FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-15-2003, 02:57 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,505
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Badfish
There is more scripture, there is scripture that says it is correct down to the last "jot". There is scripture that says all generations will have a correct copy. (I believe in psalms, but am not going to look it up, because you will find a way to discredit it).
Lemme see, the Christians didn't even have a canon for 3 centuries (10 generations). The canon was then modified 1100 years later (about 37 generations). The current canon has been around about 17 generations. Either way you look at it, it is impossible to conclude that every generation had a "correct copy".

-Mike...
mike_decock is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 03:37 PM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Death Valley, CA
Posts: 1,738
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by mike_decock
Lemme see, the Christians didn't even have a canon for 3 centuries (10 generations). The canon was then modified 1100 years later (about 37 generations). The current canon has been around about 17 generations. Either way you look at it, it is impossible to conclude that every generation had a "correct copy".

-Mike...
The authority of Christ's words came from Christ having spoken them and not from the words appearing in a sacred text in a fixed form.

As a result, sayings from apocryphal sources and the Oral Gospel appear alongside quotes from the four Gospels of our present New Testament.

Many early Christians had a preference for oral tradition. For example, Papias in the first half of the second century, said that he inquired of followers of the apostles what the apostles had said and what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord were still saying.

"For I did not imagine that things out of books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice.''

So the gospels were known to the churches and were taught orally. People attended church more often as a whole back then, and there were far less sects and denominations. This can be traced back to the Universal church.

God knew that eventually the NT scriptures would have to be canonized for modern man.
Badfish is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 03:41 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Death Valley, CA
Posts: 1,738
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by livius drusus
From the Deconversion thread in GRD, a question has come up that fits better here.

I don't. Which ones are which? Is there a consistently accurate methodology by which I can make these distinctions on my own?
Yes, read the bible. It is self guiding.
Badfish is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 04:04 PM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Death Valley, CA
Posts: 1,738
Default

Quote:
The current canon has been around about 17 generations. Either way you look at it, it is impossible to conclude that every generation had a "correct copy".
It is impossible to the person who believes that God is not omnipotent.

There is much written history about the NT canon and how it came about, this would take a long time to study, and I am not a teacher. Peruse the web or find books that explain how it is that the Bible as we know it today is the infallible word of God.

The how's and why's are available, if one finds this is a hinderance to believing the infallible word of God, then there is much study to be done.
Badfish is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 05:18 PM   #25
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: France
Posts: 169
Default BABFISH

Go ahead, lets check out the passage, do you have a passage in mind?

quoted this passage because you quote the bible saying that the word of God is pure, then me I quote you a passage that shows that the man to drawn in its traditions and the have introduces in the bible "jérémie chapter 8 v 8.

bye
chimaira is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 05:57 PM   #26
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas
Posts: 451
Default It's a matter of consensus

Quote:
Originally posted by seebs
The issue is this: I "believe the Bible", in that I think it's basically correct moral guidance. I don't "believe the Bible" in terms of thinking that every last word is literally true.

As to how you can "know" it's right, frankly, you can't - no mortal does. I know this because I can find multiple people who claim that they "know" their positions are right, but who believe different things. So, I know that when people think they "know" things, they are sometimes wrong... So I don't believe they "know", I just think they "believe".

...
To me a divine principle is correct guidance if adhering to it is in the best interests of myself and to others in general. Much of the OT law is merely a codification of social rules that had been practiced or developed over time by people living together and relating to each other. For example, much of the Ten Commandments, especially the part that deals with human behavior is simply common sense.

To me the existence or not of God, Heaven, and Hell is merely window dressing or a side show. Christianity, Judaism and other religions are essentially behavorial systems. The promise Heaven for behaving (not sinning) or the threat of Hell for not behaving (sinning) are merely last ditch efforts to convince mortals to commit to the creed before they croak. Call it delayed gratification or delayed punishment. It's a tactic used to intimidate people or to lure them into believing by making promises than cannot be validated as being of value. It relates to the old bit "God will getcha for that." Who's he got lately?
doodad is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 07:06 PM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,578
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Badfish
No they all can't be, do you really want to know what I think and believe?

For starters the bible needs to be translated by an authorative source. If we look through history, we will see that the first english translation that God apparently saw sufficient to convey his infallible word would be The King James.
What about earlier English translations? They were under a monarchy (I would suppose), thus meeting your standard of the authoratative source translated under a monarchy. Here is a page about pre-King James English translations.

