Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pharoah · 10-31-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

Pharoah:

I do not want to interject too much seeing as Roger and yourself are already sufficiently engaged in the dialogue but I have been following the exchange and want to follow up on a point Roger articulated earlier but has been largely ignored by your own posts.

You said the following in which I think Roger had already provided a sufficient reply.

Roger had said earlier the following:

I think the point Roger is making here is based on your approach and reasoning we could question the credibility and veracity of a lot of texts about the ancient literature whose original manuscripts are forever lost to us.

I think the point Roger is essentially making is possession of the original texts are not necessary in being fairly confident we have received a very accurate, perhaps identical copy. We have this confidence when it comes to other forms of ancient literature and so why not the bible?

Of course to be "absolutely sure" the original texts is perhaps necessary. However, this is not the standard when it comes to other forms of ancient literature and it should not be so with the bible. The only way we can be sure of much of anything we read about the writings of people in the past, such as the Federalist Papers, James Madison's letters, John Locke's two treatises on government, Plato's Republic and other writings, Aristotle's writings, Marcus Aurrelius' writings, and so forth is to read the "original text". Yet I have never read the original text in regards to any of them, as is very likely true for the vast majority of us when it comes to these and other old texts, and yet this has not kept us or academia from being fairly confident we are reading a very accurate copy of the originals. Same goes for the bible as it is a piece of literature along with these other writings I have mentioned.

With all due respect, I don't think that either Roger's or your reply on this point is sufficient. The comparison with other ancient lierature is a favorite device by apologists, but it's a red herring. As I pointed out earlier, we're talking about the works of ancient man versus the word of an omnipotent deity. It's like comparing a Harlequin Romance to the collected works of Shakespeare. Think about it for a moment. If the Bible was really God's Word to mankind, then it's by far the most important document ever written. Why wouldn't an all-powerful God take the measures neccessary to preserve the exact words that he gave his prophets? I asked this earlier but didn't get an answer.

Quote:

As for your obsession with possible "additions" to the text.

I concur with Roger in his assessment these additions to the text do not necessitate having the original manuscripts before us. Why? I may even concede there could be some additions or subtractions, just as there may be with other ancient literature in which the original text is lost, but this does not keep us from reading and absorbing the central theme of the text. Since the central theme of the current texts, which is identical to the central theme of the original texts, is not altered by the "additions" or "subtractions" then they are not "significant".

How can you know anything about the "cental theme" of the original texts, if there is even such a thing, if we don't have any of them? We simply do not know the scope of the difference between the originals and what we have now.

Quote:

Your hypothetical question of what would Satan do to stop God's word? Hide the original texts and then make additions or subtractions to the future texts which are derivatives of the original text. Now if Satan were to stop God's word which part would he seek to subvert? Would Satan seek to subvert elements which have no bearing on the central theme of salvation? So Satan has added to the text an account of Jesus' having mercy on an adulterous woman. Does this addition really accomplish Satan's goal of abating the spread of God's word? Absolutely not. In fact it probably is conduciving to spreading the word of God as it demonstrates a merciful and loving God, qualities Jesus himself portrayed and instructed others to show to fellow humanity. So essentially Satan has effectively and unwittingly done nothing to preclude the spread of God's word with this addition but quite possibly added to the text's credibility by including an account of a merciful and loving God, a depiction of God emphasized throughout the NT, and a characterization of God which reinforces the central theme of salvation.

That wonderful little tale places Jesus in direct conflict with one of God's OT laws, which did command the stoning of adulteresses. That law also certainly didn't require that the stoners themselves be blameless. Which one is right, God's OT law, which was supposed to a perpetual law, or Jesus's new edict?

Quote:

Let's use a parallel example. Plato's Republic is an ancient text. I have never read the original text of Plato's Republic and I am not even sure the original text exists. I do have, however, a "copy" of the original text in my book and have read it. I know the central theme of Plato's work. Plato is especially distrustful of democracy and the masses ability to elect good leaders as opposed to tyrants.

