Response to post #268 (ref. posts #253 and #267):
Quote:
All of these sources are far better preserved than the Bible,
no, they are not. the bible has been copied literally thousands and thousands of times. the sources you cite have not been copied nearly as many times. the more you copy and translate through the ages, the more opportunity for error. with that in mind, the bible has an unbelievable record of reliability.
both the book of the dead and hammurabi's code are merely a fraction in length compared to the NT, much less the entire bible. more words introduces more opportunity for error.
iirc, there really isn't one book of the dead. scribes used a template to create a personalized version that was sold to the deceased. the book wasn't intended to be copied literally word for word every time. it's not analogous.
hammurabi's code is thought to have been based on earlier sumerian laws. in that sense, hammurabi's code really isn't an original. furthermore, the code doesn't record historical events like the bible and NT does. aside from the fact that a significant portion of the code is missing (66-99) from the stele in the louvre (meaning other copies can't be validated against it), we don't even know that the stele is the original.
given the above, it is not entirely accurate to say that those other works have been better preserved than the bible.
|
What is so "unbelievable" about the preservation of a compilation of books that contains over 150,000 textual errors, a variable number of books (does yours contain Enoch, Maccabees etc), entire books that appear to have gone missing despite being referenced by those that remain (prompting an enterprising Jew to write a new Book of Japher), differing versions of books such as Jeremiah, different sources mashed together and presented as being by a single author (e.g. Isaiah)... and so on? And the situation didn't improve in Christian times, with about 30 different gospels in circulation! Yes, the Egyptian Book of the Dead was "customized", but so was the compilation that eventually became the Bible (albeit for different reasons). Eventually both the Christians and the Jews decided to take steps to preserve the integrity of their respective "holy books", but they left it rather late...
Quote:
which has been continually recopied (resulting in known scribal errors, mismatches between different editions, and so forth).
yet, we know that despite these insignificant variants, the intent of the passage has not been changed.
|
"We know" nothing of the sort. Try asking a Jew what the "intent" of various passages in the OT was. And I've seen you object to the "intent" of the old references to polytheism and child-sacrifice pretty strenuously!
The latter half of your post is hard to follow, because you seem to have jumped to post #267:
Quote:
Another "reversal of the burden of proof" fallacy.
there is no such thing in an open forum.
Yes, there is. A fallacy is a fallacy. There is no "open forum rule" which exempts you from logical fallacies: you have merely "openly" perpetrated a fallacy.
that's just it, there is no open forum rule. that's my point. you are claiming there is so that you can exempt yourself from having to support your positions all the while getting to take potshots at everyone else's; a comfortable position to be sure.
i have challenged your understanding of how this is a fallacy. i am putting the burden of proof on you to prove your beliefs. do it any way you can, i don't care. if you wish to convince anyone that anything you say is credulous at all, then you should be able to prove it without having to resort to the imaginary "rational argument construction club". this is a skeptic website. skeptics should be all too happy to attempt to convince someone of their beliefs. instead, people keep hiding behind this imaginary rule whenever their beliefs are questioned or when their arguments meet with rebuttal. how convenient.
|
Nope, that's not how it works. We were discussing YOUR claims there: YOUR obligation to prove YOUR beliefs. If YOU wish to convince anyone that anything YOU say is credulous at all, then YOU should be able to prove it... but you can't, and you keep refusing to do so. All of MY claims are supported by a straightforward reading of what the Bible actually says (without having to twist the meaning by imposing un-Biblical assumptions), and/or by extrabiblical knowledge of various topics that you don't want to know about (Sumerian myth, Ugaritic texts, etymology of Hebrew words, history, various sciences etc). Yours are supported by... nothing, except a desperate desire to cling to a failed belief-system.
Quote:
Indeed, even YOU say so: because you keep quoting Romans 10:9 as your definition of what is a "Christian", and that doesn't specify a requirement to believe in all parts of the OT.
but it certainly is a logical conclusion. otherwise, why even bothering acknowledging that verse?
No, it is not a logical conclusion. You do not understand what the phrase "logical conclusion" actually means.
The lack of any requirement for inerrancy-belief in Romans 10:9 (YOUR definition of a "Christian") proves that this is not a requirement of Christianity. That is a logical conclusion, regardless of your inability to understand logical arguments.
again, you are criticizing something that you apparently don't understand. what's worse is that it appears that you're not even trying to understand. you are trying to convince someone of your mistaken ideas. it might help if you try to understand first before you criticize.
|
I understand perfectly: like many here, I was once a Christian. However, I was never an inerrantist, and neither was any other Christian I have ever met (maybe you should see what the real world is like outside the American Bible Belt?). Indeed, a prominent British Christian once attacked Richard Dawkins for his "ignorant" belief that inerrantists existed at all! I guess he was your British mirror-image...
06-08-2007, 01:33 PM
