a believer with interpreting help of the Holy Spirit. It is the history of God's dealings with mankind and as such it has the same earthly limitations that all ancient history does in terms of scholarship. It is only through diligent study, prayer, and reflection that it's truths can be gleaned. You really can't get much from it unless you have faith. I didn't become a believer because somebody shoved a Bible in my hand. I became a believer because of God's dealings in my life. The Bible helps me to understand God.
To those who believe it is eternal life and for those who don't it is foolishness. |
So basically, we should ignore scholastic study and look "inside ourselves" to find the true meaning for each one of us. I guess that means that just about any belief can be justified by a personal interpretation of select biblical passages.
Isn't this how religious fundamentalists persuade their followers to commit acts of terrorism? Blind faith is easily redirected...
|
|
