Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 10-09-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

1 Timothy 2:3-4 say “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (NIV)
At http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ier/bible.html, ancient historian Richard Carrier, who is an expert in Greek, says:

“There is no way this can be twisted to support Calvinism. There is absolutely no ambiguity about what Paul means: when he says all people, he means all people, and not some of all different kinds of people.”

“Perhaps god wants what he actually arranged to be impossible, but that is to credit god with astonishing stupidity, and self-defeating behavior (is god neurotic?). But the plain, obvious interpretation is also supported in 2.6, where Paul says Jesus was 'o(the one) dous(giving) 'eauton(himself) antilytron(as a substitute-ransom) 'yper(on behalf) pantwn(of everyone), which cannot be interpreted in any other way than that the sacrifice of Jesus, by being a ransom for everyone, is the source of salvation of everyone (who seeks salvation in Jesus, the obvious implied exception in the entire chapter). He thus did not die to atone for the sins of the elect, or for the sins of some of all kinds of people, but for the sins of all people. No other meaning is allowed by grammar or reason.”

“The fact is that there is no ‘one manuscript tradition’ for any of the books of the bible, and that by reconstructing an archetype manuscript from a logical analysis of the available, often incomplete and error-filled manuscripts, scholars are actually producing a more reliable approximation to the original manuscript tradition--which is otherwise completely lost. We do not have, for example, the original letter written by Paul to Tim, but only hundreds of imperfect copies. Since ‘all’ manuscripts have errors, it is not possible to pick one and say that it, and only it, is true, since it clearly cannot be. The only way to reconstruct a one, true manuscript is to engage in collation and analysis of many manuscripts. Though rarely can this be ‘completely’ accomplished, it is a simple fact that a manuscript reconstructed by SCHOLARS [Johnny: emphasis mine] will always be closer to what, for example, Paul actually wrote, than any existing manuscript.”

“And the fact remains that no translation, no matter how faithful, can ever truly replicate what the bible actually says in the Greek. This is a serious problem, for it means that no Christian ignorant of Greek has ever read the actual bible. Even the Muslims realize this, and hence have required that the Koran always be read by serious believers in the original Arabic. And it is not enough of a solution to merely learn Greek, for the meaning of allusions and words and grammatical constructions in 1st century Koine Greek is often inexorably tied to an understanding of how the language and associated ideas were used and understood in the 1st century. In other words, one must study Greek literature at the time, and social and economic and political history, and religious and philosophical history, to really start to grasp many of the nuances in the Greek. Wilson, for example, shows no knowledge of Greek rhetorical conventions of the 1st century in the passage analyzed above (or is deceitfully concealing such knowledge), and as I explained above, all Calvinists ignore the contextual significance of a letter being written under the Roman Empire. Proper interpretation requires such an understanding.”

This is quite cute. Rhutchin admits that he knows nothing about Greek, but he has no problem arguing with a Greek scholar. Will he produce any evidence from Greek scholars that supports his position? We shall see.

Of course, rhutchin loses hands down no matter what because no God who does not want everyone to be saved is worthy of being accepted. If a man had two children who were drowning, and refused to try to save both of them, he would be ostracized from society, even from Christian society, and he would possibly be convicted of negligence and sent to prison. If an ordinary man were willing to suffer and die for some people (some skeptics are willing to suffer and die for some people), and killed some people (God kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout followers, and babies), he would be considered irrational, bi-polar, and mentally incompetent. Why should the behavior of a God be considered any differently?

Calvin explains this in the following manner--

"The second passage adduced is that in which Paul says that “God will
have all men to be saved,” (1 Timothy 2:4.) Though the reason here
differs from the former, they have somewhat in common. I answer, first,
That the mode in which God thus wills is plain from the context; for Paul
connects two things, a will to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of
the truth. If by this they will have it to be fixed by the eternal counsel of
God that they are to receive the doctrine of salvation, what is meant by
Moses in these words, “What nation is there so great, who has God so nigh
unto them?” (Deuteronomy 4:7.) How comes it that many nations are
deprived of that light of the Gospel which others enjoy? How comes it that
the pure knowledge of the doctrine of godliness has never reached some,
and others have scarcely tasted some obscure rudiments of it? It will now
be easy to extract the purport of Paul’s statement. He had commanded
Timothy that prayers should be regularly offered up in the church for kings
and princes; but as it seemed somewhat absurd that prayer should be
offered up for a class of men who were almost hopeless, (all of them being
not only aliens from the body of Christ, but doing their utmost to
overthrow his kingdom,) he adds, that it was acceptable to God, who will
have all men to be saved. By this he assuredly means nothing more than
that the way of salvation was not shut against any order of men; that, on
the contrary, he had manifested his mercy in such a way, that he would
have none debarred from it. Other passages do not declare what God has,
in his secret judgment, determined with regard to all, but declare that
pardon is prepared for all sinners who only turn to seek after it. For if they
persist in urging the words, “God has concluded all in unbelief, that he
might have mercy upon all,” (Romans 11:32,) I will, on the contrary,
urge what is elsewhere written, “Our God is in the heavens: he has done
whatsoever he has pleased,” (Psalm 115:3.) we must, therefore,
expound the passage so as to reconcile it with another, I “will be gracious
to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show
mercy,” (Exodus 33:19.) He who selects those whom he is to visit in
mercy does not impart it to all. But since it clearly appears that he is there
speaking not of individuals, but of orders of men, let us have done with a
longer discussion. At the same time, we ought to observe, that Paul does
not assert what God does always, everywhere, and in all circumstances, but
leaves it free to him to make kings and magistrates partakers of heavenly
doctrine, though in their blindness they rage against it."

