Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John A. Broussard · 12-17-2005, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

And I have faith that Nicole Kidman loves me with all her heart, and fantasizes about me and my God-given parts on a nightly basis.

See how rewarding unsupported belief can be?

Now you have some inkling as to why theists cling to their faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Steven Avery · 12-18-2005, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus

Does this mean you concede that, in rare instances, the MT does "conflict in significant ways"?

There are minority readings, and some relatively minor textual conflicts between the Ben Hayim and BHS text, yes. And of course there is the issue of the majority/minority reading on Psalm 22:16. And of course there are Tetragrammaton vowel point differences between texts.

From my vantage point, all of these types of differences within the Masoretic Text family of manuscripts are "significant".

'Shalom Shabbat' is a shabbat greeting I personally use. Maybe I should google it to see if it is used elsewhere.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan · 12-18-2005, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

And I have faith that Nicole Kidman loves me with all her heart, and fantasizes about me and my God-given parts.

Why did god give you chicken gizzards?

Steven Avery · 12-19-2005, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

In fact this is a good example of a supposed 'hard case' for true inerrancy, and two radically divergent undersandings of the text

Note: What makes it especially interesting is that it combines a case for supposed Masoretic Text error with a case for King James Bible mistranslation. A one of a kind.

The opponents of scripture usually pick whichever one fits their own viewpoint. The modern versionists will attack the KJB while not offerring any explanation other than an errant text (scribal error). While the skeptics, islamists, etc. will attack the Masoretic text as corrupt. And occasionally both will be combined.

I think 2 Sameul 21:19 is the only verse in the Tanach that combines these two issues. The King James Bible does not modify Hebrew-->English translation for the purpose of masking any supposed difficulties. In this one verse the argument is made that it does, and that is why I went to the effort to show that the italics (brother of) is a rightful translation inclusion. And I used the phrase 'contextual ellipsis' as the overall explanation. And in this view, and understanding the wide usage of "Goliath", the Masoretic Text is 100% sound as is.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

John A. Broussard · 12-19-2005, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus

And there is yet more scribal error: Jesse has eight sons in 1 Sam 17:12. In 1 Chr 2:13-15 there are only seven sons. David was simultaneously the youngest of seven sons and the youngest of eight. Clearly this is impossible, even if one posits (with zero textual support of course) that Jesse had another son after David.

But that's the whole point in interpreting an inerrant document.

The assumption is that no contradictions exist. Were some appear to exist, then one has to necessarily posit that something not mentioned in the scripture explains away the apparent contradiction.

E.g., I frequently ask for the explanation for Joshua's making the sun stand still. I've lost track of the variety of explanations I've received.

Apikorus · 12-19-2005, 09:25 AM

John, yes using that method I can prove that the Atrahasis Epic, the Qur'an, the Iliad, etc. are all inerrant.

Johann_Kaspar · 12-19-2005, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Revelation 22:18-19 say "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." If tampering with the texts were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. So much for Biblical inerrancy.

According to Protestants, Roman Catholics have added to the texts. From a Protestant viewpoint, does that mean that all Roman Catholics with go to hell?

It is not even necessary to find such quotes to be sure that "tampering" (I prefer : creating a mythology, or literature editing) was very common. Just compare the synoptics: adding, deleting, modifying at every page... It is much too obvious, much too common. Only xians can believe all that crap litteraly ot think it is a testimony...

jakejonesiv · 12-21-2005, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

However, the Word of God stands eternal. It is tangible and beautiful, majestic and powerful, and with authority. God has truly inspired and preserved His Word, as he promised.

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

If God was supposedly able to keep the KJV "pure" (which it certainly is not, 1 John 5:7 being just one example), did he run out of power when he got to the NIV?

If God did indeed keep his word pure, name the ancient manuscript of the entire Bible that is pure.

That's it. Name one ancient manuscript of the Bible that is pure by your definition. However, if that manuscript contains even one error, you have made God out to be a liar.

I don't want to hear about 99% agreement or about comparing texts. That is textual criticism and by definition an act of man. 99% might be good enough for Ivory Soap, but it is not good enough for an allegedly omnicient and omnipotent god who is unable to preserve even one copy "pure, tried and purified."

Jake Jones IV

Steven Avery · 12-23-2005, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

If God was supposedly able to keep the KJV "pure" (which it certainly is not, 1 John 5:7 being just one example), did he run out of power when he got to the NIV?

Man messes up a lot of stuff. The modern versions in general are a rebellion from God, (although they do contain many of the words of God), the NIV being one of many. btw, are you aware of the early usages of the Johannine Comma ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

If God did indeed keep his word pure, name the ancient manuscript of the entire Bible that is pure.That's it. Name one ancient manuscript of the Bible that is pure by your definition. However, if that manuscript contains even one error, you have made God out to be a liar.

Most ancient manuscripts are long gone, in languages that I and most have little skill. The inspired and preserved and pure Word of God is what I read today. However I would be hard put to find any errors inthe various Received Texts, the Ben Hayim Masoretic and the Textus Receptus editions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I don't want to hear about 99% agreement or about comparing texts. That is textual criticism and by definition an act of man. 99% might be good enough for Ivory Soap, but it is not good enough for an allegedly omnicient and omnipotent god who is unable to preserve even one copy "pure, tried and purified."

You sound a bit like me. I have used the ivory soap analogy against modern textual liberals who feel that their Bible is mostly pure.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Joan of Bark · 12-23-2005, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

If God really had any sense, He would beam his inerrant word directly into the brains of all newborns, thereby bypassing the thorny problems caused by scribes, translators, interpreters and other fallible humans. Then, instead of wasting our time arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, we could spend more time making the world a better place.

Of course, God has no sense.

:huh:

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

12-19-2005, 09:25 AM	#96
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	John, yes using that method I can prove that the Atrahasis Epic, the Qur'an, the Iliad, etc. are all inerrant.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.