Quote:
If you look at the theme of the bible, it is a monarchy, and throughout history mankind has followed this monarchy, up until relatively recently, there always has been Monarchies.

So since the bible is about the Kingdom (monarchy) God intends to give to his begotten son Jesus in which he will rule over, it is a reasonable conclusion that God would inspire his translation under a monarchy, and he did under King James.
Is this how you would confer authority on other language translations of the Bible? Find the one that was translated while the main speakers of that language were ruled by a monarch? What about people who do not have monarchs? Do they never get an inerrant translation?

I'm sorry, but I've never ever heard of this reasonable conclusion of yours.

Quote:
People can say that the KJ and it's translators say they did the best they could and had to add some vowels or substitute some words which don't work with the english language, the point is, is that God said his word is infallible, and since the Gentiles (or english speakers) are now included in the salvation and grace of Jesus, he would know that these english people would need a *correct* copy of his word and God would would send the holy spirit to move and divinely guide these translators in their work to ensure that the exact meaning and word of what God intended is inerronously delivered.


So what was moving the earlier pre-KJV translators, if not the Holy Spirit? How do you tell the difference if it wasn't?

My problem isn't just that the KJV translators might not have had all the resources that we do today, but also that language itself changes. The meanings of the KJV-english may be very different today. Why doesn't God prevent the language from changing so that the exact meaning of all of the words are continuously conveyed throughout time?

For instance, KJV Luke 6:1
Quote:
And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
In today's English, corn is a specific plant--native to the New World. In KJV English, corn is a generic grain. Jesus never ate corn as we know it today. The exact meaning of this passage is obscured if you don't know the history of the language. You can't just read the passage and know what is going on. Even if it was correct then, the word has a different meaning now.

I picked corn because it jumps to my mind easily. I don't really want to go into the pornea/fornication mumbo-jumbo. The thing is, the words should not change meaning over time if they are part of this inerrant, exact translation book.

Quote:
The KJ has stood the test of time and is the authority on God's word, if it hadn't then God is not omnipotent enough to convey his message accurately for the last 400 years.
So what about the earlier translations? Was God just having some practice runs? Why aren't those other early English translations (under monarchies) the authority? What about shifts in word meanings over 400 years?

Quote:
There is the NASB, which has been meticulously translated, and I do use it sometimes, but for the authorative word I would look to the King James.
Why do you bother with the NASB--you've already established that it is not an authoratative version. What benefit do you get from it? How do you judge meticulous translation when you base the authority of the translation on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit working within people under a monarch?

Quote:
It is within man's ability to distort the bible, so if one finds a version which strays too far from the KJ, I would be suspicious and wouldn't trust it.

Why? Because anything other than the KJ was not translated under a monarchy.

Remember God said there would be false teachers and be alert and know who they are, well, distorted versions of his word would fall into this category.
So why the NASB use? Again, why do you think that other English versions of the Bible, translated under a monarch, are not the authoritative version?

Thanks, I look forward to hearing what you say. Just because I really want to know why you think the way you do, doesn't mean that I will have no further questions. I'm very unfamiliar with your position and I want to know more--if for no other reason than to understand you better.

--tibac
wildernesse is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 08:29 PM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,505
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Badfish
As a result, sayings from apocryphal sources and the Oral Gospel appear alongside quotes from the four Gospels of our present New Testament.

Many early Christians had a preference for oral tradition.
And the generations that only had oral traditions and apocryphal sources available to them had a "correct copy"? You have completely failed to defend your original assertion. You just made a bunch of new ones instead.

-Mike...
mike_decock is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 08:35 PM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Badfish
God knew that eventually the NT scriptures would have to be canonized for modern man.
And we know the Council of Nicea got it right because...?
yguy is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 08:40 PM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,505
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Badfish
The how's and why's are available, if one finds this is a hinderance to believing the infallible word of God, then there is much study to be done.
And I could read apologetics defending the Quran or the Book of Mormon. They all use the same defenses as the Biblical inerrantists: "You need to study it more", "It can only be understood by Faith", etc, etc, etc.

If it were the infallible word of God, it would need no defense.

-Mike...
mike_decock is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:04 PM.

Top

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