Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Coleslaw · 12-28-2006, 08:01 PM

Thanks-I did a search and bumped a few likely looking threads for mdd344, but I'm not sure I got any of these. I'll have to read them myself.

hatsoff · 12-28-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

But don't you agree that the Dead Sea Scrolls did establish the trustworthiness of the Massoretic text, and furthermore when combined with the evidence of how careful the Scribes were that the documents that make up the Bible most likely have been faithfully copied since the originals existed?

Of course not! Why would they? The Dead Sea Scrolls help to show that the transmission error in Isaiah and other portions of the Old Testament was less than feared during the time span between the first and tenth centuries AD. From this we have determined that the rest of the Old Testament probably suffered errors of a similar caliber--IE, not too great. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not help us even one little bit to determine how accurately the autographs were preserved, because that leaves over a thousand years of undocumented transmission.

gregor · 12-28-2006, 08:30 PM

mdd334
Gee, the regulars on this forum have never read this persuasive, logical series of arguments before. We've never discussed, reviewed, considered, or debated these issues before. We've never discussed Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Crossan's The Birth of Christianity, the works of Robert Price, the documentary hypothesis, or the like. Color me converted.

mountainman · 12-28-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

My point with the opening post is to establish that the text is trustworthy. Be it true or false, it is trustworthy because of the meticulous way it has been transmitted and copied. Thus, no one can come back later and say "the text has been corrupted" or any such like thing about the text.

Unfortunately you are too late, because someone has in fact
already made the assertion that "the text has been corrupted",
and they have not been refuted.

The claimant's name was Isaac Newton.
Check his Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture.

TheBear · 12-28-2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

I suggest that the evidence will show that the Bible should be man’s objective standard for life because of its consistent transmission and preservation,

Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and many other trilogies and sequels have 'consistent transmission and preservation'. :huh:

Quote:

because of verifiable prophecy fulfilled

I could write a book based on another book, and in those writings, the storyline would include my writings fulfilling the storyline of the first book.

Don't you think it odd that the writings of the Jesus storyline weren't composed for 50, 60, 100+ years after the events supposedly occurred? Do you ever asks yourself why there isn't a single town which chronicled any of the alleged events? Why are there no records of people leaving town in droves, or being fed all-they-can-eat fish and bread? If 5,000 Muslims gathered in your town square tomorrow, would only Muslims chronicle the event?

Quote:

because of its scientific accuracy

You're going to have a difficult time with this one.

Quote:

and because of its agreement with archaeology

This one too.

IndigoDad · 12-28-2006, 09:19 PM

I'm a newbie to responding to these as a recent deconvert, but here it goes...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Greetings,

There is no question that people need objective standards in life. Even atheists need objective standards, patterns to follow, etc.

1. Just because people feel a "need" for such standards does not necessarily mean that there "are" such standards.

2. What about bonobos, chimps, and other animals? If the standards are truly objective, are all primates, mammals, and infact even eukaryotes bound by these standards? Otherwise, your "objectivity" is reduced to species relativity and you are bound by your own discontinuous mind.

Quote:

Consider the Humanist Manifesto. Even among those who reject any supernatural being the fact is they set for themselves standards/guidelines to follow. Effective parents are those who set guidelines for their children.

As one who teaches parenting courses, effective parents are actually ones who empathetically help children learn from their mistakes and help them learn the principles of recipricity, mostly through modelling.

Quote:

Governments are most effective when they are consistent, and consistency comes from objective standards.

Perhaps, assuming the goals of the government are the well-being of the governed. Not all governments have this as a primary goal and even in all governments there are mixed motives.

Anyhow, your argument is very humanistic as it is justifying based upon the goodness for the governed. We moderns do indeed believe governments exist for the governed, but your analogy seems to indicate that God exists for the faithful! That's sound a bit like heresy, you may want to be a bit more careful.

Quote:

Consider the example of the Federal Bureau of Standards of the USA, which guarantees uniformity of weights and measures. They follow an objective standard, an authority, a guide. Imagine the mass confusion in that realm alone if the weights and measures changed value daily, without warning or reason.

And these are standards for what is, not standards for what should be. That a pound is a pound is very different from how one balances the goals of being both kind and truthful, which in fact, often overlap and conflict in the real world.

Quote:

I suggest that the evidence will show that the Bible should be man’s objective standard for life because of its consistent transmission and preservation, because of verifiable prophecy fulfilled, because of its uncanny unity, because of its scientific accuracy, and because of its agreement with archaeology, all of which together show that the Bible does not have its source from man, but from the One God of which it speaks.

