theophilus

Once again. There must have been, at some point, original documents, unless you are asserting that the extant documents are the original rendering of oral traditions. Which, of course, would make them the original documents.

What you actually mean, I think, is that there was not a single original "document" for any particular book, i.e., there were many versions of Genesis. Unfortunately, all you have for this is appeal to "some" oral traditions having multiple versions, the unsupported claim that the Bible was originally oral traditions (actually, it could have been both cotemporaneously) and other speculation.
I'm overwhelmed.

Again, you address me indirectly. What's up - ain't we friends?

theophilus

You have inadvertantly made an important observation. Not only the will to believe, but in the choice of what to believe.

Apikorus

Let's see, theophilus...where to begin?

For starters, I am fluent in biblical Hebrew. I confess to being nearly illiterate in Koine Greek, but, then again, my principal interest is the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, my point, which you have not managed to deflect, is that there are several strata of translators and interpreters between you and the Bible, even though you refuse to acknowledge as much.

Goliath as a "family name" is a wild shot in the dark and betrays your ignorance of the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps you think Philistines and/or Israelites at the time had modern Christian names such as "Elston Harrington Bradford III", but of course this is not the case. At any rate, 1 Sam 17:23 explicitly states galyat shemo - Goliath was his name. Furthermore the Goliaths from 1 Sam 17 and 2 Sam 21 are both Philistines, both from Gath both active during the time of David, both renowned warriors, and both described using the same precise terminology ("the shaft of his spear was as thick as a weaver's beam"). I think most reasonable people - and I understand this excludes many evangelicals - would conclude they are one and the same Goliath. (On the other hand, application of your hermeneutic to the New Testament would yield some interesting analyses. Perhaps there were two or three Jesuses?) Incidentally, the Chronicler in 1 Chr 20 attempts to harmonize these disparate data from 1 and 2 Samuel by writing that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. The KJV, the preferred sacred text of many an evangelical, adds the words "the brother of" in 2 Sam 21:19, though one can tell they are added because they are italicized. (Alas, many evangelicals don't even realize that the italicized words are those not present in the original Hebrew or Greek. Indeed, I once heard a preacher who apparently thought the words were italicized for emphasis!)

The LXX is regarded by many scholars of the Hebrew Bible as an authentic early witness to a different textual tradition. Your comment is simply wrong, and this is not surprising since you are quite obviously ignorant of the most rudimentary results in biblical text criticism. For starters, we have from Qumran pre-Christian Hebrew scrolls of biblical text which agree with the LXX over the MT. In many cases, it is the MT which should be corrected to the LXX! (Of course, while the LXX was clearly witness to a text tradition other than the proto-rabbinic one which evolved into the Masoretic Text, it was a translation, and the quality of the LXX translations varied from book to book. While Leviticus was quite good, the LXX of Isaiah is notoriously awful.)

Your fatuous remark concerning the minute distinction between "inalienable" and "unalienable" completely ignores the inescapable fact that the LXX of Jeremiah is about an eighth shorter than the MT Jeremiah. The differences are enormous. Similarly, the LXX of Daniel differs considerably in parts from the MT of Daniel (particularly in the inner chapters).

Again, the evidence from Qumran clearly establishes that the earliest extant biblical texts were pluriform.

lpetrich

Meaning that raising a little girl from the dead proves that Apollonius of Tyana had been a religious prophet, and that various miracles prove that Sai Baba is also a religious prophet.

Yes, Sai Baba has reportedly turned water into gasoline for a car, materialized candies, raised someone from the dead, and so forth.

And I wonder if Theophilus believes any of those miracles, or such miracles as:

The Roman Emperor Vespasian curing a blind man and a man with a withered hand.

Pagan statues bleeding and groaning.

Joseph Smith receiving some sacred books from the angel Moroni.

North Korean leader Kim Il-Sung turning sand into rice.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il, when he was 4 years old, smearing ink on a map of Japan, causing a big storm in that country.

For more miracles by the two Kims, check out <a href="http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/champion/65/pers_cult.htm" target="_blank">http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/champion/65/pers_cult.htm</a>

The rulers of the Universe getting involved in the war over Troy.

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

HRG

You have (I don't know whether inadvertantly) committed an important fallacy: the unsubstantiated claim that belief is a matter of choice.

I do not choose whether to believe the fundamental theorem of algebra or not, whether to believe that the Earth is spherical or not. I am convinced by evidence.

Why should it be different for the existence of supernatural entities ? Can you choose to believe in Zeus ? For analogous reasons, I can not choose to believe in your God.

If you can substitute the desire to believe X for the lack of evidence for X, good for you. My mind doesn't work that way.

HRG.

Photocrat

None of these are new or uncommon. They sound like standard fare to me & since I'm feeling lazy, I'll spare you the answers you probably expect, anyhow. Eh, maybe I'll mention part of one--how can God punish us [literally] for the sins of Adam & Eve if it's a parable? Even the Pope now believes in evolution, apparently, so please don't tell me this is 'unchristian' ...

Ideas on 'original sin' & such are a bit more complicated than just 'Adam did it, so you have to suffer' after all ...

OTOH, I wouldn't be so sure that "Christians cannot even convert hindus" until we hear about the Dalits... Not that I would like to see a purely political conversion, by any means...

hinduwoman

Well, real in the sense it exists and I read it.
Is there a deeper philosophical meaning?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

hinduwoman

Of course it is meant to be perjorative.
Here I am speaking not as an atheist, but as a cultural hindu.

I am sick of hearing Christians claim that theirs is the only true path.
I am sick of hearing them say that the hindu scriptures are stolen from the gospels.
I am sick of hearing the evangelists say that Christ invented love, comapssion and charity and so hindus should convert to christinaity.
I am sick of christian missionaries and other stupid christians go on about the evils of hinduism as manifested in treatment of women and casteism while refusing to acknowledge their own contribution in this regard to sexism, slavery, racism, feudalism etc. Even things like Inquisition are sought to be covered up by weasel apologies like they were not real christians.
Of course it is a defect in the True Word of god, if it cannot convince others and it is sought to be explained away in terms like Satan rules them.


some interesting little titbits:
Some hindus are certainly Christians, but I guess many of them would not suit whatever brand of christianity you are peddling. After 200 years and billions of dollars, you have managed to make only 2.6% of the population Christian. Among them, a sizeable portion were converted by Thomas the Apostle and another lot in 4 A.D. (I think about 50%)
The first thing The Roman Catholic church did on coming to India to show how they love all, is to set up the Inquisition to force Syrian christians into declaring:
(i) the Pope is the sole christian authority (all equal before the One)
(ii) they must recant the hinduish error that "all men can be saved by their own laws and all laws are right" (brotherhood can only be achieved if everyone believed the same thing, eh?)
But of course untouchability was allowed, since not following caste would mean disrupting trade.

hinduwoman

By the way, I notice with deep satisfaction, that Epitome has not turned up again to lecture about the superiority of christianity aover hinduism. Obviously could not find ready made counter-arguments.

hinduwoman

You mean creationists are Unchristian?

Explain how complicated original sin is.

Sure many Dalits have been converted. But also, bcoming disgusted by how uppercaste christians still treat them (and also because govt. allied missionary patronage disappeared with independance) many convert back to hinudism. Also, today the conversion choice is for Buddhism, as I have already explained. They get psychological release and get to continue worshipping hindu gods and goddesses.

By the way, quiet a few Christians seem to have become hindus, if some of the posts in the hindu forums are right.