Calvin is said to have been a Greek scholar as have many men after him who have taken this same position.

I think Carrier gets caught in the trees (looking at individual Greek words) and misses the forest (the logical argument that Paul makes here).

Johnny Skeptic · 10-09-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Calvin is said to have been a Greek scholar as have many men after him who have taken this same position.

I think Carrier gets caught in the trees (looking at individual Greek words) and misses the forest (the logical argument that Paul makes here).

Calvin did study Greek, but how well did he understand it, and what percentage of Greek scholars who are alive today agree with Calvin? I assume only a small percentage, and that that small percentage are ALL Calvinists.

What evidence do you have that the Bible is inerrant? Are you not aware that it would not be difficult at all for some skeptics to revise the Bible, take it to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least a few people some of the time? Logically, no book that can easily be revised can be called inerrant.

In my previous post, I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Of course, rhutchin loses hands down no matter what because no God who does not want everyone to be saved is worthy of being accepted. If a man had two children who were drowning, and refused to try to save both of them, he would be ostracized from society, even from Christian society, and he would possibly be convicted of negligence and sent to prison. If an ordinary man were willing to suffer and die for some people (some skeptics are willing to suffer and die for some people), and killed some people (God kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout followers, and babies), he would be considered irrational, bi-polar, and mentally incompetent. Why should the behavior of a God be considered any differently?

Consider the following from the EofG Forum:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Do you not find it to be odd that God's saving of the elect is not possible without human effort?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I find it interesting that God uses people as the means to bring salvation to other people. Kinda puts people you know at a disadvantage.

Actually, the hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing about the Gospel message because God did not want them to hear about it were at a decided disadvantage. Human effort never has been, and never will be sufficient to let everyone know about the Gospel message, which is just as your unmerciful God intends for it to be. Following your own same line of reasoning, if no one wanted to share the Gospel message with anyone, no one would ever get saved. How utterly absurd. That would be like saying that if a lifeguard at a beach refused to save drowning people, no one else should bother to save drowning people. Get this: Decent people make themselves available to help out when indecent people refuse to do so.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that no one would know about his specific existence and will except through human effort. If he does exist, if he has good character, he would not go out of his way to make it appear to billions of people that human effort alone has accounted for the spread of Christianity.

No rational minded and fair minded person is able to will himself to endorse favoritism, unmerciful eternal punishment without parole, hypocrisy [the Bible says that killing people is wrong, but God frequently kills people], and God revealing himself to some people who reject him, while refusing to reveal himself to some people who would accept him if they knew that he [supposedly] exists. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept a message that he would accept if he was aware that the being who delivered the message exists.

You would not like it if God lied, but why don't you object when he deliberately kills some of his most devout and faithful followers, including babies, and endorses favoritism? No one should accept a hypocritical being who breaks his own rules.

rhutchin · 10-09-2006, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

rhutchin
Calvin is said to have been a Greek scholar as have many men after him who have taken this same position.

I think Carrier gets caught in the trees (looking at individual Greek words) and misses the forest (the logical argument that Paul makes here).

Johnny Skeptic
Calvin did study Greek, but how well did he understand it, and what percentage of Greek scholars who are alive today agree with Calvin? I assume only a small percentage, and that that small percentage are ALL Calvinists.

On 1 Tomthy 2:3-4, there are two camps from what I understand. On one side are the universalists who maintain that God saves all people and use this verse to support that position. On the other side are the Calvinists, Arminians, and other non-universalists who basically accept Calvin's analyses. How this works out percentage wise, I do not know, but I suspect the universalists are in the minority (contrary to your position).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What evidence do you have that the Bible is inerrant? Are you not aware that it would not be difficult at all for some skeptics to revise the Bible, take it to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least a few people some of the time? Logically, no book that can easily be revised can be called inerrant.

So far, you have proposed two verses in support of your contention that the Bible is errant (2 Peter and 1 Timothy) and have been busted. Let's move on to a third example.

Johnny Skeptic · 10-09-2006, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What evidence do you have that the Bible is inerrant? Are you not aware that it would not be difficult at all for some skeptics to revise the Bible, take it to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least a few people some of the time? Logically, no book that can easily be revised can be called inerrant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So far, you have proposed two verses in support of your contention that the Bible is errant (2 Peter and 1 Timothy) and have been busted. Let's move on to a third example.

But I do not really need to compare Scriptures that appear to many people to be for AND against predestination, even to many Christians. Even if the Bible clearly said that God does wish that some people perish, and never said anything different, you would still have to reasonably prove that the writers of those Scriptures were speaking for God and not for themselves. Where is your evidence that the Bible is inerrant?

No decent person could will himself to accept a God who endorses favoritism, a God who frequently reveals himself to people who never accept him, and frequently refuses to reveal himself to people who would accept him if they believed that he exists. If Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles all over the world, surely some people would accept him who were not previously convinced. My word, it would not at all be difficult for some modern magicians to go to some remote jungle regions in Borneo and convince at least some natives that they had
supernatural powers, and were Gods.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.