Now let's assume some of the very "earliest" manuscripts do not have a particular passage in them whereas some modern texts do. However, the passage at issue does not subvert the central theme of Plato's work but in fact is compatible with his central thesis in his work The Republic. Why, other than for the purposes of being "entirely" accurate, is it essential we have the original texts of Plato's Republic? Admittely we cannot be "sure" of what part is Plato's and which is not absent his original writings but how damaging are these additions? Not very and consequently, not significant. Same can be said for your additions.

As I stated above, the comparisons with ancient literature is a red herring. We have the means now to ensure that the text of any book of any recent vintage can be perfectly preserved for all future generations. Why couldn't an omnipotent being do that in the past? What reason would God have NOT to preserve the exact words that he had his prophets write?

Quote:

Which, by the way, I have scrutinized those verses and it seems to me it is not a "fact" those verses you mention are fabrications. Whether or not it is a fabrication is a very contentious issue with both sides making some very compelling arguments.

Are you or anyone else seriously suggesting that any of these verses are in the earliest manuscripts we have? If so, provide the evidence or point me to a link.
BTW, what's your take on the numerical errors that permeate the OT?

Roger Pearse · 10-31-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

#1 Christians are the one who have claimed the the Bible is "THE" word of God. So, apparently it is important to them. If you make a claim that something is "THE" word of someone then you have to have some origional source, do you not?

Do you? After all, no-one has ever been certain in what language the words of Jesus were spoken, and that never bothered the early Christians.

But I always feel that saying that someone else's religion 'must' mean this or that is a risky proceeding, to say the least.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 10-31-2005, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

I think the point Roger is making here is based on your approach and reasoning we could question the credibility and veracity of a lot of texts about the ancient literature whose original manuscripts are forever lost to us.

I think the point Roger is essentially making is possession of the original texts are not necessary in being fairly confident we have received a very accurate, perhaps identical copy. We have this confidence when it comes to other forms of ancient literature and so why not the bible?

Exactly. This is why I referred to confusion here -- people are presuming that because the bible is 'the word of God' (a theological term not defined by any of those using it here, and a theological judgement none of those doing so is qualified to make) it somehow must differ from all other books. This is the wrong way to look at things. First and foremost the bible is a book (or collection of books), recorded, transmitted, reproduced in all the normal ways. To attack it on the grounds that human beings have difficulty with recording their texts accurately is to argue against literature as a whole. It's an invalid argument. As for the theological argument, it's fairly obvious that if there is a God, and if he decides to dictate a book, he must be willing to live with trivia like transmission issues. After all, he's already willing to live with the problem that words are ambiguous and languages die.

The whole mixture of two issues seems misconceived to my ignorant eyes.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 10-31-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

No confusion. Just seeking for clarification and basically getting it (thanks). "[H]istorical" may be a stretch, but what I had in mind is textual material that could be used for historical purposes. "[S]end more beer" can be really useful stuff, telling us who is where, when, what their needs were, and allowing us to deal with why they were there. There is a vast wealth of epigraphic data that is fine raw material for history.

I don't disagree a bit with you here. This is the sort of stuff the Vindolanda tablets contain (wooden tablets preserved at Hadrian's wall only because the grass turves created anerobic conditions). This is archaeology, in fact. The only problem is that these things (and indeed epigraphical stuff like inscriptions on coins and rocks) tend not to tell us much about the policies of (e.g.) Nerva (although copies of imperial edicts can!). For that we must go to the historians like Cassius Dio who give a connected account of events.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 10-31-2005, 12:51 PM

Thank you for your comments. I'm nervous that we're drifting further and further away from my original comment into theological assertions as to how biblical inspiration 'must' work. This seems unlikely to be valid to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Do you know this by divine revelation?

If we are asserting that you (just you?) are a theological authority over how divine inspiration works; that it works with specific words (in specific languages only?); and that Christians (and Jews and Moslems?) must defer to your oracular pronouncements, then of course there is nothing more to be said.

Unless you claim to be a theological authority with a divine revelation, neither of us can sensibly decide how inspiration works. Surely?

Both of these passages are strict injunctures from God not to add or take anything away from his Word.

No doubt. But similar injunctions are found in all sorts of works. It is, after all, a sensible precaution to take in the era of hand-copying. But if this is to say that this commits Christians to the view that only the original autographs can be inspired, then this is mistaken.

