Haran

Fine, thanks.

But isn't that the beauty of it?

Wouldn't a "perfect text" bring just as many suspicions? Eye-witness accounts shift and change, but their core message and belief usually stays the same. Details often shift in remembered stories. I, myself am guilty. However, the core message of my stories remains the same.

Sorry, I missed the part about the spelling differences, but having them in black is misleading at least to me. Personally, I believe spelling and "name change" differences could account for more than a couple of the examples given.

I think the list could be narrowed but probably not eliminated. However, I still fail to see much significance to these minor discrepancies. Christian faith does not rest on any theology derived from these parts of Ezra and Neh., at least to my knowledge.

[QUOTE]
<strong>As for the numbers, I'm not sure I can give any good answers for the seeming discrepancies there except that Hebrew letters were used for numbers. Since letters can get mixed up, the problems may simply be due to textual corruption over time.</strong>

Actually, I believe that I saw another possible reason for textual corruption and that was the sound of two numbers. Since scribes might have been writing as someone spoke, they could have heard a number incorrectly. This means that at least one of the two texts may be correct, though the other is not. Just a theory based on something I saw. I'll have to check it out in more detail.

[QUOTE]
<strong>If letters for numbers would account for some of the seeming discrepancies then; anyone from the camp who acknowledge God had anything to do with what once was a inerrant text--should start to question his choice of languages, as well as his omniscience, for letting it get in the shape it is today.</strong>

As stated before, many Christians believe that the message has survived intact despite human blunders since the original. Another view would hold that the slight corruption is part of God's overarching plan to allow humans freedom of choice (i.e. one may choose to dismiss the message or accept it).

[QUOTE]
<strong>Thanks for the post. BTW, pleased to meet you, and I'll c-ya around.</strong>

Thank you. I enjoy a challenge, even when I don't have all the answers...

Haran

John the Atheist

Meta =&gt; First of all, this whole concept of "Weasel words" is itsself a weasely concept. It's not part of actual logic, either formal or informal, and it's largely a subjective notion that is wholly at the descrition of the user. Moreover it is usually an excuse based upon the fact that the person making the accuzation is not expert enough in any sort of academic parlance to know when he has hold of a real argument or when his leg is being pulled. Insecure in his own knowledge he lashes out against any sort of verbabe which leaves him puzzelled.

Well... Meta, or do you prefer Dr. Freud? While I appreciate all free psychoanalysis along with what I can clearly see someone who is an expert in this field, I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you starting with that previous quote and this one as well:

My own views on inerrency and inspirtion are complex, (not "weasel worsds") but what one might call complex. A good basis in understanding my view, if anyone cares, can be found in Avery Dulle's book Models of Revelation

Hell, an articulate man whose views on inerrancy and inspiration are so complex, that you have to refer someone over to read an entire book, so frankly, no I don‘t care if you can‘t answer the question as clearly as Polycarp did. It’s a simple question of what I asked, and all I get is three vague pages of horseshit. We’ve already discussed variations of inerrancy on this, and thus far only I’ve found a couple of theists that admit the Bible having errors. Nomad has put the weasel words in, you wrote three pages of nothing, so I doubt any answers will not be as direct and forthcoming as Bede’s and Polycarp’s, which is why I asked the question. But since in all of your expert theological training, you are not grasping the concept of “weasel words,” and maybe they just skipped Logic 101 altogether with you or maybe it skipped you, I‘m going to give you a primer for this board because you’re seriously misguided if you don’t think they have a place in logic. Weasel words are ways of making statements vague (see your sidekicks statements as well) and thereby cause them to destroy any empirical meaning. I’ve given some examples already such as may, could, perhaps, etc. Now when a direct question is asked, if it includes one of many of those weasel words, it loses the importance of falsifiablity. Any statement that lacks falsifiability will lack verfiability as well. And if one can’t answer the Ezra and the Nehemiah pericopes direct as to why they are still not contradictions and errors, and I suppose claim they are not from the inerrancy camp; then, that's what I'm trying to address. Comprehende? It’s really straightforward. Polycarp didn’t have any trouble, nor did the quotes he provided from Bede leave any doubt on his position either on inerrancy.

Any better than what? You are the one making the error!

I’ve explained in my opening and closing post to Nomad exactly what I had said. If you can’t read my statements without using Nomad’s words of what he thought was said, and you still don’t comprehend; then, I can't help you with your reading.

In What part of the Northern area of the Lone Star State are you lucky enough to reside?

The part that you don’t reside in.

