Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 06-12-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

As long as you understand multiple compositional theory, aka the documentary hypothesis, and the late dating for the texts, Jewish or Christian, then you can rest assured that you have reasonably the same as the "originals", but that in itself is understanding what scholars mean by "originals".

What specifically are you worrying about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But then the Trinity is not actually in the Bible, is it?

That depends on the nature of the Trinity. Matthew clearly has the formulaic expression "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Whether that was original, or whether Matthew meant something different is to be debated, but it's there.

JW:
If this scant support for the trinity is Forged than from a Qualitative standpoint it doesn't look to me that "you have reasonably the same as the "originals"". Do you think all your qualifications above cover this or do you need to add another one?

By The Way, Ehrman is publicly confessing that the reason he is no longer a Believer is because the Originals have not been preserved. I therefore have Faith that he considers this Distance potentially significant.

Joseph

Jesus. Name. The fleshy part of the trinity.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Knupfer · 06-12-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

In another thread a poster made the folowing claim:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

This onus is on you. The majority consensus among textual critics is that the text we have now is reasonably close to the originals. You need to provide evidence why the consensus is wrong. Until you do I will continue to trust that the Bibles I have in my home are close enough to the originals that I can rely on them.

Is this at all true regarding the consensus opinion?

The consensus of opinion in the 19th century that bleeding people cures disease is false. So sorry friend, but the truth isn't determined by a vote.

Johnny Skeptic · 06-12-2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

This onus is on you. The majority consensus among textual critics is that the text we have now is reasonably close to the originals. You need to provide evidence why the consensus is wrong. Until you do I will continue to trust that the Bibles I have in my home are close enough to the originals that I can rely on them.

Please post your evidence that there is a majority consensus that the story of Adam and Eve is reasonably close to the originals. How could any historian have any idea what any writing said that was written over 4,000 years ago? Do you make bogus, uncorroborated speculations like that for all other ancient texts, or just the Bible? Is it your position that God is obligated to provide Christians with inerrant texts? My word, he refused to provide any texts at all to hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing the Gospel message.

Roger Pearse · 06-13-2007, 12:06 AM

I restore the context, which I note was omitted. Once one restores the context, the response by spam takes on an interesting hue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

If we had the originals, we could all go home. But we don't. We don't even have fragments of the originals as far as we know. We have no knowledge whatsoever as to what was contained in the originals.

All we have are a few fragments of unknown fidelity from the mid second century, a few references to texts of unknown fidelity in other writings of the 2nd century, and extant texts which start rolling in around the beginning of the 3rd century. We also have mountains of speculation, of course.

The same applies to every other ancient literary text, except more so. I presume, then, that you reject all of those as well?

If by 'reject', you simply mean 'do not blindly accept at face value', then yes. If you mean instead 'valueless', then no.

Quite how these assertions relate to the point above is not stated.

Quote:

No copies of the classics for you, then -- after all, they're not reliable.

Reliable in what sense?

This seems to be a classic piece of evasion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Atheism does not necessarily involve obscurantism, as A.E.Housman could have told you.

True, but faith ...

Change of subject noted.

I don't see any need to repeat what I wrote above.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

ksen · 06-13-2007, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

This onus is on you. The majority consensus among textual critics is that the text we have now is reasonably close to the originals. You need to provide evidence why the consensus is wrong. Until you do I will continue to trust that the Bibles I have in my home are close enough to the originals that I can rely on them.

Please post your evidence that there is a majority consensus that the story of Adam and Eve is reasonably close to the originals.

Have you read this thread at all or the Adam, Eve, Genesis thread?

If not I suggest you read through this thread and the Adam, Eve, Genesis threads and then get back to me.

Quote:

How could any historian have any idea what any writing said that was written over 4,000 years ago?

You're ready to toss all those ancient documents, biblical and non-biblical?

In your opinion when can we reasonably start relying on historical documents as being somewhat faithful to what was originally written?

Quote:

Do you make bogus, uncorroborated speculations like that for all other ancient texts, or just the Bible?

Nice try. I don't consider my opinions about the bible as "bogus, uncorroborated speculations."

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Quote:

Is it your position that God is obligated to provide Christians with inerrant texts?

I've told you before that I don't think God is obligated to provide us with anything. God is not obligated to us.

Quote:

My word, he refused to provide any texts at all to hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing the Gospel message.

You act as if you think God owes everyone the chance to hear the Gospel. God owes us nothing.

On the other hand you HAVE heard the Gospel message. So what's your excuse now?

gregor · 06-13-2007, 06:22 AM

I have heard [sic] the Gospel message, but it was the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Peter, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalen (in addition to those other four chart toppers).

I've also read the multiple versions of the Gospel message from M, M, L, & J.

What am I supposed to do with these anonymous, contradictory copies of stories again?

Johnny Skeptic · 06-13-2007, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

How could any historian have any idea what any writing said that was written over 4,000 years ago?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

You're ready to toss all those ancient documents, biblical and non-biblical?

In your opinion when can we reasonably start relying on historical documents as being somewhat faithful to what was originally written?

"Somewhat faithful" and "inerrant except for scribal and copyist errors" are two entirely different issues. Unless we should assume that copies of most historical documents that were originally written over 4,000 years ago are inerrant except for scribal and copyist errors, which I doubt that any reputable historian would claim, we should not assume that the copies of the story of Adam and Eve are inerrant except for scribal and copyist errors. Your position regarding the story of Adam and Eve is built entirely upon faith, not upon a consensus of historians.

spamandham · 06-13-2007, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quite how these assertions relate to the point above is not stated.

...

This seems to be a classic piece of evasion.
..

Change of subject noted.

Roger, is this type of drive by sniping all you have to offer anymore? I can't believe I used to have respect for you.

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-13-2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knupfer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

In another thread a poster made the folowing claim:

Is this at all true regarding the consensus opinion?

The consensus of opinion in the 19th century that bleeding people cures disease is false. So sorry friend, but the truth isn't determined by a vote.

Quite right... so how did you get your bible?

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-13-2007, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I restore the context, which I note was omitted. Once one restores the context, the response by spam takes on an interesting hue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

If by 'reject', you simply mean 'do not blindly accept at face value', then yes. If you mean instead 'valueless', then no.

Quite how these assertions relate to the point above is not stated.

This seems to be a classic piece of evasion.

Quote:

True, but faith ...

Change of subject noted.

I don't see any need to repeat what I wrote above.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

But Roger, no one is telling me that my soul's eternal destiny depends on the inerrancy of the things written about Julius Caesar.

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

06-13-2007, 06:22 AM	#66
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	I have heard [sic] the Gospel message, but it was the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Peter, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalen (in addition to those other four chart toppers). I've also read the multiple versions of the Gospel message from M, M, L, & J. What am I supposed to do with these anonymous, contradictory copies of stories again?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.