Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aChristian · 12-28-2005, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RalphyS

Yesterday afternoon I read this entire thread or at least most of it and while it was interesting it is getting nowhere.

I mean the original idea was left behind very soon and it became a debate with aChristian, it has never been a discussion, because both parties will never ever be persuaded to give in even the slightest little bit to the other's view and therefore this debate, although somewhat entertaining, is totally useless.

aChristian is totally convinced that the reports of the early church fathers of so-called eyewitness accounts are much more reliable than all the historic research that has been done by independent (or as aChristian would call them, liberal) scientists.

Ofcourse, (liberal) history has proven that the (early) church was a totally integer and morally upstanding institution, that would never lie (or even do worse things). So who are we, to doubt these church fathers, and even if there maybe a shadow of a doubt about any of this, God himself has made sure that the truth has been put down correctly. And ofcourse noone can doubt God and the bible is God's word and must therefore also be true, even if there are some things that might be contrued a bit differently for people who have been influenced to do so by Satan. Everyone should be able to see the logic behind this reasoning, I cannot understand why you would not accept this totally clear worldview of aChristian, sorry God. You as well as 75% (give or take a few) of the rest of the world are just under the influence of satan, and what you think is reason is satan's influence over you, be honest and you will find the truth of God's mysterious ways.

Your scientific research can never lead to the truth if you don't accept the basic given that it must lead to the truth of creation, if you try to look at it without that basis, you are already misled by satan and this would never happen to aChristian or the Creationist scientists (I use this term losely) who back him up.

One thing I would like to have explained, I'm not an authority at this, but a while back you decided that all the books, which are in the Catholic bible but not in the protestant version are not divinily inspired. I mean this, I'm not sure, but I believe are revisions, made more than 1000 years later, if I'm not mistaken. So in this case the vision of the early church fathers suddenly is not ruling anymore, but that of revisionists like Luther or whoever, what's this about.

I mean if we're talking early church, we're talking Catholic church or am I wrong in that assumption, because the pope-led church was the church that in the end declared which books should be in the bible or not?

The apocryphal books were not considered as scripture by the early church. In addition, the Jews (as Josephus lists the inspired books) did not consider them inspired and Jesus never disagreed with the Jews over what was scripture, they both accepted the protestant Old Testament. In addition, there are teachings in the apocryphal (and pseudepigraphal books) that disagree with the accepted books. You are correct when you say that the apocryphal books were added later. The Roman Catholic church incorrectly added them about 1500 years later. The true books were recognized as soon as they were given as I noted earlier in this discussion. They were not determined by any council, but recognized by the apostles and the others who had been taught by Jesus as is seen in Peter's recognition of Paul's writings as scripture on par with the OT. The Roman Catholic council that tried to change the view of the church is wrong and the view of the Reformers who held to the view that the apostles held is correct.

Concerning the liberal historians, you will find that they just make up history that no one living at the time knew anything about and then pretend that it is true because they say it is. You will notice that they don't quote people from the time that believed their view. On the other hand, you will see those who accept the traditional view are quoting people who lived at the time and that those quoted support the traditional view.

John A. Broussard · 12-28-2005, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

No. Your revision overcomplicates what is clear without it. It is wordy as well. However, God did not write one book that contains all knowledge ever attainable. He put in enough for his purpose and expects us to honestly use the brain he gave us to discover more.

You haven't answered the question.

The original verse has led to at least a half-dozen different interpretations by inerrantists just in this forum.

Wouldn't god have been better served by my revision which leaves far, far less room for misinterpretation?

My version clearly says that the people in that day perceived the sun as standing still in the sky. The original version most certainly does not say that, at least according to many, many readers of the passage.

I look forward to your answer.

John A. Broussard · 12-28-2005, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RalphyS

Yesterday afternoon I read this entire thread or at least most of it and while it was interesting it is getting nowhere.

I mean the original idea was left behind very soon and it became a debate with aChristian, it has never been a discussion, because both parties will never ever be persuaded to give in even the slightest little bit to the other's view and therefore this debate, although somewhat entertaining, is totally useless.

As long as you are around, could you give me what you think this verse is saying?

JOSHUA10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Thanks.

Amaleq13 · 12-28-2005, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Concerning the liberal historians, you will find that they just make up history that no one living at the time knew anything about and then pretend that it is true because they say it is.

Do you have specific examples to support this accusation or is it simply an unsubstantiated, generalized insult that has no place in a rational discussion?

Quote:

On the other hand, you will see those who accept the traditional view are quoting people who lived at the time and that those quoted support the traditional view.

As far as I can tell, the "traditional view" only goes back to beginning of the 2nd century (possibly very late 1st) where we find Papias quoted on several thing including a completely different and ridiculous death scene for Judas. This, alone, calls into question his reliability but his two references to writings by "Mark" and "Matthew" are questionable on their own. The former asserts the tradition of Peter's secretary as the author of the first Gospel but even the Catholic Church (The Catholic Study Bible)has acknowledged that Petrine influence on the text should not be exaggerated. The latter asserts a text written in Hebrew but the vast majority of scholars claim Matthew as originally written in Greek.

You faith in the reliability of the "traditional view" is not founded on reliable evidence but since when has evidence ever gotten in the way of a deep religious conviction?

aChristian · 12-28-2005, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

You haven't answered the question.

The original verse has led to at least a half-dozen different interpretations by inerrantists just in this forum.

Wouldn't god have been better served by my revision which leaves far, far less room for misinterpretation?

My version clearly says that the people in that day perceived the sun as standing still in the sky. The original version most certainly does not say that, at least according to many, many readers of the passage.

I look forward to your answer.

I have answered the question many times. As I said before, your revision overcomplicates what is clear without it. It is wordy as well.

John A. Broussard · 12-28-2005, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

I have answered the question many times. As I said before, your revision overcomplicates what is clear without it. It is wordy as well.

If the version is so clear, why are there so many different views concerning what it says?

As usual, you refuse to deal with the question. Not surprising.

RalphyS · 12-29-2005, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

As long as you are around, could you give me what you think this verse is saying?

JOSHUA10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Thanks.

Well to be honest, I don't really care that much. It clearly describes a situation in which the sun did not set, which is physically impossible unless the fighting took place somewhere in Lapland.
I have never seen proof of anything that could change the laws of nature in such a way, so to me personally it is obviously a lie, whether the words mean that the sun stood still or that the rotation of the earth was stopped.
The situation is just impossible and for me therefore untrue, for someone who believes (a) god can do anything it could be true.
Ofcourse if you believe that the bible is literally true word for word than you do have to take every word at it's true meaning and it simply can't be also.
But aChristian does take here some leniance, where ofcourse in other places he can take none.

John A. Broussard · 12-29-2005, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RalphyS

Well to be honest, I don't really care that much. It clearly describes a situation in which the sun did not set, which is physically impossible unless the fighting took place somewhere in Lapland.
I have never seen proof of anything that could change the laws of nature in such a way, so to me personally it is obviously a lie, whether the words mean that the sun stood still or that the rotation of the earth was stopped.
The situation is just impossible and for me therefore untrue, for someone who believes (a) god can do anything it could be true.
Ofcourse if you believe that the bible is literally true word for word than you do have to take every word at it's true meaning and it simply can't be also.
But aChristian does take here some leniance, where ofcourse in other places he can take none.

Thanks.

That's the point I keep trying to put across to aChristian--that the original verse, as it stands, is open to all sorts of interpretations. Maybe it can be stretched to having Joshua fighting his battles in Lapland.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.