John

brighid

Let’s assume for a moment that the original texts were in fact perfect and inerrant. Although the likelihood of this is highly improbable and near impossible! But for arguments sake – say this is the case. The problem therein is that we cannot verify the authenticity, perfection or inerrancy of those original documents. And why, oh why – would the Church be unable to produce those original documents that were practically done in God’s own handwriting? I would venture to guess because they never existed. Also the Bible was not one cohesive book at the time of its creation. It’s not as if God wrote the Bible in one fell swoop, then scatter it’s books to the wind to have them collected over the centuries and reestablished in the form of the copied version of the Bible. That also further leaves in question those books that were left out, destroyed or are found in other versions of the Bible. What was the criteria for deciding what was right and what was wrong and if the Holy Spirit was guiding all the members of the Church – why the discrepancies?

But let’s go back to the assumption of original perfection and the dilemma of the subsequent errant and copied texts. If we do not have the original documents to use to compare against the copied documents we cannot determine which parts of the Bible are elaborations, exaggerations, out right lies or simply misinformation. Therefore, without employing other methods to come to educated conclusions we are left in a serious quandary. What parts should one believe? What parts are not the original words of God? What if this isn’t really what God said, but what man has said and wants? And considering the contents of the Bible and the beliefs and actions one takes in accordance to the rules in the copied version supposedly determine if one will burn in hell for eternity (or simply be separated from God for an eternity) or residing in immortality in the beauties and splendors of Heaven – well one would think that those placing their salvation and damnation upon a copied version of a divinely inspired book would work really hard and use the most reasonable tools available to discern those answers. Instead Christians usually believe that the “core” message is the same because they cannot substantiate the details of these books, even though the quibble over who is a true or untrue Christian based upon the details. The core message cannot be accurately determined if it is muddled in half-truths, historical distortions, misinformation or lies and all of these things cannot be determined by using the Bible and Faith alone. Furthermore that search must be done with the purpose of disproving the theory of inerrancy and perfection for if the text was inerrant than any amount of scrutiny or application of logic, science or reason would repeatedly render the truth of the matter. In fact, I think that process does work but not to the betterment of Biblical inspiration or it’s correctness. It simply proves that there are errors, there are questions that cannot be adequately answered, there are simple and complex contradictions and many instances where the wording of those stories does not fit reality.

All in all, it absolutely irrelevant in the search for truth of the original documents were perfect if the only copies we have are not and cannot be verified for their authenticity or accuracy against those original and perfect documents.

Brighid

14God

&gt;&gt;&gt;
Oh no,NO,it can't be...That's impossible!!
HOW DEAR GOD did they find out about this??
This...incredible secret,which has been hidden for so long?!
NO,I refuse to accept that a lowly Infidel could have somehow uncovered this earth-shatterring revelation!!

But I must face reality...DEEP sigh...
Ok,so I guess that means that it's all over now??
You all have FINALLY proven that God doesn't exist...you have the victory!
So I guess there will be no need for any more discussions...ESPECIALLY concerning Geneology,and other mind-numbingly boring topics,right??
But I am actually gonna be kind of sad to see all this go...alls well that ends well.
Yes,now you can all simply ignore any and every argument a Theist brings up...right??

And I guess you can now move this latest find to Number 1 on the top 100 "reasons why I'm an Atheist" list?
Just do me a favor...don't go for 1000!?

But i'm OK with it...I just wonder where I am going from here,other than far away from this forum?!
How bout you...just don't say Disney Land!
But now that you all are finally satisfied,maybe you will be in a compassionate mood,and give me some kind advice on what ever I am to do now?!?


Yes,now at least we can part on good terms,and...
wait a minute,since I still believe in God,even despite meaningless numerical evidence that
irrefutably contradicts this...maybe you all will still somehow look down on me?


Ok,so fine,be that way...I hope you're happy now!?
And I'll just misppel a few words juts fro spite...so theire!!

But seriously...[now appealing to the Atheistic mentality]...how do you think a Theist should respond to this,or how will they realistically respond??
The answer is obvious,so why even bring up this whole issue of innerancy,other than make yourselves look smart?
I know it isn't in attempt to de-convert any wavering Xian,RIGHT??

But sadly,I guess I will just have to make this official,to remove any doubts...
So I,on behalf of the "Foundation for Healthy Fundamentalist/Atheist Interactions",now give you the authority to add this to your Top 100 list--heck I'll even give it Top 10 billing,in case any hard cases keep harping on it!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

And to the losers...
<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />


LOL--

[Editid for attititude unbecoming of Thiest--]

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: 14God ]</p>

MOJO-JOJO

Rounding???

brighid

14God –

“But seriously...[now appealing to the Atheistic mentality]...how do you think a Theist should respond to this, or how will they realistically respond??”

Well, really that isn’t a question for the atheist to answer now is it? If theists cannot realistically respond to this basic line of questioning then the problem exists within Judeo-Christian theism and the Bible and your response simply further exposes the fundamental flaws we have thus far discussed.

