Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Haran · 01-19-2002, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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?

Creative response! I like it.

Unfortunately, I think you kind of missed my point.

My point was that with the 1000s of manuscripts of the Bible available to us (more than any other ancient book), we have a very good idea of the core message because of the many parts that did not vary.

The core message I stated above though there is more solid instruction than just what I mentioned which is reliable. Those ancient manuscripts are the instruction manuals to which my parable refers.

The message is there. We must decide whether to believe it. In my studies (Christianity, other religions, history, languages, philosophy) so far I have found no sound and undeniable reason to disbelieve.

Haran

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]

John the Atheist · 01-19-2002, 01:01 PM

Haran,

I'm pretty well done here, since I think brighid concluded this thing rather nicely, and we are not talking as much on Ezra/Neh', but just a few things I want to comment on, and you can have the last word:

My point was that with the 1000s of manuscripts of the Bible available to us (more than any other ancient book), we have a very good idea of the core message because of the many parts that did not vary.

There are some 200,000 variations of the over 5,300 Greek manuscripts that are in whole or part. Currently what some Christians call the Holy Spirit (I call it just thinking and creative imagination) has guided 33,830 denominations of just the Protestant faith alone of Christianity. If it were all laid out on the table, would you be able to sincerely say that the core message of each of these denominations would remain intact? It might not be a fair question since you and I both don’t know all of the details without accessing the manuscripts ourselves, but since I don’t know exactly what the core message is, we might be able to address a few specifics on a future board if you want to bring some out. But assuming they could tell the same story twice without flubbing it up, I fail to see how that makes it so special, just because they managed to copy the stories the same.

Thanks in advance for any future response if you want to add anything.

John

Kosh · 01-19-2002, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran:


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.

Ah, but I never claimed my posting to be innerrant, and it only had one error. An
E instead of an O. A misfortunate result of
typing like it sounds, and being in a hurry
and not proof-reading.The Xian and builder were
intentional. Once again, you've made a bad analogy. We know that WE make mistakes. It's the
Xians who claim that God doesn't. Clearly the
Bible contains mistakes. You can't have it both
ways.

Quote:

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.

The argument from embarrassment. That one's been
debunked. Nice try though!

In the next post you claimed you've never found
a reason to disbelieve. I (and many others
here) have the opposite opinion. That you can't
see the writing on the wall is not a valid
reason. Don't forget Haran, I am not an un-evangelized critic for you to convince. I
spent many years in the church, playing guitar
for worship (those were boring song, compared
to some good Clapton), serving on the council.
Once I examined the evidence (not just the selective evidence presented by the church and
it's apologists), I, uh, er, um "saw the light".

DISCLAIMER: Any errors in this post, either
grammatical or syntactical in nature, should
NOT be taken as evidence that a supreme,
omniscient, omnipotent being made similar
mistakes when revealing his word to a group
of primitive, uneducated, superstitous camel
herders.

Haran · 01-19-2002, 03:55 PM

Thanks for the thread JtA. I'm sorry to digress, but I disagreed with Brighid's post and wanted to present a different viewpoint to correct what I feel are misunderstandings.

Quote:

Originally posted by John the Atheist:
There are some 200,000 variations of the over 5,300 Greek manuscripts that are in whole or part.

There are many variations, it's true, but to state it without qualification is misleading and happens often from what I've seen. Most (yes, most) of these 200,000 variations are insignificant errors such as the change of one letter. The true number of significant variants is much, much lower though I don't have a figure in front of me at the moment.

David Alan Black, a well-known textual critic has these things to say:

Quote:

Significantly, in comparison with other ancient documents, the New Testament materials are embarrassingly rich [echoing a similar statement from the classic textbook of textual criticism by Bruce Metzger]. There are almost five thousand manuscripts of part of all of the Greek New Testament, eight thousand manuscripts in Latin, and a thousand additional manuscripts in other ancient versions. ...Even in the Book of Revelation, which is the most poorly attested writing in the New Testament, over three hundred Greek manuscripts have been preserved.

Also this important tidbit:

No biblical doctrine would go unsupported if a favorite reading was abandoned in favor of a more valid variant. This does not mean, as is sometimes said, that no doctrine of Scripture is affected by textual variation. Rather, a doctrine that is affected by textual variation will always be adequately supported by other passages.

Out of these 1000s of texts, amazingly, there are many areas that have never been modified or mistakenly changed. In other words, they can be relied upon.

Quote:

If it were all laid out on the table, would you be able to sincerely say that the core message of each of these denominations would remain intact?

I'm not talking about the peripheral doctrine that divides Christianity into denominations. I'm talking about the central message of Christianity as I mentioned above.