I think your argument involves various theological statements neither of us is competent to make, unless you are claiming divine revelation.

Quote:

What I have shown you in my previous post is irrefutable evidence that the Bible that you refer to as the Word of God has already been severely tampered with.

Not that I saw. But this seems to be a separate issue. Can we keep focused on the original point?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

James Madison · 10-31-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

The comparison with other ancient lierature is a favorite device by apologists, but it's a red herring. As I pointed out earlier, we're talking about the works of ancient man versus the word of an omnipotent deity.

No you are "presuming" a deity actually commanded man to write and the text is the result of this occurrence. In both cases we are talking about the works of "ancient man". Ancient men wrote the bible, period. Whether they "actually" did it at the direction of God or not is something you assume as "true" for the purpose of attempting to distinguish the bible from other ancient texts. Yet it is an assumption you can't even demonstrate to be true. You seem to accept as "true" the authors claims God inspired them to write and they did so. On this basis alone you then seek to argue this makes this text somehow different from other ancient texts which were written by ancient men.

However, this distinction is irrelevant and does not accomplish what you hope it does. The fact the ancient authors claim God told them to write what they did does not change the fact it was 'written' by ancient men just as the other ancient texts were also written by men. The fact remains the original text, whether inspired by God or not, is going to be the "best" point of reference in determining whether future copies are "accurate". The fact one texts makes the claim it was inspired by God and others were not does not change this fact. Consequently, the parallel to the ancient literature is not a red herring as issues of accuracy and correctness are always going to be an issue when the original manuscript is missing, God inspired or not. Thus, the comparison is not a red herring but rather the analogy is exactly on point.

But pray do tell how you know the bible is the product of a supreme being as opposed to the machinations of ancient man poured out on paper?

Quote:

Why wouldn't an all-powerful God take the measures neccessary to preserve the exact words that he gave his prophets? I asked this earlier but didn't get an answer.

Well Roger did answer this question. You assume the current texts have not preserved the exact words he gave to his prophets or more to the point of this dialogue the current texts have not preserved what these ancient men originally wrote down. You have presented little to no evidence to suggest the current texts have not preserved what the ancient men originally wrote.

Quote:

How can you know anything about the "cental theme" of the original texts, if there is even such a thing, if we don't have any of them? We simply do not know the scope of the difference between the originals and what we have now.

Do I need the original? Is the original really necessary? Why can't I rely upon copies of the original? We do it in regards to other ancient texts, such as Plato writings, Aristotle's writings, Cicero, Federalist papers, the Magna Carta, and so forth.

Quote:

That wonderful little tale places Jesus in direct conflict with one of God's OT laws, which did command the stoning of adulteresses. That law also certainly didn't require that the stoners themselves be blameless. Which one is right, God's OT law, which was supposed to a perpetual law, or Jesus's new edict?

Yeah so did Jesus' healing on the Sabbath, his comments about consuming unclean foods, and so forth. These seeming inconsistencies does not prove to me they were not in the "original" text or the current texts with these versions have not accurately retold what was in the original text. You assume the original text did not contain inconsistencies and yet according to your own argument you can't even support this presupposition because you can't look at the original text to determine what was originally said or not said.

In fact your own reasoning seems to defeat your own argument. Ultimately, you want the original text to determine what was originally said or not said and without it we cannot be "sure". Well this is true for EVERY copy of an ancient text we read. You cannot prove or remotely demonstrate what is currently in the bible is a fabrication because you don't have the original texts in front of you. By attempting to corner the other side you have unwittingly trapped yourself in a corner.

For example, earlier you told Roger the bible has been tampered with and this was a "fact". Really? It is a "fact"? Well how can it be a "fact" when we do not have the original manuscripts in front of us to determine John 7:53 and 8:1-11 are fabrications? How do we know these verses did not appear in the original manuscript? If it is true these passages did appear in the original manuscript, then they are not fabrications. Hence, it seems to me for you to assert as "fact" there has been alterations to the bible you yourself ALSO need the original manuscripts in front of you.

But you just "assume" as true these facts. For the purposes of your own position you do not need to see the original manuscripts because through some process you have knowledge of what the original manuscripts said. Without this knowledge your own argument suffers.

