Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, AmberLF said:

At least with something written it can be compared through other sources to verify and validate.

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

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, 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.

 

 

What you are suggesting is a trickster God.  A God who could have produced perfect Scripture.  A God who chose instead, to produce what we have.

 

:rolleyes:

 

This is the type of thinking used by Young Earth Creationists.  That the Earth is less than 6,000 years old -- but was created to seem billions of years old.

 

:rolleyes:

 

You keep some odd intellectual company.  What are you playing at?

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

What you are suggesting is a trickster God.  A God who could have produced perfect Scripture.  A God who chose instead, to produce what we have.

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.

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You keep some odd intellectual company.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. Judging a claim by qualities of the person making the claim is fallacious.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, AmberLF said:

Absolutely, but going with oral traditions alone the honest students, the ones who wish to get into the studies properly, have nothing but someone's word, who may or may not leave clues enough to determine where's or the why's of things. At least with something written it can be compared through other sources to verify and validate.

 

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, mererdog said:

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

:blink:

Reading this both amused me - then I did a double take and had to give that some real thought.  This is an interesting turn of a phrase....with more than one take away.....good one. 

 

von

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

What are you playing at?

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

 

I don't think there is any playing going on - (just a point of view from the sidelines) - I think a very valid point is being made.    

 

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

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

I think there is an elasticity to this statement that is useful in this discussion. 

 

There is a justification for introspection in this...or at least there was for me. 

 

von

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, VonNoble said:

 

I don't think there is any playing going on - (just a point of view from the sidelines) - I think a very valid point is being made.    

 

I think there is an elasticity to this statement that is useful in this discussion. 

 

There is a justification for introspection in this...or at least there was for me. 

 

von

 

 

meredog is capable of sophisticated arguing and reasoning.  Much more than is being displayed here.  I think it stinks of humor.  

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, mererdog said:

A stopped clock is right twice a day. Judging a claim by qualities of the person making the claim is fallacious.

 

This is true, but my observation is valid.  You are keeping some odd company.     :rolleyes:

 

A stopped clock is right twice a day.  Unless it's on military time.  Then it's only right once a day.       :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, AmberLF said:

True, and without it being written people wouldn't have really been able to go over it with a fine tooth comb, compare it to other sources and determine that very easily. Come to think of it... there is a fair chance that Christianity at least could have been forgotten entirely by now. Most unwritten traditions do end up forgotten. The ones that survive end up on such heavy debate of origin and authenticity that it pretty much falls to belief and benefit of the doubt without much to go on for support. 

 

 

When we look at ancient Scripture, what do we have?  An oral tradition -- or fusion of traditions -- or pious fraud --  or any combination -- with editing -- that someone wrote down.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

meredog is capable of sophisticated arguing and reasoning.  

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.

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, mererdog said:

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

how do you know they are liars?

or better yet,what is truth?

Share this post


Link to post

Hearing something from three liars does not make it more likely to be true.  However, in the case of written works, at the least you can see that they did not fabricate the previous message, that they are not lying about that being what has been written down.  Now, in the case of the bible, you have the problem of not having the original manuscripts, so you cannot compare to the originals.  You can compare to some pretty old copies, but that just might be where the lying came in, now might'n it.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/7/2017 at 5:28 PM, cuchulain said:

Written is not immune to change.  Some call it scribal error, some admit that it amounts to change. 

My favorite example of late, 1 Corinthians 13 13(kjv):  And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Or, 1 Corinthians 13 13(niv):  And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

Charity with Love.  There is a significant difference, both in interpretation and literal meaning.  And, it's a written difference.  Now, a person could claim to follow the original manuscripts of the bible, having painstakingly gone through the effort of learning the original language, idiom, context of the times, and so forth...except...all that survives, are copies of copies.  SO much for accountability.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/7/2017 at 11:10 PM, VonNoble said:

 

Or perhaps it is good that it is allowed to evolve.....

von

 

Evolution is one thing: However the point and principle is, that even where evolution is permissive, its always a good idea to be able to trace that evolution back from whence it came. Otherwise, history has a tendency to repeat itself.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes 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.

If you claim the original text was agape, you are the one with the burden of proof.  Not I.  That's basic logic.  And the problem?  The only way to prove that the original text said that is to present the original text.  Care to do that?

 

Now, I have presented simple evidence that the scripture HAS BEEN CHANGED.  Regardless of looking it up and comparing it, the wording in the KJV vs the wording in the NIV is simply different.  Plain and simple.  It is different.  There is your proof that it's been changed.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/13/2017 at 1:41 PM, VonNoble said:

Considering for more than two centuries the followers of every holy text ....cannot agree 1) on the origins even with it in writing   2) the meaning of the context  3) the rituals and reverence required 4) which parts are literal and which are not .... it seems like the written version is under attack from within ... and continuously births  new versions of itself... morphs and progresses .....till any connection is fairly unrecognizable from the original, maybe...

 

As opposed in some cases to tribal traditions which have remained unchanged for eons....

 

Thx for the exchange of ideas

von

 

"Unchanged for eons"?... the problem is that while that is an opinon, if there's no written record, what evidence do we have that things weren't somehow changed at each and every retelling, without anyone having ever known about it? After all, if we take for example, a creation story- its a fat chance that anyone is going to retell a creation story orally without departing from the original story in significant ways. Most of us, especially in today's world" couldn't recite a chapter from a novel without changing significant details in one way or another, without being aware that you did it. In fact, this is exactly why courts of law transcribe oral testimony given in court to refer back to later. Science has proven that "eyewitness" testimony is the least reliable form of evidence, because the human brain has the natural biological tendency to "fill in the gaps" of what wasn't actually perceived at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, ULCneo said:

 

Evolution is one thing: However the point and principle is, that even where evolution is permissive, its always a good idea to be able to trace that evolution back from whence it came. Otherwise, history has a tendency to repeat itself.

Or implode.   Or stagnate.   Or lack relevancy.

von

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

If you claim the original text was agape, you are the one with the burden of proof.  Not I.  That's basic logic.  And the problem?  The only way to prove that the original text said that is to present the original text.  Care to do that?

 

Now, I have presented simple evidence that the scripture HAS BEEN CHANGED.  Regardless of looking it up and comparing it, the wording in the KJV vs the wording in the NIV is simply different.  Plain and simple.  It is different.  There is your proof that it's been changed.

 

 Not quite- If there is no preliminary evidence of a change, the charge that it was changed is a mere conclusory allegation that has no support in actual facts or reasoning. As opposed to the ability of an oral tradition to change over time, which has been scientifically documented. I'm not going to do your research for you to support your argument. I leave that to you.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ULCneo said:

 

"Unchanged for eons"?... the problem is that while that is an opinon, if there's no written record, what evidence do we have that things weren't somehow changed at each and every retelling, without anyone having ever known about it? After all, if we take for example, a creation story- its a fat chance that anyone is going to retell a creation story orally without departing from the original story in significant ways. Most of us, especially in today's world" couldn't recite a chapter from a novel without changing significant details in one way or another, without being aware that you did it. In fact, this is exactly why courts of law transcribe oral testimony given in court to refer back to later. Science has proven that "eyewitness" testimony is the least reliable form of evidence, because the human brain has the natural biological tendency to "fill in the gaps" of what wasn't actually perceived at the moment.

... 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

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now