Read...then discuss

[ULCneo]

15 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

... if you are directing this to me... perhaps you overlooked the posting bit where I noted evidence of the - unchanged for eons...was in fact a reference to a scientific (objective) documentary-presented in a university anthropology (upper level) class...it was very much not any one person's opinion.

 

It took years to accumulate and validate the work.   As I recall there were multiple sources for funding including the Australian govermment.   I apologize for not being able to remember the name of the study.   My point in posting was such evidence exists if one chooses to look for it. 

 

You certainly do do not have to accept my word for it.... it was merely a recollection offered to another poster.

thx 

von

 

I'm just offering some rational reasoning as to why I think the argument is suspect straight out of the box. Such a position is one that the vast majority of the scientific community will not and does not accept- as most of the research goes against it. As I've said before, Therefore, it gets into exactly why the research you cite is incompatible with virtually all the other research of like nature.  You might watch the following video, which lays out my point precisely from an expert's point of view:  Scott Fraser: Why Eye Witnesses Get it Wrong

 

Edited October 17, 2017 by ULCneo
fix broken link

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, mark 45 said:

how do you know they are liars?

Because they are imaginary characters in a hypothetical question that casts them as liars. That makes it easy. If they weren't, I would still assume they were liars, as I assume everyone is, on at least some level. Knowledge and assumption are different, of course... Which is basically the answer to your question about truth. 

Edited October 17, 2017 by mererdog

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

You can compare to some pretty old copies, but that just might be where the lying came in, now might'n it.  

That is part of my point. All you are really verifying is that multiple sources agreed. That leaves room for all sorts of shenanigans.

A lie that remains unchanged for a long time is more convincing, but it is not more true.

Edited October 17, 2017 by mererdog

[VonNoble]

1 hour ago, ULCneo said:

 

I'm just offering some rational reasoning as to why I think the argument is suspect straight out of the box. Such a position is one that the vast majority of the scientific community will not and does not accept- as most of the research goes against it. As I've said before, Therefore, it gets into exactly why the research you cite is incompatible with virtually all the other research of like nature.  You might watch the following video, which lays out my point precisely from an expert's point of view:  Scott Fraser: Why Eye Witnesses Get it Wrong

 

Thank you... the research I was referring to was NOT dependent on eye witness accounts.    The point in question was a spiritual lifestyle choice that very much has stood the test of time.   The very few rituals of the area provided the conclusion that the spiritual practices ARE consistent over time.   You certainly can locate anthropology studies that could reference the point I am making.  

 

For some people morality is simply a choice outside the confines of written text.

 

It it is not a debate.   It is an academic realty.... in my field of study. I respect you enough to leave you  to conclude what works for you.   

  von

 

 

[cuchulain]

if eye witnesses get it wrong then the eye witness accounts of the bible are inherently flawed as well.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, mererdog said:

Actually, that isn't what I was suggesting there. What I was suggesting is that the concept of omnipotence is irrational, therefore it cannot be ruled out rationally. After all, by definition, omnipotence transcends all rules. I would also suggest it is a patently unfalsifiable claim, except for the fact that if there is an omnipotent being, that being could prove itself to not exist.

 

That kind of reasoning only works in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

Thank you, although your compliment is muted by misspelling the moniker. There is only some humor intended, by the way. I have the same dislike for atheistic apologetics as I do for theistic apologetics. When people start trying to "prove" the Bible is definitely this, or definitely that, I poke the "proof" and watch it deflate into nothingness. Its kind of a hobby. The goal is not to support any given position, but to support critical thinking.

 

What?  Seriously, WHAT?  

 

That is not critical thinking.  That is refusing to think.

[Key]

On 10/17/2017 at 3:38 AM, mererdog said:

The "Oh no" suggests certainty, but the "pretty clear" indicates uncertainty. In order to know that the Bible is not written by God, I would first need to know what it would look like if it were written by God. Without that knowledge, I have no counterfactual to compare against reality.

 

 A few key facts that muddy the waters-

It is completely possible for a single person to create a work that looks as if it has multiple authors. 

There is never a point where it is reasonable to say "An omnipotent being could not have done this." 

The standard conception of what "authored by God" indicates is a sort of dictation process happening over a very long period of time and with a whole lot of scribes.

Which why I think that "inspired by God" took root. But then again, being as it was so looooong ago, we may never truly know.