This is one of many points Roger was emphasizing.

Quote:

As I stated above, the comparisons with ancient literature is a red herring. We have the means now to ensure that the text of any book of any recent vintage can be perfectly preserved for all future generations.

No it is not a red herring because in both cases we are talking about texts written by ancient men. The fact one claims to have been inspired by God does not somehow change the rules for one text as opposed to another. Whether the text was inspired by God or not the fact is the original text is going to be the best to determine if current texts are accurate, reliable, and correct.

Additionally, focusing on the "means" that exist today to preserve recent vintage for future generations says nothing about the possible perils associated with reading a copy of an ancient writing when the original ancient writing is missing.

Quote:

Are you or anyone else seriously suggesting that any of these verses are in the earliest manuscripts we have? If so, provide the evidence or point me to a link.

You are the one asserting those verses are frauds, prove it. You can't prove it can you, at least not according to your own argument. Why? Because you lack the original manuscript. You have predicated so much emphasis on the importance of the original manuscript that you can't even prove the bible is fraudulent in even one verse because not having the original manuscript in front of you renders you unaware as to whether or not the verses even exists in the original manuscript.

Now you can't rely upon these earliest manuscripts as evidence they were not in the original, at least not according to your own argument. Why? Because the earliest manuscripts could be wrong and departures from the original.

So as I said before your own reasoning defeats your own argument.

Roger's overall point still stands and I join in concurring with him in saying according to your own reasoning this will have vast implications for other non-biblical studies when it comes to reading copies of ancient texts when the original manuscript is not available. We do not need the original manuscript to be fairly confident we have an accurate if not identical current copy of the original, it is done with other ancient texts and so why not with the bible?

James Madison · 10-31-2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Exactly. This is why I referred to confusion here -- people are presuming that because the bible is 'the word of God' (a theological term not defined by any of those using it here, and a theological judgement none of those doing so is qualified to make) it somehow must differ from all other books. This is the wrong way to look at things. First and foremost the bible is a book (or collection of books), recorded, transmitted, reproduced in all the normal ways. To attack it on the grounds that human beings have difficulty with recording their texts accurately is to argue against literature as a whole. It's an invalid argument.

Yeah Roger I agree. The bible was still composed by ancient men, just as other texts were composed by ancient men, and transmitted through the ages like other ancient texts. The fact one texts makes the claim it was God inspired is irrelevant and has no bearing on the nature of the dialogue.

Pharoah's reasoning is an impeachment of ancient literature as a whole.

Quote:

As for the theological argument, it's fairly obvious that if there is a God, and if he decides to dictate a book, he must be willing to live with trivia like transmission issues. After all, he's already willing to live with the problem that words are ambiguous and languages die.

Very true. But as you have said this is a theological argument and the two discussions are separate and distinct.

Roger Pearse · 10-31-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

Yeah Roger I agree. The bible was still composed by ancient men, just as other texts were composed by ancient men, and transmitted through the ages like other ancient texts. The fact one texts makes the claim it was God inspired is irrelevant and has no bearing on the nature of the dialogue.

That's it exactly. Let's keep God out of this question.

Quote:

Very true. But as you have said this is a theological argument and the two discussions are separate and distinct.

I think so.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mata leao · 10-31-2005, 06:31 PM

funny isnt it, when the dead sea scrolls were discovered and found to validate the accurate transmission of many books of the Bible, all I saw was atheists rushing to try to explain away the significance of the dead sea scrolls......I htink you are crying crocodile tears for wanting to see "originals".....it wouldnt do any good!

Sparrow · 10-31-2005, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

Here's another passage from Deuteronomy:

Quote:

You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Given that text in Deuteronomy, how does one justify the entire later addition of the thing called the New Testament?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-31-2005, 06:31 PM	#39
mata leao Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: tampa,florida Posts: 342	funny isnt it, when the dead sea scrolls were discovered and found to validate the accurate transmission of many books of the Bible, all I saw was atheists rushing to try to explain away the significance of the dead sea scrolls......I htink you are crying crocodile tears for wanting to see "originals".....it wouldnt do any good!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.