Coleslaw

There are several threads about that subject already:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=190956

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=190905

to name the two most recent ones, as well as
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=188799

You might want to review those before posting whatever you have to say on the subject, or perhaps just add your post to the relevant threads.

The Evil One

Let's say this is true. So what? We don't need a miracle to explain this. We only need a large body of people utterly devoted to the text for a period of over 2000 years, making them more likely to copy the text and mroe likely to look after copies once they existed. In the case of the bible we know that there were such people.

Mageth

What? If the Bible did reveal such an objective standard, it would seem that would be quite useful whether or not the Bible is what it claims to be (or, really, what people claim it to be...where in the Bible does the Bible claim to be something as a "Bible"? Remember, the Bible wasn't even the Bible until somewhere around 300-400 CE...when the "Bible" was agreed upon by, well, a bunch of plain old ordinary men...at least one version of it...there are several)

Umm, no, the story of Jesus' life is still there, for all to see, whether one "rejects" the Bible or not.

Whether or not Christ's life (as recounted in the NT) is an "objective standard" by which we should live is quite arguable. How is it objective? Am I supposed to get myself crucified? Not get married? Sell all my possessions and become an itenerant preacher? Curse fig trees? Attempt to walk on water or raise the dead? Claim to be God Incarnate, as some claim Jesus did?

There are many, many interpretations as to how we are supposed to live according to Christ's example. There is no one "objective standard" to be read from the Bible.

And again, one could, if one wished, hold "Christ's life" or teachings or portions thereof as an example even if one does not accept the whole kit and kaboodle that goes along with (various kits and kaboodles, actually, since different people interpret the Bible differently as to how we should live according to the Bible.) You don't even have to believe that Jesus existed, or that Jesus was God or God's son, to do so.

So, if Christ's life is an "objective standard", what is that objective standard by which we are to live as exemplified by the story of Jesus?

That should be interesting...

hatsoff

I'm sure it is remarkably close. That's not the point. You say:

That's not true. There are plenty of OT variants from the DSS to the Masoretic text. Furthermore, only the portions of the OT which are represented in the DSS can be evaluated. Finally, the DSS says nothing about the first millenium of alleged transmission.

Casper

In that regard, where are the Egyptian-Caananite linguistic and cultural ties? There seem to be more Babylonian ties to Judaism than anything else.

Sauron

No, it wasn't "entirely misspellings". There were substantive differences in the text.

Moreover, the DSS only cover a certain time period in history; i.e., AFTER the Old Testament canon was already settled by the Jews - which is when the Essenes came onto the scene. The DSS can't prove anything about whether the text was faithfully transmitted before that time, during the centuries before the Essenes.

In other words, pretend the year is 700 BCE.

In 700 BCE, Scribe A writes some text.
in 650 BCE, Scribe B copies it, but makes 4 mistakes.
In 500 BCE, Scribe C copies it from B, makes some more mistakes and changes some things he doesn't like.
In 300 BCE, Scribe D copies it from C, adds some text he likes better, and makes some new mistakes of his own.

Then the Essenes get ahold of the document from Scribe D. They copy it correctly, word-for-word and letter-for-letter. But guess what: all they've done is copy the mistakes and the revisions that earlier scribes have made. So the Dead Sea Scrolls only prove how good the Essenes were at copying. The DSS don't tell you diddly squat about whether the text they copied was pure, or whether it was corrupted during earlier transmission.

You apparently don't understand the first thing about textual criticism.

Sauron

Point him to the Tyre and Babylon threads. :devil1:

Omegasevx

Hi, how’s it going?

There is no question to you, but I think there’s more discussion about this kind of thing than you realize.

Not all atheists are humanists. Just FYI.

We recently lost a probe to mars because calculations were not converted correctly from one system of measures to another. Mass confusion? Hardly. Human society has dealt with inconsistent standards and measures for quite a long time. Your assertion is unsupported.

The bible contains many, many internal inconsistencies that you choose to ignore. Also, The Art of War has also managed to be textually preserved for over 2,000 years. So what?

Prophesy violates the laws of physics and you will need to demonstrate that this is even possible before it is rejected by default.

Irrelevant personal observation.

Utterly and unequivocally untrue. Laughably wrong. This claim flies in the face of almost all the scientific discoveries made in the last thousand years in almost every field. Physics, biology, anatomy, philology, cosmology, chemistry, anthropology, geology… they can all demonstrate that the bible is not scientifically accurate.

I strongly suspect your only rebuttal will be: “I believe the bible is correct, therefore science must have everything wrong.” This is not a convincing argument.

Demonstrably false. Archeology repeatedly challenges alleged historical happenings in the Bible (Like the Exodus). It also disproves many other absurdities contained in its pages like the flood.

God remains unproven and the bible remains absurd and incomprehensible.

Irrelevant.

Even granting that the Bible today is 95% accurate to the original dead sea scrolls, so what? This does not solve any of the internal inconsistencies and absurdities that have been accurately copied by these scribes. The cure for leprosy in the bible still calls for bird blood. There are still inconsistencies with respect to salvation (faith, works?) There are still absurdities including that the sun was made to stand still, that people tried to build a tower to reach god in heaven, that a firmament with windows opens up to let rain come down, that people can come back to life after dying, that snakes can talk, etc ad nauseum.

You assume the bible is more than a patchwork of literature but you have not provided evidence that it is more than a book of stories.

I don’t question whether the bible is the same now as it was back when it was patched together. It’s irrelevant. What I care about is what the bible makes claim to and whether that is supported by evidence.


Even granting that biblical text is largely unchanged (I’m certain very few others will grant this), your argument amounts to: A book has been copied over many centuries with little variation.

My response: So what?

Looking forward to your attempts to support that the Bible:

-fulfilled prophesy
-is scientificly accurate
-agrees with archaeology

mdd344

Omegasevx,
I read your post. You said, "God remains unproven and the bible remains absurd and incomprehensible." But you seem well able to comprehend a great deal of it in assessing its truthfulness and accuracy. I look forward to the other sections as well. Thanks.

The Evil One

It is not so much that the Bible is incomprehensible in terms of understanding the actual words. However, if one tries to envisage a world in which all the claims in the Bible are true, the result is an incomprehensible conception, because it involves some self-contraditions and some contradictions of clearly perceptible reality.