Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-21-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

... In contrast a "fundie" or inerrantist can be considered as practicing "lower critcism"

Sorry, lower criticism is otherwise known as textual criticism. An inerrantist practices apologetics - a vain attempt to convince himself that the texts are inerrant, which does not convince anyone else.

Sheshonq · 02-21-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Yes you can. All it takes is imperfect knowledge, an ancient non-technological culture, and add 2000 years of mistakes and copyist errors.

Wow, you are a doubting thomas!

No, just far more experienced in these things than you are.

And of course, I'm not engaged in insincere debating merely to get a reaction out of opponents, which is what you are doing. *

* As we all know, there's a concise word for that kind of behavior - I've been told by the mods that using the word is forbidden, but for some strange reason attaching the definition of same word to a debater is OK.

arnoldo · 02-21-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Disputable prophecies are good because at least you can't claim they are prophecies written after the fact!

Yes you can. All it takes is imperfect knowledge, an ancient non-technological culture, and add 2000 years of mistakes and copyist errors.

Sir, the Dead Sea Scrolls have documented that minimal copyist errors have occurred in the Bible.

Sheshonq · 02-21-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Yes you can. All it takes is imperfect knowledge, an ancient non-technological culture, and add 2000 years of mistakes and copyist errors.

Sir, the Dead Sea Scrolls have documented that minimal copyist errors have occurred in the Bible.

1. No they haven't.
2. You aren't comparing apples and apples anyhow.
3. Since you don't have the originals, you don't know how many copyist errors have been introduced.

arnoldo · 02-21-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Sir, the Dead Sea Scrolls have documented that minimal copyist errors have occurred in the Bible.

1. No they haven't.
2. You aren't comparing apples and apples anyhow.
3. Since you don't have the originals, you don't know how many copyist errors have been introduced.

Your right that we don't have the originals but the copies of the LXX, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text closely follow each other so it appears there are minimal copyist errors between these three versions.

Minimalist · 02-21-2008, 03:12 PM

Um...really?

http://www.cesame-nm.org/index.php?n...rtid=43&page=1

Quote:

The Isaiah fragments have many discrepancies with the Septuagint and the Masorah. Some of the discrepancies appear due to mistakes in reading the original, some may be more faithful to the original, and some may have been deliberate variants.

Although many archaeologists believe that the Qumran community may have been a branch of the Essenes, others consider the evidence too scanty to make a judgment. Philo Judaeus said of the Essenes "they philosophize on most things by construing them symbolically, in accordance with ancient usage." which suggests that a nonliteral reading of Scripture was common among the Jews of antiquity.

Throughout the scrolls the coming of a messiah is prophesied. It is clear from the context, however, that the "messiah" was to be an earthly king and military leader, subservient to the high priest in religious matters. The life and beliefs of the community were similar in many respects to those of John the Baptist. However, neither he nor Jesus is mentioned anywhere in the scrolls.

The importance of the Qumran scrolls is not only that they contain clues to ancient versions of the Old Testament, or that they give a description of this schismatic Jewish sect, but also that they show that variant readings and symbolic or figurative interpretations of scripture were common in biblical times.

Something seems amiss!

Sheshonq · 02-21-2008, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

1. No they haven't.
2. You aren't comparing apples and apples anyhow.
3. Since you don't have the originals, you don't know how many copyist errors have been introduced.

Your right that we don't have the originals but the copies of the LXX, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text closely follow each other blah blah blah

No they don't.

Quote:

so it appears there are minimal copyist errors between these three versions.

Not only is that *wrong*, but it isn't even what your own source said, arnoldo. You've done it again: shoot yourself in the foot by citing a source that contradicts your claim. Here is what your source *actually* said:

Quote:

The chronology in Genesis chapter five is also very different than the MT.
...

Joshua in the LXX is 4-5% shorter than the MT of Joshua (Joshua 6, 12, 20). These minuses should be seen as additions by the MT. The 4QJosha also differs from the MT.

There is also a major change in the sequence of events in the LXX of Joshua. The building of the altar at Shechem in Joshua 8:30-35 (MT) is moved to chapter 9:3 in the LXX....."the MT and LXX do not reflect textual differences, but rather two different editions of the book....the edition of the MT expanded the shorter one reflected in the LXX
...

The first two and a half chapters of Judges were later added, and Joshua was separated from Judges. There are two major texts, A and B for the Song of Deborah.
...
The Lucianic (L) text of Esther is found in manuscripts 19, 93,108, 319, and part of 392. The Lucian Text is a seen as a revision of the Old Greek text (OG). Some scholars call the Lucian text A and the LXX text B. Here in the Lucian text, it looks like the book of Esther has been rewritten. The Lucian text of Esther is very different from the MT. It has omissions, additions, and content changes. The LXX also has large deviations from the MT. The L reflects midrash exegesis of Esther similar to the Targums.
...
Jeremiah is one seventh shorter in the LXX than in the MT. This is the most dramatic difference between the LXX and MT.
....
There are many differences between the LXX and MT of Ezekiel.
...
While there are differences between the LXX and the MT, not all the differences can be blamed on the translators. There are major differences that seem to be from a different Hebrew Vorlage. For example, there are major differences in the transposition of verses and whole groups of verses. In Chapters 15 and 16 there are the a number of verses rearranged. The same is true in chapters 17 and 20. The LXX is shorter than the MT in a number of places (9:1-2, 18:23-24, 20:14-19).

