Lessons In Apologetics, Part 1: Introduction & Agnosticism

[Dan56]

5 hours ago, cuchulain said:

This is my point.  See above where you claim you didnt say there was a thousand bc manuscript?  Well you literally did.

 

No, I only wrote that the prophecy was written a thousand years before Christ, not that we have an original manuscript from 1000 BC

 

5 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I dont believe that there are manuscripts predating the jewish translation.  Can you provide proof of that claim?

 

The Septuagint (also known as the LXX - the Greek Old Testament) was translated from the original Hebrew Text, 285 years before Christ, into the language that was then predominant in the world. The Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript of the Tanakh/Torah, 1009 AD.

 

[RevBogovac]

On 12/15/2018 at 7:59 AM, Dan56 said:

[...] I don't need to stoop to childish comments or temper tantrums.

Perhaps that's a notable difference between Christians & Agnostics?

 

 

Funny, the whole fact you can write this on the internet using some device stems from Agnostic poeple who used Empiric methods to come to this point so you can talk about your  book and spread terrorist threats ... funny... 

[cuchulain]

On 12/21/2018 at 1:18 AM, Dan56 said:

 

No, I only wrote that the prophecy was written a thousand years before Christ, not that we have an original manuscript from 1000 BC

 

 

The Septuagint (also known as the LXX - the Greek Old Testament) was translated from the original Hebrew Text, 285 years before Christ, into the language that was then predominant in the world. The Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript of the Tanakh/Torah, 1009 AD.

 

Translated from hebrew doesnt predate hebrew, does it?

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Translated from hebrew doesnt predate hebrew, does it?

 

The original doesn't need translating, but no originals exist.. Manuscript transmission is a human process, as copies are made of copies. So oddly , there are older Greek manuscripts than there are Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls (dating between 250 B.C.E. and 68 C.E) contain the oldest Hebrew text, while the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex are the oldest complete versions, written by the Masoretes in the 10th and 11th centuries. But the oldest translation of the Hebrew Old Testament is the Septuagint (LXX).. It translated the Hebrew into Greek in the third century BC in Alexandria, Egypt

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

It's an odd thing.  God can speak the entire Universe into existence -- but needs Human scribes to publish The Book.  Or -- The Books. 

 

Why is it, that God can't create anything, that Humans can create?  God can create a tree, but not a book?  A genetic code -- but not a book?  

 

Why, when Human scribes do produce The BOOK,  for God, does it fall into decay or burn?  

 

Why is the content of that Book, limited to the information and misinformation of that day?

 

It's almost as though God had nothing to do with it.

 

Why are the original versions lost to us?

 

Why are there copy and translation errors?

 

 

 

The All Powerful seems to be having a bad day.

 

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 1:18 AM, Dan56 said:

 

No, I only wrote that the prophecy was written a thousand years before Christ, not that we have an original manuscript from 1000 BC

 

 

The Septuagint (also known as the LXX - the Greek Old Testament) was translated from the original Hebrew Text, 285 years before Christ, into the language that was then predominant in the world. The Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript of the Tanakh/Torah, 1009 AD.

 

You DO see where you wrote, "was translated from the original Hebrew text"...I'm clearly not imagining that you said it was translated from Hebrew....Oh wait...it's another case of you moving the goal post.  Never mind.

[cuchulain]

The entire debate about apologetics makes the point about why it's such a lousy system, in my opinion.  the apologist makes a point.  It gets easily countered...until they change the definition of a word without telling you first, or until they decide that isn't what they really said even though it's clearly written, or until they decide to alter their argument that the bible is literally true FOR A SPECIFIC POINT ONLY, or until they cry scribal error, or mistranslation, or misinterpretation...

 

Geez.  For an all knowing being, god sure makes a lousy author.  And that in itself, the fact that there is such poor communication from the perfect being, such poor instruction, such poor construction, poor everything on his part...really does belie the whole all knowing all powerful aspects of his supposed being.  That and the fact that despite all his power, the fact that the truth is "written on our hearts"...the whole spiel really just fails.  I would think for such a perfect being, there would be credible, ample, evidence.  Instead we get drivel from his followers about how it's our fault for not grasping, not having enough faith, whatever b.s. line they decide to feed us to make us feel bad about not seeing the obvious truth(which isn't obvious by definition if it isn't clearly observable).