Actually evolutionary theory does this quite well. Consider, "I suggest that the evidence will show that the Origin of the Species should be man’s objective standard for life because of its consistent transmission and preservation, because of verifiable predictions fulfilled, because of its uncanny unity, because of its scientific accuracy, and because of its agreement with archaeology, all of which together show that the Origin of the Species does not have its source from being made up by man, but from verifiable evidence."

Your claim is not all that unique.

Quote:

I. THE BIBLE: ITS PRESERVATION (TRUSTWORTHINESS) IS UNQUESTIONABLE (Consistent transmission)

Just because something has been preserved doesn't mean it is trustworthy. Consider my aunts homemade pickles. They're downright nasty.

Quote:

Wegner gives this definition of the Bible:

“The Bible is a collection of books that have been considered authoritative by the Christian church and have been used to determine its beliefs and doctrines. The Bible, comprised of sixty-six books from more than forty authors, was called “the divine library” by Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate in the late fourth century. The authors of Scripture came from a variety of backgrounds, including a farmer (Amos), priests (Jeremiah and Ezekiel), a statesman (Daniel), fishermen (Peter and John), prophets (Isaiah, Micah), a physician (Luke), and a former tax collector (Matthew). The books were written in various countries (e.g., Israel, Babylon, Greece, Italy) and follow a variety of literary styles and genres (e.g., narrative, law codes, poetry, parables, Gospel, letters). The Bible, however, is not merely an anthology (i.e. a collection of diverse writings from various places); it has a unique unity and purpose. In addition, its authors claim to have been directed by God in their writings (e.g. 2 Pet. 1:20-21).” (Journey from Texts to Translations (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 21)

Actually it isn't agreed upon that 66 books and it actually hasn't been used all that authoritively over the years. The different branches of Christianity use different cannons and much debate and even military conflict has gone into trying to force (inspired?) agreement of what the Bible is defined to be.

The unity is quite questionable and ranges on subjects from hair length, to the role of women, to even the core of the faith - how one is saved.

And as others have pointed out, not all authors claim divine inspiration.

Quote:

The Bible is an old book, but it is by no means the oldest writing. Writing was a well-established art in many countries long before he beginnings of the Hebrew nation in the land of Palestine. Writing was widespread in Mesopotamia at least 3000 B.C. and Egyptian texts reach back even further, surviving as hieroglyphs on monuments, temples, and tombs. The first alphabet was probably developed around 1750 B.C. and from this all other alphabets were derived. Alphabetic writing has been found within 50 miles of Mt. Sinai, dating back to 1500 B.C. By the time of Moses at least five different systems of writing are known to have existed in the basic area in which he lived. (Lightfoot, p.p. 12-13).

I'm sufficiently well read to know that writing precedes the Good Book.

Quote:

A. The Old Testament:

There are no copies of any original Bible writing in existence. There are also no copies of any Bible writings prior to the Babylonian captivity (586 B.C.). However, despite this, textual critics have at their disposal a great number of Bible writings (called manuscripts, abbreviated as MSS) by which they can determine authenticity. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein (Biblical Manuscripts in the United States) estimates that the total number of Hebrew MSS/fragments throughout the world range in the tens of thousands. The most significant MSS find so far are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D. They include one complete Old Testament Book (Isaiah) and thousands of fragments, which together represent every Old Testament book except Esther. The information is still being provided to this day from the finds of these scrolls.

Esther? Didn't that barely make the canon? What about the non-canonical documents found in the dead sea scrolls? What's to be made of them?

Quote:

The Dead Sea Scrolls provided textual critics (those who meticulously study the Bible text) with copies of books at least 1000 years older than previously available. Prior to the find at Qumran, destructive textual critics (intent on discrediting the Bible text) had surmised that the book of Isaiah was spurious. However, among the Dead Sea Scrolls were found two complete copies of the book of Isaiah. Textual critics were anxious to study the books, to see if they matched the current Bible’s book of Isaiah. The findings?

You're arguing for the greatness of one of humanity's achievements. Men copied well. Therefore God is great? Would a more logical argument be: Men copied well. Therefore men are great.

Quote:

“Even though the MSS were 1000 years earlier than the oldest dated MSS previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 per cent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.” (Archer (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 19).

And FTP has a lower error rate. And how does that make a modern computer protocol divine???

