Freethought & Rationalism Archive

itsamysteryhuh · 01-24-2008, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

Of course, we are all dumb intelligent enough to know that the Gospels are equal to something as simple as "The Lord of the Rings."

Gullwind, I guess you've never heard of the fallacy of false analogy?

It's not a false analogy. The number of copies in existence has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of what those copies say. There could be millions of copies of the gospels, all dated to the day after Easter, 33 A.D., and it wouldn't prove anything about what actually happened. All it proves is that the copies were (relatively) well done.

I think we have much better means of making copies today than they did back then. Wouldn't you agree?

Eheffa, implied opinions are still opinions.

Steven Carr · 01-24-2008, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

I think we have much better means of making copies today than they did back then. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes.

The copyists only had an alleged god to pray to help them with their work.

Any real photocopier is more effective than an alleged god.

Mageth · 01-24-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

Brian63, should you actually find such an error, what then? Do you think you will (somehow) have/provide the answers you need to disprove the existence of God or Jesus Christ? Let's be honest here. You'll likely just feel superior (somehow) to the evangelist knowing how it will "look" to (at least partially) prove him wrong and (at least partially) prove yourself right. Source: vanity.

And this charge of vanity would apply equally to the evangelist in the debate, would it not?

Gullwind · 01-24-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

It's not a false analogy. The number of copies in existence has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of what those copies say. There could be millions of copies of the gospels, all dated to the day after Easter, 33 A.D., and it wouldn't prove anything about what actually happened. All it proves is that the copies were (relatively) well done.

I think we have much better means of making copies today than they did back then. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, but that's irrelevant. The point is that the number of copies you have of something has nothing at all to do with the truth of what the copies are of.

I take it you agree with this point now?

Brian63 · 01-24-2008, 02:38 PM

People, can you not derail this thread please? Debates about the relevance of copies of copies can be taken to their own threads.

Thanks,

Brian and OP author

Julian · 01-24-2008, 03:09 PM

OMFG! I just took a look at the drawing of the coin in Carrier's article:

Carrier's is correct in assessing this guy as insane. The fact that Strobel would use this guy discredits Strobel to a new low (can one be discredited to negative levels?). Look at the writing! It says REX instead of ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ, it has the letter 'J' (which didn't exist back then and wouldn't for another millennium and a half) in JESUS which is all wrong as it should be ΙΕΣΟΥΣ. Not only is it an unbelievably bad forgery, it is a bad forgery in Greek by someone who doesn't know even the slightest thing about the language.

What a disgrace for Strobel. That shows exactly how careful he is about his sources and the evidence he presents: not at all.

Julian

eheffa · 01-24-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

OMFG! I just took a look at the drawing of the coin in Carrier's article:

Carrier's is correct in assessing this guy as insane. The fact that Strobel would use this guy discredits Strobel to a new low (can one be discredited to negative levels?). Look at the writing! It says REX instead of ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ, it has the letter 'J' (which didn't exist back then and wouldn't for another millennium and a half) in JESUS which is all wrong as it should be ΙΕΣΟΥΣ. Not only is it an unbelievably bad forgery, it is a bad forgery in Greek by someone who doesn't know even the slightest thing about the language.

What a disgrace for Strobel. That shows exactly how careful he is about his sources and the evidence he presents: not at all.

Julian

Yes. One doesn't have to look too closely at the evidence to realize that open-minded integrity and careful analysis are not Strobel's strong suit.

- evan

Brian63 · 01-26-2008, 11:15 AM

I have also PM'ed Doherty with a link to this thread, for some hopefully further assistance.

I may just start small, with another point raised by Doherty---even one of Strobel's experts says that the nails-in-the-palms at the crucifixion is inaccurate, and that they were really driven into the wrists. However, the cover artist on Strobel's book appears to have mistakenly drawn the picture with the blood coming from the palms too.

Brian

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

01-24-2008, 02:38 PM	#15
Brian63 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: My own little fantasy world Posts: 8,911	People, can you not derail this thread please? Debates about the relevance of copies of copies can be taken to their own threads. Thanks, Brian and OP author

01-24-2008, 03:09 PM	#16
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	OMFG! I just took a look at the drawing of the coin in Carrier's article: Carrier's is correct in assessing this guy as insane. The fact that Strobel would use this guy discredits Strobel to a new low (can one be discredited to negative levels?). Look at the writing! It says REX instead of ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ, it has the letter 'J' (which didn't exist back then and wouldn't for another millennium and a half) in JESUS which is all wrong as it should be ΙΕΣΟΥΣ. Not only is it an unbelievably bad forgery, it is a bad forgery in Greek by someone who doesn't know even the slightest thing about the language. What a disgrace for Strobel. That shows exactly how careful he is about his sources and the evidence he presents: not at all. Julian

01-26-2008, 11:15 AM	#18
Brian63 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: My own little fantasy world Posts: 8,911	I have also PM'ed Doherty with a link to this thread, for some hopefully further assistance. I may just start small, with another point raised by Doherty---even one of Strobel's experts says that the nails-in-the-palms at the crucifixion is inaccurate, and that they were really driven into the wrists. However, the cover artist on Strobel's book appears to have mistakenly drawn the picture with the blood coming from the palms too. Brian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.