[cuchulain]

Here's another way to approach my position that even you, Dan, should be able to understand.

 

You favor self defense.  The Satanists didn't start the fight...they are defending themselves from the Christians repeated attacks.  Since self defense is something you are in favor of, you should be in favor of them putting up monuments against your religion, because it's an act of self defense.

 

And no, I don't suppose that, or assume that.  I took the time to go to the satanic temples website and read.  It clearly states that their motives are exactly as I have previously described.  They put up the monuments in defense of their rights, not in antagonism of anyone else's.  But then, legitimate research, understanding others positions...these are things that are foreign to apologists who would rather make things up and assume what works for their BIGOTRY.

Edited December 23, 2018 by cuchulain

[Dan56]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

You DO see where you wrote, "was translated from the original Hebrew text"...I'm clearly not imagining that you said it was translated from Hebrew....Oh wait...it's another case of you moving the goal post.  Never mind.

 

I also wrote in the same post; "not that we have an original manuscript from 1000 BC" ..  I simply meant that the Septuagint  was translated from the original Hebrew language into Greek.. E.g;  It wasn't translated from Latin text, but from Hebrew manuscripts.

 

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

Here's another way to approach my position that even you, Dan, should be able to understand.

 

You favor self defense.  The Satanists didn't start the fight...they are defending themselves from the Christians repeated attacks.  Since self defense is something you are in favor of, you should be in favor of them putting up monuments against your religion, because it's an act of self defense.

 

And no, I don't suppose that, or assume that.  I took the time to go to the satanic temples website and read.  It clearly states that their motives are exactly as I have previously described.  They put up the monuments in defense of their rights, not in antagonism of anyone else's.  But then, legitimate research, understanding others positions...these are things that are foreign to apologists who would rather make things up and assume what works for their BIGOTRY.

 

I don't believe its self-defense, but of course, that's how they're selling it.  If they put a statue up at another time or in a different public space, I'd say they just want equality. But deliberately putting their stuff next to Christian symbology isn't self-defense, its an attack against something they despise and abhor.   

 

In regards to the scripture reliability, there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. We have so many copies of the New Testament that there is no doubt about what they say on any Christian doctrine. While many copies have textual copyist errors, all of the manuscripts have basically the same words, with a difference of only 2.6%. Many text variations are due to Alexandrian vs.Byzantine issues. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D.. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.

 

[cuchulain]

14 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

I also wrote in the same post; "not that we have an original manuscript from 1000 BC" ..  I simply meant that the Septuagint  was translated from the original Hebrew language into Greek.. E.g;  It wasn't translated from Latin text, but from Hebrew manuscripts.

 

 

I don't believe its self-defense, but of course, that's how they're selling it.  If they put a statue up at another time or in a different public space, I'd say they just want equality. But deliberately putting their stuff next to Christian symbology isn't self-defense, its an attack against something they despise and abhor.   

 

In regards to the scripture reliability, there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. We have so many copies of the New Testament that there is no doubt about what they say on any Christian doctrine. While many copies have textual copyist errors, all of the manuscripts have basically the same words, with a difference of only 2.6%. Many text variations are due to Alexandrian vs.Byzantine issues. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D.. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.

 

Many copies of original works do not make the original work true, just oft copied.

 

Still cant answer why christians have to display in public space instead of their own?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

41 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

I also wrote in the same post; "not that we have an original manuscript from 1000 BC" ..  I simply meant that the Septuagint  was translated from the original Hebrew language into Greek.. E.g;  It wasn't translated from Latin text, but from Hebrew manuscripts.

 

 

I don't believe its self-defense, but of course, that's how they're selling it.  If they put a statue up at another time or in a different public space, I'd say they just want equality. But deliberately putting their stuff next to Christian symbology isn't self-defense, its an attack against something they despise and abhor.   