Quote:

It might not be a fair question since you and I both don't know all of the details without accessing the manuscripts ourselves, but since I don't know exactly what the core message is, we might be able to address a few specifics on a future board if you want to bring some out.

Detailed questions are fine for me. Textual criticism is a hobby of mine, so I have the critical greek editions of the NT and understand quite well the variations. One can even find pictures of many of the oldest papyri manuscripts online to look at for yourself if you know Greek and can read an ancient scribal hand...

Quote:

But assuming they could tell the same story twice without flubbing it up, I fail to see how that makes it so special, just because they managed to copy the stories the same.

As I mention above, this means that you can be sure that you have a reliable core message about Christianity in which to believe, or not as the case may be.

Quote:

Thanks in advance for any future response if you want to add anything.

No problem. I enjoy discussion.

Thanks,
Haran

Haran · 01-19-2002, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Kosh
Ah, but I never claimed my posting to be innerrant, and it only had one error. An
E instead of an O. A misfortunate result of
typing like it sounds, and being in a hurry
and not proof-reading.The Xian and builder were
intentional. Once again, you've made a bad analogy. We know that WE make mistakes. It's the
Xians who claim that God doesn't. Clearly the
Bible contains mistakes. You can't have it both
ways.

Sorry, but I'm going to be nit-picky to try my point with you once more. "Xian" is not a word. "Builder" is not the word I used in my story. You made changes to my original wording and made 2 other mistakes, not one (you left out a 'to').

You originally said:

Quote:

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

I am saying, as you can find in earlier posts on this thread, there is a view that says God inspired the original and men introduced errors in its transmission, exactly like we saw in your transmission of my word "manufacturer".

Quote:

The argument from embarrassment. That one's been
debunked. Nice try though!

I'm not really sure how to respond to someone that puts up unsubstantiated claims... If you've not misconstrued my post, then please "debunk" it and don't just state that it has been. My ideas are my own and I don't mind changing them if I'm truly wrong. Thanks.

Quote:

In the next post you claimed you've never found
a reason to disbelieve. I (and many others
here) have the opposite opinion. That you can't
see the writing on the wall is not a valid
reason. Don't forget Haran, I am not an un-evangelized critic for you to convince. I
spent many years in the church, playing guitar
for worship (those were boring song, compared
to some good Clapton), serving on the council.
Once I examined the evidence (not just the selective evidence presented by the church and
it's apologists), I, uh, er, um "saw the light".

Perhaps you had the wrong idea? If you were truly worshipping, then weren't your songs for God and not yourself? Many people attend church looking for what they can get out of it instead of what they can put in (which brings a famous JFK quote to mind...).

I don't know how thoroughly you "examined the evidence", but I can't see that you'd be done. I've been looking into religions, history, languages, philosophy and the like for years now. Every time I learn something new, I find out how much more there is to know.

I still find no reason to give up my Christianity, including for Atheism. A world without a God and without the ultimate judging of our actions here on earth is a horrible notion. With no accounting of our deeds, where is the incentive not to steal or murder? Well, I could go into it a lot more somewhere else, and yes, I've considered it, but it is not a good option for anyone in my opinion.

Haran

Kosh · 01-19-2002, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran:
I'm not really sure how to respond to someone that puts up unsubstantiated
claims... If you've not misconstrued my post, then please "debunk" it and don't
just state that it has been. My ideas are my own and I don't mind changing them if
I'm truly wrong. Thanks.

The example of me "making mistakes" isn't valid
because in this case it's a 30 second (if that)
reply in what I view as a quick and unimportant
conversation. I'm not being carefull, because
it doesn't matter. In case of copying of the Bible, you're talking about scribes copying what
they should view as the most important document
in the world. They should be taking all the time
in the world to proof read. To make sure that they
don't make the mistakes.

The fact is, the Bible is not inerrant, and you
can try to dance around it all you want, but
nobody here is buying what you're selling.

As for the debunking, go to the sec web library
and read up on the apologetics there. You'll see
all your arguments addressed and refuted. You
may have come up with them on your own, but they're not original.

Later.

Vorkosigan · 01-20-2002, 03:28 AM

Out of these 1000s of texts, amazingly, there are many areas that have never been modified or mistakenly changed. In other words, they can be relied upon.

Relied upon for what? As Bart Ehrman and others have shown, the NT was extensively worked over for doctrinal and other reasons. Of the "thousands" of manuscripts, only some 300 date from before 800, and none from prior to 125. Only a handful date from prior to the 4th century.

We can only be sure that the the canon became more and more settled during the third century. For example, P75 (175-225 CE, but in some views as late as 250), which contains the end of Luke and the beginning of John, is close to Manuscript B, in the fourth century. This doesn't show that we can be confident about the original texts, only that by the third century there was some agreement about what the orthodox church thought these gospels should say, and which gospels belonged in the canon.

