Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Family Man · 06-07-2006, 05:46 PM

One small point:

According to the Catholic site http://www.americancatholic.org/Mess...7/feature2.asp American Catholic[/URL] St. Jerome didn't translate Acts. He translated only the Gospels.

Family Man · 06-07-2006, 06:12 PM

It gets even worse, according to this site

Quote:

The number of Old Latin translations was very large. And the quality was very low. What is more, they were a diverse lot; it must have been hard to preach when one didn't even know what the week's scripture said!

It was in 382 that Pope Damasus (366-384) called upon Jerome (Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus) to remedy the situation. Jerome was the greatest scholar of his generation, and the Pope asked him to make an official Latin version -- both to remedy the poor quality of the existing translations and to give one standard reference for future copies. Damasus also called upon Jerome to use the best possible Greek texts -- even while giving him the contradictory command to stay as close to the existing versions as possible.

Jerome agreed to take on the project, somewhat reluctantly, but he never truly finished his work. By about 384, he had prepared a revision of the Gospels, which simultaneously improved their Latin and reduced the number of "Western" readings. But if he ever worked on the rest of the New Testament, his revisions were very hasty. The Vulgate of the Acts and Epistles is not far from the Old Latin.

So apparently Acts is from a translation that even the Catholic Church recognized as a bad translation: which is why Jerome was commissioned to produce the Vulgate in the first place.

Yeah, Harry, you're right, there is something more going on here. And it took only a google search to find out what is was. The translation you depended on is a bad one, and a very poor basis for resolving a contradiction.

manwithdream · 06-08-2006, 06:08 PM

Hello,
I am new to this discussion forum.

I think arguing about contradictions is pointless because some people take the different versions of stories and combine them. I don't know why people do this because there is no way to prove any story false if you can combine the different stories. Actually, that is why they combine the stories, but I don't know why people think that it is right to combine the different stories.

On the other hand, contradictions might not prove the Bible false because it is possible that one of the different stories might be true. If you have four different versions of a story, you can say they are not all right, but there is still the possibility that one is right even if you don't know which one.

I believe the Torah is true, but I think there are a lot of man-made mistakes in it from passing it down over many years. If one book says one detail and another book says another detail, I will just believe that one of them is probably right even if I don't know which one is right.

Family Man · 06-08-2006, 06:28 PM

manwithdream,

Contradictions do not prove the bible is wrong or that God doesn't exist. It only demonstrates that it is a human, not divine, document.

Quote:

If one book says one detail and another book says another detail, I will just believe that one of them is probably right even if I don't know which one is right.

Have you considered the possibility that both might be wrong?

Doug Shaver · 06-08-2006, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manwithdream

If you have four different versions of a story, you can say they are not all right, but there is still the possibility that one is right even if you don't know which one.

It might be a logical possibility, but that says nothing about the probability that one of them is true. There might be good reason to believe that none of them is true.

manwithdream · 06-08-2006, 08:39 PM

I think you are both right that if there are contradictions then all the different versions can be false or one of them could be right even if you don't know which one. That's why I think contradictions are not a good way to disprove the Bible . Even if you can list a lot of contradictions that show there is definitely a problem in the Bible, you can't prove that all of the versions of a story are false.
I think it is hard to resist pointing out contradictions like the story about Judas hanging himself or falling down a cliff because it is such an obvious problem for people who believe in the new testament, but you can't prove that both versions are false just because they contradict each other. Contradictions like this are interesting, but if you can't prove both versions are false, what good is a contradiction like this?
Contradictions are good as proof that there are mistakes in the Bible, but they don't disprove the actual stories with the contradictions.

Doug Shaver · 06-08-2006, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manwithdream

I think contradictions are not a good way to disprove the Bible.

Not speaking for other unbelievers, but I have never argued that contradictions prove the Bible wrong. The only thing I have ever argued is that contradictions prove some Christians wrong when they claim the Bible is inerrant.

Jack the Bodiless · 06-09-2006, 03:12 AM

...Indeed.

The Bible taken as a whole "must be wrong" (in the sense that it must contain at least some falsehood: obviously, it contains "not-wrong" stuff too).

This doesn't matter to most Christians. But it matters to the "inerrantists". It makes their position untenable.

Family Man · 06-09-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

That's why I think contradictions are not a good way to disprove the Bible .

I agree. This is a very silly statement. Contradictions do not disprove the bible; it simply shows the humanness of it. To evaluate the Bible, you have to look at the criteria historians use to judge the credibility of historical claims. On that count, the Bible doesn't hold up well at all.

aa5874 · 06-09-2006, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Family Man

I agree. This is a very silly statement. Contradictions do not disprove the bible; it simply shows the humanness of it. To evaluate the Bible, you have to look at the criteria historians use to judge the credibility of historical claims. On that count, the Bible doesn't hold up well at all.

Contradictions do disprove the bible. In a court, contradictory statements do not show humanness, it shows lack of credibilty and possible perjury. The Bible was written to be believed, it should be credible in every aspect. It is higly improbable that inconsistencies and contradictions in any book can strengthen it's historicity. There is no single statement in the bible that should not be scrutinised to determine it's authenticity, any contradiction must be seriously analysed, failure to do so may mean a life of eternal torment. Any book with claims of being the Word of God must not be exempted from the most vigorous vigilence.

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

06-07-2006, 05:46 PM	#31
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	One small point: According to the Catholic site http://www.americancatholic.org/Mess...7/feature2.asp American Catholic[/URL] St. Jerome didn't translate Acts. He translated only the Gospels.

06-08-2006, 06:08 PM	#33
manwithdream Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: united states Posts: 156	Hello, I am new to this discussion forum. I think arguing about contradictions is pointless because some people take the different versions of stories and combine them. I don't know why people do this because there is no way to prove any story false if you can combine the different stories. Actually, that is why they combine the stories, but I don't know why people think that it is right to combine the different stories. On the other hand, contradictions might not prove the Bible false because it is possible that one of the different stories might be true. If you have four different versions of a story, you can say they are not all right, but there is still the possibility that one is right even if you don't know which one. I believe the Torah is true, but I think there are a lot of man-made mistakes in it from passing it down over many years. If one book says one detail and another book says another detail, I will just believe that one of them is probably right even if I don't know which one is right.

06-08-2006, 08:39 PM	#36
manwithdream Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: united states Posts: 156	I think you are both right that if there are contradictions then all the different versions can be false or one of them could be right even if you don't know which one. That's why I think contradictions are not a good way to disprove the Bible . Even if you can list a lot of contradictions that show there is definitely a problem in the Bible, you can't prove that all of the versions of a story are false. I think it is hard to resist pointing out contradictions like the story about Judas hanging himself or falling down a cliff because it is such an obvious problem for people who believe in the new testament, but you can't prove that both versions are false just because they contradict each other. Contradictions like this are interesting, but if you can't prove both versions are false, what good is a contradiction like this? Contradictions are good as proof that there are mistakes in the Bible, but they don't disprove the actual stories with the contradictions.

06-09-2006, 03:12 AM	#38
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	...Indeed. The Bible taken as a whole "must be wrong" (in the sense that it must contain at least some falsehood: obviously, it contains "not-wrong" stuff too). This doesn't matter to most Christians. But it matters to the "inerrantists". It makes their position untenable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.