 

In regards to the scripture reliability, there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. We have so many copies of the New Testament that there is no doubt about what they say on any Christian doctrine. While many copies have textual copyist errors, all of the manuscripts have basically the same words, with a difference of only 2.6%. Many text variations are due to Alexandrian vs.Byzantine issues. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D.. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.

 

 

 

You still don't get the concept of reaction.  You force your crap into Public Space -- others will balance the scales.

 

One good pelvic thrust deserves another.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

The entire debate about apologetics makes the point about why it's such a lousy system, in my opinion.  the apologist makes a point.  It gets easily countered...until they change the definition of a word without telling you first, or until they decide that isn't what they really said even though it's clearly written, or until they decide to alter their argument that the bible is literally true FOR A SPECIFIC POINT ONLY, or until they cry scribal error, or mistranslation, or misinterpretation...

 

Geez.  For an all knowing being, god sure makes a lousy author.  And that in itself, the fact that there is such poor communication from the perfect being, such poor instruction, such poor construction, poor everything on his part...really does belie the whole all knowing all powerful aspects of his supposed being.  That and the fact that despite all his power, the fact that the truth is "written on our hearts"...the whole spiel really just fails.  I would think for such a perfect being, there would be credible, ample, evidence.  Instead we get drivel from his followers about how it's our fault for not grasping, not having enough faith, whatever b.s. line they decide to feed us to make us feel bad about not seeing the obvious truth(which isn't obvious by definition if it isn't clearly observable).

 

 

Why does God need Human scribes?

 

 

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Why does God need Human scribes?

 

 

If its written on our hearts, he certainly doesnt...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

If its written on our hearts, he certainly doesnt...

 

 

Maybe God has poor penmanship skills.  

[cuchulain]

We're debating translation errors in a 'perfect and incorruptable' book...does anyone else see the irony?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, cuchulain said:

We're debating translation errors in a 'perfect and incorruptable' book...does anyone else see the irony?

 

 

Of course.  The perfect text has become imperfect.  Not that there is any reason, to think it was ever perfect -- or true.

 

 

 

[Dan56]

15 hours ago, cuchulain said:

We're debating translation errors in a 'perfect and incorruptable' book...does anyone else see the irony?

 

Only the original autographs (original  manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the  divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21),  were 100% inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There's no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would equally be inerrant or free from copyist errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred, but Hebrew and Greek definitions can always be crossed checked word for word with the 469 different languages that the complete bible has been translated.

It is important to remember that the  biblical manuscripts we have today are in 99% agreement with one  another. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of  the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical  issues, word order, etc. – issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes. No important theological or biblical issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. Biblical manuscripts from  the 15th century agree completely with manuscripts from the 3rd century.  We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2000+ years  ago.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Dan56

[cuchulain]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Only the original autographs (original  manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the  divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21),  were 100% inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There's no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would equally be inerrant or free from copyist errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred, but Hebrew and Greek definitions can always be crossed checked word for word with the 469 different languages that the complete bible has been translated.

It is important to remember that the  biblical manuscripts we have today are in 99% agreement with one  another. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of  the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical  issues, word order, etc. – issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes. No important theological or biblical issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. Biblical manuscripts from  the 15th century agree completely with manuscripts from the 3rd century.  We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2000+ years  ago.

I don't believe that.  Can you prove that the original manuscripts were 100% error free and true...without the original manuscripts?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

It still leaves unanswered, the basic question.  Why does God need Scribes?  

 

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I don't believe that.  Can you prove that the original manuscripts were 100% error free and true...without the original manuscripts?

 

Yes, for instance, we have thousand of copies of the NT, and if one of those copies had a verse that didn't conform to the same thing as the other thousands of copies, you would have detected an error.. By correlating and comparing the bulk of manuscripts, mistakes are easily noticed in individual copies, while the consensus establishes 100% proof of accuracy of the original writing.

 

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

It still leaves unanswered, the basic question.  Why does God need Scribes? 

 

Because printing presses were not yet invented, so they couldn't deliver the written word like phone books, each copy had to be hand written...