Quote:

F.F. Bruce stated regarding this age old question, does “‘this Hebrew text which we call Masoretic faithfully represents the Hebrew text as originally written by the authors of the Old Testament’ and it may now be more confidently asserted than ever before that the Dead Sea discoveries have enabled us to answer this question in the affirmative with much greater assurance than was possible before 1948” (Bruce (or via: amazon.co.uk), p.p. 61f).

Not nearly as good as FTP, not nearly as good as a photocopier, therefore divine???

Quote:

Why does the Old Testament Text have such an amazing consistency?

Because the Jewish faith has been very important to a sufficient number of people for a sufficiently long time. This attests a tradition.

But then again, opening your mouth and sticking your tongue out when feeding a baby with a spoon is probably an older, instinctive tradition.

Quote:

A large part of the reason is the method in which it was transmitted. Scribes spent lifetimes working on their trade.

And this attest to the scribes.

Quote:

Graphs were drawn on writing surfaces and one letter was put in each graph square. At the end of a copy the letters were counted—if it were off it was tossed and the process started over.

And computer protocols have error checking built into them. This doesn't make what they transmit to be divinely inspired.

Quote:

MSS that reached a certain age, or wear pattern, were gathered and buried reverently. The Scribes were valued among the Hebrew cultures, and many cultures that followed (i.e. Romans, Greek). Whether one believes the Bible is from God or not, he must admit in the face of overwhelming evidence (clearly not all presented in the above) that the Old Testament we have in our modern Bibles can be trusted to be what it was originally.

And thus, that's why scholarship points to the great similarities between the OT with other Mesopotamian myths and the various conflicts in general.

Quote:

B. What about the New Testament?

As stated above, there are over 25 thousand sources of New Testament material, from MSS to fragments, to confirmation in non-Christian literature. Geisler noted:

“A few of the New Testament MSS fragments are very early, dating from the second century. By contrast, the manuscripts for most other ancient books date from about a thousand years after their original composition. Some 362 New Testament uncial MSS and 245 uncial lectionaries date from the second through the tenth centuries, constituting nearly 11 percent of all New Testament and lectionary MSS” (Geisler, Nix (or via: amazon.co.uk); GBI, p. 385).

Which of the NTs popular among the various branches of the church are you refering too???

Quote:

Consider how scholars view old books and determine whether or not they are legitimate. Homer’s Iliad is one of the more famous older books. Those who search for MSS have found about 643 pieces of his work, some of which date back to the 3rd century A.D. No one today doubts the Iliad, or its contents. Geisler notes regarding ancient books and their MSS:

“[There are] 9 or 10 good ones for Caesar’s Gallic Wars, 20 MSS of note for Titus Livy’s ‘History of Rome,’ and only 2 by which Tacitus is known to the modern world, yet there are 5,366 Greek MSS witnesses that attest to part or all of the New Testament text” (Geisler, Nix: GBI, p. 404).

Now compare that to the tens of thousands of fragments found of the Old Testament, and the 25,000 sources (MSS, fragments, etc.) found of the New Testament. Homer’s work is confirmed based on 643 fragments. It stands to reason that the Bible would be much less questioned than it is based on that evidence.

Another important witness to the trustworthy text of the New Testament is the writings of men known by the title, “Apostolic Fathers.” These men lived and wrote during the end of the first century to about 150 A.D. Some of them even knew first hand some of the Apostles. Their writings are not inspired, but within their writings we find quotations from every verse of the New Testament. This plainly demonstrates that by the end of the first century the twenty-seven books that now make up the New Testament were written, copied, and began to be spread among all the churches.

Again, trustworthiness of transimission asserts the quality of the transmission protocol, not the trustworthiness or truthfulness of the message. HTTP reliably transmits man's most noble thoughts across the internet with the same reliability as smut.

If very pixel of a smutty picture is faithfully and trustworthily transmitted does that some how make it divinely inspired?

Quote:

Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (or via: amazon.co.uk), p.288f).

I believe some of the previous posted mentioned a few alternate endings. BTW, in the store today I saw The Wicker Man has an alternate ending. I wonder what that's about.

Quote:

Geisler and Nix conclude based on the evidence for the trustworthiness of the New Testament text, “ it can be readily understood why no book from the ancient world comes to us with more abundant evidence for its integrity than does the New Testament” (GBI. p. 405).

Again, this attests to the quality of the transmission protocol, not necessarily the quality of the message.

Not as good as HTTP or FTP but I suppose counting squares by hand was all they had at the time.