Maybe if you stopped making stuff up...??

Johnny Skeptic · 02-21-2008, 04:00 PM

Message to arnoldo: No religious book contains an indisputable prophecy because all religious books are false. You have never come up with sensible reasons why the Bible does not contain any indisputable prophecies. If Pat Robertson predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year, that would be an indisputable prophecy. If that happened, surely some skeptics would become Christians who were not previously convinced. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, surely more Jews would have accepted Jesus.

If a God exists, there are not any doubts whatsoever that he has not attempted to convince people to believe that he can predict the future. If a God wanted people to have faith, he most certainly would not try to strengthen their faith with fulfilled prophecy after the fact. If a God exists, it is a virtual given that he has not attempted to strengthen the faith of believers with fulfilled prophecy after the fact. That is because the very best way for a God to strengthen the faith of believers with fulfilled prophecy after the fact would be to make an indisputable prophecy. The Bible does not contain any indisputable prophecies. The lack of any reasonable motives why the God of the Bible does what he does is sufficient evidence that he does not exist, or, if a God inspired the Bible, since all of his predictions are needlessly disputable, which encourages dissent instead of discouraging dissent, that is sufficient grounds for people to reject him.

arnoldo · 02-21-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Your right that we don't have the originals but the copies of the LXX, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text closely follow each other blah blah blah

No they don't.

Not only is that *wrong*, but it isn't even what your own source said, arnoldo. You've done it again: shoot yourself in the foot by citing a source that contradicts your claim. Here is what your source *actually* said:

Quote:

The chronology in Genesis chapter five is also very different than the MT.
...

Joshua in the LXX is 4-5% shorter than the MT of Joshua (Joshua 6, 12, 20). These minuses should be seen as additions by the MT. The 4QJosha also differs from the MT.

There is also a major change in the sequence of events in the LXX of Joshua. The building of the altar at Shechem in Joshua 8:30-35 (MT) is moved to chapter 9:3 in the LXX....."the MT and LXX do not reflect textual differences, but rather two different editions of the book....the edition of the MT expanded the shorter one reflected in the LXX
...

The first two and a half chapters of Judges were later added, and Joshua was separated from Judges. There are two major texts, A and B for the Song of Deborah.
...
The Lucianic (L) text of Esther is found in manuscripts 19, 93,108, 319, and part of 392. The Lucian Text is a seen as a revision of the Old Greek text (OG). Some scholars call the Lucian text A and the LXX text B. Here in the Lucian text, it looks like the book of Esther has been rewritten. The Lucian text of Esther is very different from the MT. It has omissions, additions, and content changes. The LXX also has large deviations from the MT. The L reflects midrash exegesis of Esther similar to the Targums.
...
Jeremiah is one seventh shorter in the LXX than in the MT. This is the most dramatic difference between the LXX and MT.
....
There are many differences between the LXX and MT of Ezekiel.
...
While there are differences between the LXX and the MT, not all the differences can be blamed on the translators. There are major differences that seem to be from a different Hebrew Vorlage. For example, there are major differences in the transposition of verses and whole groups of verses. In Chapters 15 and 16 there are the a number of verses rearranged. The same is true in chapters 17 and 20. The LXX is shorter than the MT in a number of places (9:1-2, 18:23-24, 20:14-19).

Maybe if you stopped making stuff up...??

For a book that was written in a span of over a thousand years with various authors the internal consitency between all the books of the bible from Genesis to Revelations is amazing. When we compare the three different versions ,the LXX, the dead sea scrolls and the Masoretic Text those discrepenacies are minimal. The amazing thing is that the three version of text match each other closely despite being written at various times in history.

Sheshonq · 02-21-2008, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

For a book that was written in a span of over a thousand years

No it wasn't.

I just warned you about making shit up, and here you are doing it again?

Quote:

with various authors

And editors to straighten out the kinks.

Quote:

the internal consitency between all the books of the bible from Genesis to Revelations is amazing.

No, it's pretty sloppy, actually.

Quote:

When we compare the three different versions ,the LXX, the dead sea scrolls and the Masoretic Text those discrepenacies are minimal.

Your source disagrees with you.

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

02-21-2008, 04:00 PM	#358
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: No religious book contains an indisputable prophecy because all religious books are false. You have never come up with sensible reasons why the Bible does not contain any indisputable prophecies. If Pat Robertson predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year, that would be an indisputable prophecy. If that happened, surely some skeptics would become Christians who were not previously convinced. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that. Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, surely more Jews would have accepted Jesus. If a God exists, there are not any doubts whatsoever that he has not attempted to convince people to believe that he can predict the future. If a God wanted people to have faith, he most certainly would not try to strengthen their faith with fulfilled prophecy after the fact. If a God exists, it is a virtual given that he has not attempted to strengthen the faith of believers with fulfilled prophecy after the fact. That is because the very best way for a God to strengthen the faith of believers with fulfilled prophecy after the fact would be to make an indisputable prophecy. The Bible does not contain any indisputable prophecies. The lack of any reasonable motives why the God of the Bible does what he does is sufficient evidence that he does not exist, or, if a God inspired the Bible, since all of his predictions are needlessly disputable, which encourages dissent instead of discouraging dissent, that is sufficient grounds for people to reject him.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.