Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Crucifiction · 01-25-2005, 02:33 PM

http://usa-the-republic.com/religion/bible.html

A Fundie posted that on a messageboard I moderate; and I'm not well versed enough in the Bible to really know if it's accurate or not.

Can anybody here help me?

GakuseiDon · 01-25-2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crucifiction

http://usa-the-republic.com/religion/bible.html

A Fundie posted that on a messageboard I moderate; and I'm not well versed enough in the Bible to really know if it's accurate or not.

Can anybody here help me?

You want to see if an article called "COMPUTER ANALYSIS AND PROOFS THAT GOD, THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS, DID (In Fact) WRITE THE 66 BOOKS OF THE HOLY BIBLE" is accurate or not???

Well... I'm a theist, and I believe that claims should be evaluated with an open mind... but really, is there any point in spending time trying to refute it?

Crucifiction · 01-25-2005, 02:50 PM

Oh, I'm already certain it isn't true; but I don't know enough to actually refute it. It's clearly absurd; but I don't know how to prove it.

Toto · 01-25-2005, 03:08 PM

At first I thought this was a Bible Code thing, but it's much less sophisticated.

The author of this website claims (after much sneering at "intellectuals") that a number of metrics in the Bible are divisible by seven. (And how do you explain that you pointy-headed atheist intellectual? I mean, aside from the fact that 7 was a magic number and the writers of the Bible might have deliberately made sure that seven showed up?)

The theory is based on the work of a 19th century Russian, Dr. Ivan Panin. I can find no reference to anyone who has taken him seriously enough to debunk him, but there might be someone out there.

Godless Wonder · 01-25-2005, 03:08 PM

And computers "prove" that moby dick is prophetic too.

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html

edit: what Toto said.

Javaman · 01-25-2005, 04:30 PM

Man is that hard to read. I normally have a problem with people who randomly use quotation marks. This author goes another step and italicizes within the unnecessary quotes!

Even if everything is mathmatically and ligustically correct, it still doesn't mean God did it. It could easily be another, malevolent being trying to get people to believe the wrong thing.

Toto · 01-25-2005, 05:55 PM

Here ya go - Debunking Panin including Panin created patterns by doctoring the text of Mark

Quote:

Everyone familiar with the history of the Greek New Testament knows that there are very many editions. The primary reason for this is that they follow the decisions of editors who have different degrees of access to early manuscripts and different opinions on how discrepancies between them should be resolved. The result of this subjectivity is that, apart from intentional reprintings, all the editions differ from one another. Sometimes the differences are small, and sometimes they are large, but almost any difference is harmful to Panin's results. That is because many of Panin's patterns rely on the exact words, or even the exact letters, that appear in the text.

Panin used the edition of Westcott and Hort as the "basis" for his work, but very often made use of the many alternative readings that those authors suggested. He was prepared to pick and choose almost arbitrarily from the variations, meaning that in fact he was really working with a huge number of texts, few of them corresponding to any real manuscript. After this deliberate tweaking of the text to make his patterns work, he then calculated "probabilities" without taking that tweaking into account. Panin even published his own Greek text, carefully tweaked to provide the patterns that he most liked.

Panin believed that he was reconstructing the original text, but his logic was circular. By deliberately designing the patterns himself by tweaking the text, he eliminated his own argument that the patterns proved an original design. The very most he could logically conclude was that his attempt to produce patterns had been successful.

Incidentally, the edition of Westcott and Hort is today regarded as poor scholarship.

Crucifiction · 01-25-2005, 07:25 PM

Thanks, all!

I posted the link to the site with the Moby Dick "predictions", and the stuff about Panin.

Thanks again for your help.

01-25-2005, 02:33 PM	#1
Crucifiction Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The deformation age Posts: 1,809	I Need Your Help! http://usa-the-republic.com/religion/bible.html A Fundie posted that on a messageboard I moderate; and I'm not well versed enough in the Bible to really know if it's accurate or not. Can anybody here help me?

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

01-25-2005, 02:50 PM	#3
Crucifiction Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The deformation age Posts: 1,809	Oh, I'm already certain it isn't true; but I don't know enough to actually refute it. It's clearly absurd; but I don't know how to prove it.

01-25-2005, 03:08 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	At first I thought this was a Bible Code thing, but it's much less sophisticated. The author of this website claims (after much sneering at "intellectuals") that a number of metrics in the Bible are divisible by seven. (And how do you explain that you pointy-headed atheist intellectual? I mean, aside from the fact that 7 was a magic number and the writers of the Bible might have deliberately made sure that seven showed up?) The theory is based on the work of a 19th century Russian, Dr. Ivan Panin. I can find no reference to anyone who has taken him seriously enough to debunk him, but there might be someone out there.

01-25-2005, 03:08 PM	#5
Godless Wonder Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 4,197	And computers "prove" that moby dick is prophetic too. http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html edit: what Toto said.

01-25-2005, 04:30 PM	#6
Javaman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 1,708	Man is that hard to read. I normally have a problem with people who randomly use quotation marks. This author goes another step and italicizes within the unnecessary quotes! Even if everything is mathmatically and ligustically correct, it still doesn't mean God did it. It could easily be another, malevolent being trying to get people to believe the wrong thing.

01-25-2005, 07:25 PM	#8
Crucifiction Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The deformation age Posts: 1,809	Thanks, all! I posted the link to the site with the Moby Dick "predictions", and the stuff about Panin. Thanks again for your help.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.