If you can only base the authenticity of the text that establishes your fundamental belief in your specific deity upon an flawed book that cannot be adequately determined as being either divine, inspired or the actual words of your god – how do you justify your belief system? How can you justify the Christian condemnation of non-Christians and the idea that non-believers will be damned to hell with such flimsy evidence?

These questions are really for you (and other theists) to answer because it raises some pretty serious questions in regards to the foundations on which you have built your faith. If you are brave enough to take on the task of answering those questions and critically examining your belief structure as you would examine them for any other belief system (other than your own) perhaps you will realize the sand on which atheists believe your current belief structure stands upon. You may then understand why atheists feel it is unconscionable for any thinking, rational human being to place something as important as a belief in a deity, their “salvation” or soul on something so weak.

Please understand that only idea behind atheism – the lack in the belief in a god as can be determined by the evidence presented – does not invalidate the possibility of a god actually existing. However, it requires much greater proof and won’t accept the flimsy pieces presented as evidence by your brand of theism.

How can you, as a theist, realistically respond - well, I don't believe it's possible and therein your problem exists.

Brighid

Haran

Perhaps a modern-day parable of sorts would help somewhat in explaining how the core message of Christianity can be reasonably believed. Sorry for its shortcomings, for these kinds of things are never perfect, but perhaps you can get a better idea... I realize right off the bat that this doesn't explain why God would allow the corruption, but I think "freedom of choice" as I mentioned above is as good a human reason as we may ever find.

Story time:

You see, there's this great foreign manufacturer that used to make a particular electronic gadget that I and my friend had wanted as college students. I happened to stumble upon a few of them being sold at a flea market and purchased one for myself. My coveting friend couldn't stand the fact that I now owned one, so he ran out and purchsed one soon after me.

Elated, I ripped my gadget out of its dusty box and began to fiddle with it. To my frustration, it was rather difficult to understand, but lo! and behold! there was a set of instructions in the box which would save the day.

I excitedly thumbed through the pages at first and then began to slow down as I realized that they were full of misspellings and poor english. Apparently, the great manufacturer had employed some people who obviously did not know english as their first language.

Initially disappointed, I called my friend. He had the same problem, but get this...his set of instructions varied from mine! It even gave different names for different aspects of the same gadget!

I, then, invited him over and we both sat down and began to study the instruction manuals together. Slowly, but surely, things began to come to light through comparison. We began to understand and be able to work with our electronic gadgets. The basic core instructions were there and were brought out better through this comparison.

Perhaps we still lacked an understanding of the finer features of our gadget, but they were not particularly important in the grand scheme of things.

Later, we discovered through the internet that there were groups of people with these electronic gadgets who enjoyed talking with each other about them. Some were experts and could explain our gadget's features to us even better because they had done extensive comparisons of all the old instruction manuals. Some had even studied the native language of the original instruction writers! They were the best! They could pull things out of the instructions that no one else could have ever found!

Finally, through multiple copies we were able to understand and rely upon the core instructions of our electronic gadget's manuals. After some extra study, we were even able to understand some of the finer features! The gadget is awesome! And the great foreign manufacturer is peerless when it comes to his creations, despite the instruction writers' understandably human shortcomings!

He who has ears, let him hear...
Haran

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Kosh

Invalid analogy.

Same category as the "Tornado in a junkyard"
B.S. WRT evolution.

Your Xian God is supposed have a few more resources than some Taiwanese (sp?) builder
with bad English translaters.

Asha'man

But Haran, I have the same manual as you do, and the same electronic gadget. I can't get my gadget to turn on! It sounds great, like a really neat gadget, and you and your friends seem to have figured out the instruction manual. But the device won't turn on, won't light up, and won’t emit a single sound. I follow your instructions to the letter, and still nothing. Is mine broken? The manufacturer claims that they are all perfect, and the warranty is good for at least a thousand years. So why doesn’t my gadget actually do anything?

What’s that? You are saying I have to be dead before I can use this gadget? After all that good money spent? Are you joking? How do I know if I’ve been had? You guys aren’t dead yet, how do you know you read the instructions right if you can’t test it?

Haran

Thanks for you input, Kosh. I must disagree that the analogy is invalid, though it is not perfect.

My analogy simply describes the process of finding the common theme amongst the many ancient manuscripts of accepting Jesus as son of God who died in payment for our sins and rose from the grave in victory over death.

No tornados or junkyards needed...

It is obviously an over-simplified view of the process, but that's what parables are...

No offense meant, but I understood your core message even with the spelling and grammar problems (i.e. Christian, supposed to, builder=manufacturer? perhaps, translators). I guess it's not just the Taiwanese. We can't even manage our own language. It happens every day in life to all of us and yet we usually understand someone's main point.

If the Bible had been perfectly preserved it would be too perfect for some. You see, short of revealing himself and forcing us all into worshipping him without choice, there aren't many alternatives that will make us all happy.

We are simply left with a choice...

Haran

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>