FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-29-2001, 12:23 PM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Echo:
I thought it was interesting that some of the contradictions were dismissed as "copyist's errors."

If we don't have any originals, how do we know these were copyist errors instead of just plain old errors?

But then again, it's the bible..it can't have an error.
</font>

My girlfriend, who is a sincere believer though in no way a fundamentalist, dismisses the twits who spout nonsense about "biblical inerrancy" this way. She figures that if they can't quote from the original Aramaic or Greek, then they need to shut up. If there was indeed any time when the scriptures could have come from gawd hisself, that would have been it. The rest are mere copies prone to human error and hearsay.
 
Old 06-29-2001, 12:45 PM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post


So, let me get this straight. To fully understand the bible, I have to learn Greek and Aramaic? Wouldn't God have made sure his words were translated correctly (esp since more people speak English than the other two nowadays?)
 
Old 06-29-2001, 12:56 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wink

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Throbert McGee:
You get sexually aroused by stealing things? Sick, dude.

Throbert "Mackerelsnapper" McGee
</font>
Spot the Catholic!

I'm an ex-Catholic too, but I thought if I called it the 6th Commandment I'd look even sicker to Protestants and ex-Protestants.
 
Old 06-29-2001, 02:22 PM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Here's my favorite part, right near the beginning:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
For that reason Christians have always maintained that the entire Bible shows the imprint of human hands. Evidence of this can be found in the variety of human languages used, the varying styles of writing, the differences in the author's intellects and temperaments, as well as the apparent allusions to the author's contemporary concepts of scientific knowledge, without which the scriptures would not have been understood by the people of that time. That does not mean, however, that the Bible is not authoritative, for each of the writers received their revelation by means of inspiration.
</font>
In sum:
When it is convenient to us, the bible is flawed because it was written by humans. Otherwise, the bible is inerrant because it was inspired by god.
 
Old 07-01-2001, 09:33 AM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Muslims talk often about the many contradictions in the Bible.

Well, I for one feel snubbed. What are we--chopped liver?

I suspect the Muslim objections were fewer in number and possible easier to "explain" (i.e., harmonize or dismiss). Last I checked, there are gobs of easily-located atheist "Bible contradiction" lists that contain several hundred contradictions.

If Xns really wanted their pound of flesh, they'd take on the objectors who were raised "in the faith" and know the Bible firsthand.

Sez me.

diana
 
Old 07-01-2001, 10:02 AM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by RobertE:
She figures that if they can't quote from the original Aramaic or Greek, then they need to shut up. If there was indeed any time when the scriptures could have come from gawd hisself, that would have been it. The rest are mere copies prone to human error and hearsay.</font>
Many people I know have claimed this as well, but my question is: WHICH original text? It's unlikely that any extant manuscripts are perfectly accurate copies of the orginals, and even if they were, we wouldn't know which ones they are.

This is probably more of a problem with the OT than NT; IIRC, we're missing quite a bit of the original Aramaic of Daniel, and a chapter or two from either 1 Samuel or 2 Samuel, even with the help of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Edited to add: Most of the OT is written in Hebrew, not Aramaic, so apparently that's another to add to the List of Languages to Learn Before You Can Talk About the Bible.

[This message has been edited by Muad'dib (edited July 01, 2001).]
 
Old 07-01-2001, 01:55 PM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lightbulb

It's clear now why the various numeralogical interpretations of holy writings exist. Mathematics is one way you would expect a superior intelligence to communicate with all humanity, regardless of language. However, most numeralogical schemes for "decoding" the Bible usually reveal nothing more than the "intelligence" of the decoders.

One thing I would appreciate from apologists, such as the compiler of the list in the OP, is a full Bible translation. Call it the "What God Meant To Say" version, and be done with it.
 
Old 07-02-2001, 01:28 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Muad'dib:
I was impressed with #52; I had never seen anyone address that particular problem before. Unfortunately its resolution is incorrect; the Romans did not begin their days at midnight; their times were calculated from dawn to dusk.

Edited to add:

Upon further research I find that sources disagree on this; but it is by no means a given that Roman days began at midnight, and even if they did, it's difficult to show that the author of John was using Roman time rather than Hebrew.

[This message has been edited by Muad'dib (edited June 28, 2001).]
</font>
What I think is more perplexing was that the romans did not even use the 7-day week that was mentioned in the bible at this time. The Julian calendar was in use during this period, not the Gregorian calendar. Explain to me how during this day and age we can use our own convenient calendar and say Jesus died on Friday and ascended on Easter Sunday? 7-day weeks were considered bad luck. Most bartering society's weeks depended on the trade that was going on at any given location; some were 4 - 5 day weeks and others were even 10-day weeks

[This message has been edited by choo (edited July 02, 2001).]
 
Old 07-04-2001, 06:24 PM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Grumpy:
One thing I would appreciate from apologists, such as the compiler of the list in the OP, is a full Bible translation. Call it the "What God Meant To Say" version, and be done with it.</font>
ROTFLMAO! Damn, so funny, yet so rational!
Good one!
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:17 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.