[Key]

15 hours ago, ULCneo said:

 

This is why we study the lexicon and the oldest acceptable original texts. In the original Greek texts . Looking up 1 Cor 13:13 in strong's reference, we see that the word translated "charity" in the KJV and "love" in the NIV is stongs #G26, the Greek word "agape". Which, in Greek is literally defined as the following:

 

" agápē, ag-ah'-pay; from G25; love, i.e. affection or benevolence; specially (plural) a love-feast:—(feast of) charity(-ably), dear, love. "

 

Other Greek Lexicons define "agape" similarly. Therefore, unless you can present a very strong argument that the original text didn't read "agape", the argument that the text was somehow "changed" runs out of gas rather quickly. The thing is that when we have word's written on the paper, it becomes that there is much more credence to be able to trace back to the original texts to compare. Also, I find that the argument of "scribal error" is most usually employed where the text doesn't support the position that person wants, in order to justify a probable erroneous position.

 

We also have to remember that languages like Hebrew and Greek are much more expressive than English and most other languages of the world. Hence, it is sometimes imposible to translate a precise shade of meaning, but the translation into English can still drive home the basic concept the author intended. Even then, this is why the Bible says in 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) :

 

^"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Even if one doesn't accept "scribe error", there is another plausible theory that could be looked at. Translation of the spoken word between two languages. Did the disciples know Greek or did they speak an Arabic language possibly now dead?

As you said, they are more expressive than English. But it could also be possible for phrases to have different intent or meaning between the two "parent" tongues. Just a thought.

[mererdog]

10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

What?  Seriously, WHAT?  

A poor argument that agrees with my assumptions is worse than one that disagrees with my assumptions. Because when an argument has a conclusion I am inclined to agree with, I am encouraged to ignore the flaws in the argument, which trains me to ignore those same flaws in other arguments.

[mererdog]

11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

That kind of reasoning only works in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.  

Omnipotence is an irrational concept. For anything to be omnipotent would require that the universe is fundamentally irrational. If the universe is fundamentally irratiional, it simply cannot be fully understood using reasoning. In other words, a universe with an omnipotent God in it is a universe we are ill-equipped to understand. It is a universe of contradiction- a universe based on whim, rather than mechanics- a universe that makes no sense, even when it seems to. That was, admittedly, a theme in the Hitchhiker books. 

But... My main point is that attempting to use reason to refute claims of omnipotence is either like bringing an imaginary knife to a real gunfight, or bringing a real knife to an imaginary gunfight.

Edited October 18, 2017 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

21 minutes ago, mererdog said:

Omnipotence is an irrational concept. For anything to be omnipotent would require that the universe is fundamentally irrational. If the universe is fundamentally irratiional, it simply cannot be fully understood using reasoning. In other words, a universe with an omnipotent God in it is a universe we are ill-equipped to understand. It is a universe of contradiction- a universe based on whim, rather than mechanics- a universe that makes no sense, even when it seems to. That was, admittedly, a theme in the Hitchhiker books. 

But... My main point is that attempting to use reason to refute claims of omnipotence is either like bringing an imaginary knife to a real gunfight, or bringing a real knife to an imaginary gunfight.

 

The Universe is neither rational nor irrational.  It is.  We have to be rational. 

 

Holding every possible belief -- at the same time -- because God might be insane  --, is crazy. 

 

 

 

[ULCneo]

18 hours ago, Key said:

Even if one doesn't accept "scribe error", there is another plausible theory that could be looked at. Translation of the spoken word between two languages. Did the disciples know Greek or did they speak an Arabic language possibly now dead?

As you said, they are more expressive than English. But it could also be possible for phrases to have different intent or meaning between the two "parent" tongues. Just a thought.

 

This is very true,  but the historical record shows that the majority of the people spoke Aramaic as the common every day language, and that the upper class and the educated learned the Greek language in addition to the Aramaic. This was due in large part to Greece and Rome being the two dominating world powers during this time period. We also know that the Romans were hevily influenced by Hellenistic culture. Hence, it becomes that, writers like Paul (whom the secular historical  record shows to have had excellent Greek language skills, and whom would have, as a Roman citizen, been required to be able to speak and write Greek fluently) would not be subject to the situation you describe- that of a writer not writing on paper what he means to express.

[ULCneo]

On 10/17/2017 at 4:01 PM, VonNoble said:

Thank you... the research I was referring to was NOT dependent on eye witness accounts.    The point in question was a spiritual lifestyle choice that very much has stood the test of time.   The very few rituals of the area provided the conclusion that the spiritual practices ARE consistent over time.   You certainly can locate anthropology studies that could reference the point I am making.  

 

For some people morality is simply a choice outside the confines of written text.

 

It it is not a debate.   It is an academic realty.... in my field of study. I respect you enough to leave you  to conclude what works for you.   

  von

 

 

 

Its really not- if Eyewitnesses are shown to be unreliable then how much more unreliable are ear witnesses considering that the majority of human communication is not auditory in nature, in the first place?

[ULCneo]

On 10/17/2017 at 4:36 PM, cuchulain said:

if eye witnesses get it wrong then the eye witness accounts of the bible are inherently flawed as well.