And the earliest Mark would be.....?

<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm</a> has some discussion of these issues.
"It seems, contrary to the claims of many Christian apologists, that the very earliest manuscripts often have divergent, almost heretical, readings, rather than being the most reliable manuscripts."

Further, we know from quotes by the early church fathers that the NT they saw was different than the one we have. The page I cite above gives some of those claims.

Michael

Metacrock · 01-20-2002, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John the Atheist:
Meta => 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?

Meta =>No I tend toward Adler and Maslow.

Quote:

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:

Meta =>I could recomend a team of shrinks from Vienna. looks like you might benifit from their services.

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

Quote:

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.

Meta =>I see, raised in the sound bite generation are we? You opporate on the theory that the less know about a subject the better infromed you are?

It’s a simple question of what I asked, and all I get is three vague pages of horseshit.

Meta =>Well if you lack the educational background to understand the essay I guess the simple questions are the one's to ask.

Quote:

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.

Meta => You were issuing poftifications about my view point so I thought perhaps you might like to know what it is.

Nomad has put the weasel words in, you wrote three pages of nothing,

Meta =>I take that as an index to your mentality.

Quote:

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.

Meta =>"Weasel words" Are in the ear of the listener. You think that's what they are because you have no intelligence and you are uneducated and unsophisticated in what passes for thought in that void between your ears. IN case you can't get the drfit even yet, I'm saying you are stupid! Too stupid to understand my briliant essay, tu compron? Need a picture?

Quote:

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.

Meta => This is just gibberish!

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

Quote:

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.

METa =>What an idiot! If you can't participate reasonably and try to discuss ideas like someone past the fifth grade level than I have no time to waste on you! moron!

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[/QB][/QUOTE]

Meta =>Well it's apparent you dont' reside in the part that I go to school in! Thank God! Too stupid for Dallas, that's pretty bad.

Metacrock · 01-20-2002, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 14God:
>>>
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 ]

I even offered to buy the idiot a beer and he's so hyped up on his little childis hatred that he turned a good natured post into an occasion to start a troll contest. GEeeez, O dont' have time to waste on these people. Bigger fisht to fry.

John the Atheist · 01-20-2002, 06:43 AM

How many think Meta is in need of a diaper change?

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

01-19-2002, 01:01 PM	#42
John the Atheist Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: North Texas Posts: 42	Haran, I'm pretty well done here, since I think brighid concluded this thing rather nicely, and we are not talking as much on Ezra/Neh', but just a few things I want to comment on, and you can have the last word: My point was that with the 1000s of manuscripts of the Bible available to us (more than any other ancient book), we have a very good idea of the core message because of the many parts that did not vary. There are some 200,000 variations of the over 5,300 Greek manuscripts that are in whole or part. Currently what some Christians call the Holy Spirit (I call it just thinking and creative imagination) has guided 33,830 denominations of just the Protestant faith alone of Christianity. If it were all laid out on the table, would you be able to sincerely say that the core message of each of these denominations would remain intact? It might not be a fair question since you and I both don’t know all of the details without accessing the manuscripts ourselves, but since I don’t know exactly what the core message is, we might be able to address a few specifics on a future board if you want to bring some out. But assuming they could tell the same story twice without flubbing it up, I fail to see how that makes it so special, just because they managed to copy the stories the same. Thanks in advance for any future response if you want to add anything. John

01-20-2002, 03:28 AM	#47
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Out of these 1000s of texts, amazingly, there are many areas that have never been modified or mistakenly changed. In other words, they can be relied upon. Relied upon for what? As Bart Ehrman and others have shown, the NT was extensively worked over for doctrinal and other reasons. Of the "thousands" of manuscripts, only some 300 date from before 800, and none from prior to 125. Only a handful date from prior to the 4th century. We can only be sure that the the canon became more and more settled during the third century. For example, P75 (175-225 CE, but in some views as late as 250), which contains the end of Luke and the beginning of John, is close to Manuscript B, in the fourth century. This doesn't show that we can be confident about the original texts, only that by the third century there was some agreement about what the orthodox church thought these gospels should say, and which gospels belonged in the canon. And the earliest Mark would be.....? <a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm</a> has some discussion of these issues. "It seems, contrary to the claims of many Christian apologists, that the very earliest manuscripts often have divergent, almost heretical, readings, rather than being the most reliable manuscripts." Further, we know from quotes by the early church fathers that the NT they saw was different than the one we have. The page I cite above gives some of those claims. Michael

01-20-2002, 06:43 AM	#50
John the Atheist Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: North Texas Posts: 42	How many think Meta is in need of a diaper change?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.