Quote:

Conclusion:
The Bible’s consistent transmission and preservation far, far exceed any other writing and/or book of which man has possession. The text of both the Old Testament and the New Testament is unquestionably reliable and intact. While the preservation and consistent transmission of the text does not in and of itself prove the existence of God, it is a strong part of the evidence that hopefully will lead one to do so when considered as part of all of the evidence available. Whether one believes in the One God or not, he must admit that the scholarship done in the realm of the transmission and preservation of the Bible text is above all reproach.

If so-so reliable transmission of a document proves the existence of God, what does much more reliable modern computer networking protocol transmission prove the existence of???

Regardless, I would think that the reliable transmission is what explains all those silly discrepencies that just doesn't stand up to modern literary or scientific criticism.

TheBear · 12-28-2006, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndigoDad

Just because something has been preserved doesn't mean it is trustworthy. Consider my aunts homemade pickles. They're downright nasty.

:rolling:

RexT · 12-28-2006, 10:55 PM

For what its worth mdd344, I happen to admire your sincerity, strength of conviction, writing and organizational skills and a few other qualities you possess, I just cannot believe as you anymore. However, I think I see where you are going with this thread (correct me if I am wrong). Since it has been pointed out by almost everyone that accuracy of transmission is not really critical to your main assertion that the bible presents an objective standard, and since it appears paramount to you, I can only surmise that you really are not interested in the actual standard as much as proving that god exists. For if, the bible actually contained an objective standard that would indeed benefit humanity if followed, and if your real concern were for humanity, you would not care who wrote the standard or how it came into our possession, or at least that would be a secondary concern.

Instead, you intend to walk us through your own concept of how the amazing accuracy of the bible, against all odds mind you, is clear and convincing evidence that god must have necessarily and personally keep a watchful eye on his holy words as they traversed through the generations of that most fallible and loathsome creature called a human.

Is that close to what you have in mind?

Rex

Caveat_Imperator · 12-29-2006, 12:35 AM

I wouldn't say that about Star Wars. And wait 'til you see what Lucas does to the next re-release of the first trilogy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBear

Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and many other trilogies and sequels have 'consistent transmission and preservation'.

spin · 12-29-2006, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is hugely significant in that their testimony shows that the accuracy of transmission of the Old Testament was unquestionable. Over 1000 years, at least, the variants were nearly non existant.

This seems to be confusing Masada Hebrew bible texts with DSS Hebrew bible texts. It is true that Masada texts feature the proto-MT. However, at Qumran the Hebrew bible texts contain numerous variants, some which favor MT some which favor LXX, some which favor Samaritan, while others are just independent variants.

What happened between the period of the DSS text deposits and Masada -- for the DSS text deposits were well before Masada -- is that one single textual tradition became dominant with the rise of Pharisaic hegemony of text tradition. From Masada, ie Jewish War, onwards the one text tradition was used, but at Qumran there were many, hence Qumran was plainly earlier.

spin

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

12-28-2006, 08:01 PM	#41
Coleslaw Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The cornfield Posts: 555	Thanks-I did a search and bumped a few likely looking threads for mdd344, but I'm not sure I got any of these. I'll have to read them myself.

12-28-2006, 08:30 PM	#43
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	mdd334 Gee, the regulars on this forum have never read this persuasive, logical series of arguments before. We've never discussed, reviewed, considered, or debated these issues before. We've never discussed Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Crossan's The Birth of Christianity, the works of Robert Price, the documentary hypothesis, or the like. Color me converted.

12-28-2006, 10:55 PM	#48
RexT Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: I'm always right here Posts: 3,217	For what its worth mdd344, I happen to admire your sincerity, strength of conviction, writing and organizational skills and a few other qualities you possess, I just cannot believe as you anymore. However, I think I see where you are going with this thread (correct me if I am wrong). Since it has been pointed out by almost everyone that accuracy of transmission is not really critical to your main assertion that the bible presents an objective standard, and since it appears paramount to you, I can only surmise that you really are not interested in the actual standard as much as proving that god exists. For if, the bible actually contained an objective standard that would indeed benefit humanity if followed, and if your real concern were for humanity, you would not care who wrote the standard or how it came into our possession, or at least that would be a secondary concern. Instead, you intend to walk us through your own concept of how the amazing accuracy of the bible, against all odds mind you, is clear and convincing evidence that god must have necessarily and personally keep a watchful eye on his holy words as they traversed through the generations of that most fallible and loathsome creature called a human. Is that close to what you have in mind? Rex

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.