 

Possible, but statistically less likely, because the several accounts were written several hundred years apart, on opposite parts of the globe, by people who never knowingly  met each other. (when we compare the Bible to the Secular Roman and Greek Records which tend to support it)  Therefore, it begs alot of difficulty to suggest that ALL of these people were wrong about the exact same account of the material facts. Though, theoretically still possible.

Edited October 19, 2017 by ULCneo

[AmberLF]

On 10/17/2017 at 12:19 PM, VonNoble said:

 

On the literary/historical level this may hold true...point taken - if the subject is one that is to be analyzed or studied.   That shifts when the text move to the sphere of philosophy/ religion though, maybe?   At this time, on this planet many of these books are not currently being studied so much as they have become flash points for violence.  These books are no longer in the realm of academics.   

 

The religious institutions have become so fractionalized and splintered and polluted by greed and politics,  there is little chance of understanding or cooperation ...if the text is used as an authority source.    Those in charge seem incapable (or unwilling to)  put the gene back into the bottle of reasonableness. 

 

 It has been my observation over many years: true students  -  those who DO actually read it for themselves; those struggling to figure out the meaning without the benefit of clergy...tend not to need to discuss it.     Living it.... is proof of their understanding.    Coincidentally - it leaves no time to criticize others.  

von

 

 

I think this is all a matter of opinion. If it becomes a flash point for violence then the reasons why are just as important to study. It becomes less about the religion and more about "I'm right, you are wrong".

 

Once you get just so far away from when and where a particular religion is born is becomes vital to study it. Knowing what life was like when it was developed and why is part of understanding it. Without that,  what they are living might be a faulty understanding of that religion. What they believe and how they act may be based on a complete misunderstanding of what it is they think they know about it. Unfortunately lower level clergy of most religions often have a shaky grasp of the meaning of many things, particularly if they are clueless about what went on in the area where it was first devised. That leads us right back around to it being necessary to study and analyze, not just from the holy book in question itself but history, culture, sociology of the time period and beyond as it changed throughout history, the hows and whys of it.

 

After all, if you are not living what was intended then what are you really living?

[AmberLF]

On 10/17/2017 at 6:42 AM, mererdog said:

Is something you hear from three liars more likely to be true than something you hear from one liar? 

I guess that would honestly depend on if you stop at the lie or decide to take the information and go find out for yourself.

[mererdog]

44 minutes ago, AmberLF said:

I guess that would honestly depend on if you stop at the lie or decide to take the information and go find out for yourself.

That would seem to effect the likelihood that I will know whether it is true, but not the actual likelihood that it is true. And, of course, while it seems to effect the likelihood that I will know, it may not. After all, any research I do is limited by the research tools at my disposal. A lifetime spent sifting through lies and chasing down false leads may not be able to put me any closer to the truth than where I started.

Edited October 19, 2017 by mererdog

[mererdog]

47 minutes ago, AmberLF said:

After all, if you are not living what was intended then what are you really living?

If you are living what was intended, what are you really living?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, AmberLF said:

I think this is all a matter of opinion. If it becomes a flash point for violence then the reasons why are just as important to study. It becomes less about the religion and more about "I'm right, you are wrong".

 

Once you get just so far away from when and where a particular religion is born is becomes vital to study it. Knowing what life was like when it was developed and why is part of understanding it. Without that,  what they are living might be a faulty understanding of that religion. What they believe and how they act may be based on a complete misunderstanding of what it is they think they know about it. Unfortunately lower level clergy of most religions often have a shaky grasp of the meaning of many things, particularly if they are clueless about what went on in the area where it was first devised. That leads us right back around to it being necessary to study and analyze, not just from the holy book in question itself but history, culture, sociology of the time period and beyond as it changed throughout history, the hows and whys of it.

 

After all, if you are not living what was intended then what are you really living?

 

 

 

Over time, living religions change.  I think Judaism is a good example.

 

Take a Jew from 5,000 years ago.  He is a nomadic member of 12 tribes, and he knows which tribe.  His tribe.

 

2,000 years ago, Temple Judaism was still around.

 

In 1492, Spain was the center of Sephardic Judaism.  The dispersal had nothing to do with the Temple.  Neither did the other Orthodoxies that developed in different areas of Europe.  

 

The Non-Orthodoxies that sprang up in the 19th Century were a major shift.

 

Diversity has continued.  The World now has Humanistic Judaism, which is not easy to describe.  And the Jews for Jesus, which is even harder to explain.  Hasidic  Judaism, in different forms, is on the increase.

 

Etc. Etc.

 

Christianity has also changed over time.  So has Islam.  So has Vedanta/Hinduism.  So have the different Polytheisms.

 

We can NOT go by what the founders had in mind.  That is not how the world works.  Only dead religions don't change.  

Edited October 19, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl