FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-06-2007, 09:42 AM   #51
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,877
Default

The bible repeatedly states that it is one hundred percent pure, not one word is altered or should be added or taken out, that every word is useful for teaching. 1 percent error is 1 percent too much error.
If someone offered you a slice of pie that had a couple bits of horseshit in it would you eat it?
Come on, don't be such a baby, its almost 99 percent pie!:Cheeky:
Overkill is offline  
Old 05-06-2007, 09:47 AM   #52
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overkill View Post
The bible repeatedly states that it is one hundred percent pure,
Where does "the Bible" say this at all, let alone repeatedly?

JG
jgibson000 is offline  
Old 05-06-2007, 01:32 PM   #53
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 528
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverwind View Post
No offense, Nazaroo, but when I originally brought the topic up on the thread that you mention, you told me it was off-topic and I'd have to bring it up elsewhere.

I would prefer that you just answer the question here instead of redirecting me again. Regardless of your interest in discussing the issue, this makes it seem like a reluctance to address the issue.

Threads go slightly off-topic at times...unavoidable with so many possible side-tangents. Actually, that seems to be what keeps some threads alive over time. So, please go ahead and address the issue here since it has been brought up. If not, I wouldn't mind creating a thread specifically for the issue if you will respond in it.

I'd be delighted to discuss this here or anywhere, but wouldn't that be hijacking someone else's thread? If the moderators and other posters don't object, then neither do I. But its not entirely up to me.

For the moment, I am trying to follow the forum rules concerning topic. But perhaps a moderator or someone will want to comment.
Nazaroo is offline  
Old 05-06-2007, 01:38 PM   #54
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Allen, Tx
Posts: 604
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazaroo View Post
I'd be delighted to discuss this here or anywhere, but wouldn't that be hijacking someone else's thread? If the moderators and other posters don't object, then neither do I. But its not entirely up to me.

For the moment, I am trying to follow the forum rules concerning topic. But perhaps a moderator or someone will want to comment.
Ok, here you go. Rather than putting it off on the moderators to decide, I've created a thread that is specifically to discuss this issue. Enjoy.

For Nazoo: "Text-Critical Marks" in P66 and Sinaiticus
Riverwind is offline  
Old 05-06-2007, 03:50 PM   #55
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

A number of posts relating to Bart Ehrman have been split off here
Toto is offline  
Old 05-06-2007, 05:06 PM   #56
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 3,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherMithras View Post
It's bullshit and they made it up.
What, the whole thing? :huh:
Iacchus is offline  
Old 05-06-2007, 05:09 PM   #57
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 3,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullwind View Post
The thing is, even if its true, all it means is that a lot of people were careful when they made copies. It says nothing about the truth of what the writings were about. It sounds good, especially if you're already a believer, but it really doesn't mean what they use it for.

There are millions of copies of The Lord of the Rings floating around, probably a lot more than 99% identical, but that doesn't prove that Frodo and Gandalf really existed.
Well, at least it helps alleviate the notion that a lot of distortions occurred after the fact ... so, that if there is any truth to it, we may in fact be that much closer to that which was actually said. I find that to be quite helpful myself.
Iacchus is offline  
Old 05-06-2007, 05:18 PM   #58
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 3,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overkill View Post
The bible repeatedly states that it is one hundred percent pure, not one word is altered or should be added or taken out, that every word is useful for teaching. 1 percent error is 1 percent too much error.
If someone offered you a slice of pie that had a couple bits of horseshit in it would you eat it?
Come on, don't be such a baby, its almost 99 percent pie!:Cheeky:
Oh baloney! Does that mean that 99 percent of the books we find in today's classrooms are unfit for teaching as well? I have heard (in some other forum) that these books are chock full of errors.
Iacchus is offline  
Old 05-06-2007, 05:35 PM   #59
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,877
Default

No, but then again these books don't proclaim that they are the flawless teachings of an omnimax God.
And here is a place where the Bible says it is neither to be edited or added to, that it is the word of God, and that every word is useful.
Revelation 22:18-19, NIV
"18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
2 Peter 1:21"For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Hmm, interesting, its okay for the Holy Spirit to breath out inaccuracies, as long as the inaccuracies are supposedly in the single digits.
2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." All of it except that one percent inaccurate part, right?
Overkill is offline  
Old 05-06-2007, 05:55 PM   #60
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Middlesbrough, England
Posts: 3,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
The New Testament is 99% textually accurate...?
This statistic is often presented on apologetics websites and message boards. Does anyone know where it originally came from?
I believe the statistic of 99% was first used in Domestos adverts in relation to killing a proportion of all known household germs. It proved so successful that other statisticians began to use it more widely thereafter.

In 1994 Domestos lost a multi-million pound test case when evidence was produced to show that rather embarrassingly, Domestos actually caused surviving household germs to shoot from a mere 1% to a staggering 100% of household germs, and the judge held it was unreasonable to expect the public to know them all. It's one reason why I brush my teeth with excrement.

Boro Nut
Boro Nut is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:03 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.