Lessons In Apologetics, Part 1: Introduction & Agnosticism

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

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.

 

 

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...

 

 

My point exactly.  God created the entire Universe and everything in it.  God then needs help with a book?  With THE  BOOK?  Why does God need Scribes?  Or printing presses?  Or anything else?  How strange, that God can't make anything, that people can make.  Do you know how silly that sounds?

 

 

 

[Dan56]

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

My point exactly.  God created the entire Universe and everything in it.  God then needs help with a book?  With THE  BOOK?  Why does God need Scribes?  Or printing presses?  Or anything else?  How strange, that God can't make anything, that people can make.  Do you know how silly that sounds? 

 

God doesn't perform mediocre task, He inspired the Word to those who wrote it.. Just as He provides apples, but doesn't pick the apples & bake you a pie.. So of course God doesn't "need" help, but uses people to spread His inspired word. Faith could not be demonstrated if God did everything.. Jesus  performed the miracle of five loaves and the two fishes, but had his disciples feed the crowd, just as he brought the gospel, but assigned the apostles to carry and spread the message.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

God doesn't perform mediocre task, He inspired the Word to those who wrote it.. Just as He provides apples, but doesn't pick the apples & bake you a pie.. So of course God doesn't "need" help, but uses people to spread His inspired word. Faith could not be demonstrated if God did everything.. Jesus  performed the miracle of five loaves and the two fishes, but had his disciples feed the crowd, just as he brought the gospel, but assigned the apostles to carry and spread the message.

 

 A mediocre task?  The inerrant Word?  A mediocre task?  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

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

A mediocre task?  The inerrant Word?  A mediocre task?  

 

There's nothing mediocre about the Word itself, but the task of writing it down was given to His prophets and apostles, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

There's nothing mediocre about the Word itself, but the task of writing it down was given to His prophets and apostles, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. 

 

 

God couldn't be bothered?     

[Key]

On 12/28/2018 at 10:17 PM, Dan56 said:

 

There's nothing mediocre about the Word itself, but the task of writing it down was given to His prophets and apostles, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. 

Not saying that He can't do it, but here is why I don't think the task would be mediocre for Him. The Ten Commandments were originally written on stone by the finger of God for Moses to bring down the mountain to His people. Surely, if stone can be so easily carved, paper and pen would be even more so.

To rely on men who are fallible, as demonstrated by the need to write down laws on stone to begin with, can be viewed as suspect by unbelievers, no?

Arguments claiming "mediocre" should then also be suspect, no?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Key said:

Not saying that He can't do it, but here is why I don't think the task would be mediocre for Him. The Ten Commandments were originally written on stone by the finger of God for Moses to bring down the mountain to His people. Surely, if stone can be so easily carved, paper and pen would be even more so.

To rely on men who are fallible, as demonstrated by the need to write down laws on stone to begin with, can be viewed as suspect by unbelievers, no?

Arguments claiming "mediocre" should then also be suspect, no?

 

 

A minor  detail.  There are other Holy Books, "inspired" by God and written by people -- all claiming to be "The Word".

,Since God has neither produced one set directly, nor destroyed the others; I can find no reason to favor one Book over another.  They are all equally suspect.

 

Also, if the assertion in Romans is true, that the Word is already on my Heart -- I should not need any of them.

 

 

I look upon the world that exists.  Not the world I want, but the world that looks back at me.  What do I see?  Many religions, each with many sub-divisions.  This is what I would expect to see if God were a fantasy.

 

What would the world look like if God were real?  There would be one undivided religion.  If there were a church, there would be one church and it would be free of scandal.

 

At minimum -- one set of Books.  One perfect set without errors of any kind.  Or internal conflict.  Free of fraud or tampering.  Easily understood without studies in ancient language or history.  Indestructible by fire or decay, with the originals available for comparison.  Too much for Human authors.  Nothing for the perfect God.

 

Of course, if we have a trickster God, who wants to play hide and seek with it's Creation -- who wants to see a demonstration of "faith" without proof -- who gives us a young world that is designed to look old and deceive -- then God can take the consequences.

 

The more so, if God uses Human scribes -- all imperfect -- and tolerates many books from many religions.  

 

 

And the task of creating "The Word" is described as mediocre?  Something that God can't be bothered with taking care of?  

 

 

A side note.  I have read the Bible more than I have read the other Books.  The cruelty and sadism of God.  The treatment of women and gay people.  Etc. etc.  This more than anything else is what destroyed my faith.  I don't think that the perfect Book would have that effect.

 

Edited December 30, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

That "mediocre task" being botched up led to multitudinous death and destruction...but it was beneath an all loving being?  And I still notice a lack of proof for what I asked too.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

That "mediocre task" being botched up led to multitudinous death and destruction...but it was beneath an all loving being?  And I still notice a lack of proof for what I asked too.

 

Of course.  But it's so much worse than that.

 

The All Knowing would know -- in perfect detail -- every bit of mischief and mayhem, that Scripture would ever produce -- into the distant future.  After all, God remembers the future.

 

Think of the thousands killed over the theology of transubstantiation.  Was the Wafer really turned into the flesh and blood of Christ?  Or was it only symbolic?

 

An All Knowing and All Loving God, might have been more careful with minor, mediocre details.

 

There is also the small -- insignificant -- issue of the Koran.  Produced in identical manner to the Bible.  With Human scribes.  Such a sense of humor.  What could possibly go wrong, using Human scribes, to create Scripture?

 

If the Bible had been published directly by God -- the people who produced the Koran, could never have done so.

 

If the Koran had been published directly by God -- that would have been equally informative.

 

What did we get instead?  1400 years -- give or take -- of Holy War.     

 

Of course, if the Torah had been published directly by God -- We wouldn't have the Gospels or the Koran.

 

It's almost as though people made the whole thing up.  Imagine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

15 hours ago, Key said:

To rely on men who are fallible, as demonstrated by the need to write down laws on stone to begin with, can be viewed as suspect by unbelievers, no?

Arguments claiming "mediocre" should then also be suspect, no?

 

Perhaps "mediocre" was a poor choice of word for me to use... But the point I was trying to emphasize was that God delegates task to His servants.. I didn't mean to imply that the scriptures were of mediocre importance, but only that God assigned certain people to accomplish a job that they could easily do.. And of course, I believe "All Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16), so I don't believe the writers were fallible. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Perhaps "mediocre" was a poor choice of word for me to use... But the point I was trying to emphasize was that God delegates task to His servants.. I didn't mean to imply that the scriptures were of mediocre importance, but only that God assigned certain people to accomplish a job that they could easily do.. And of course, I believe "All Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16), so I don't believe the writers were fallible. 

 

 

You compared the publication of Scripture, to baking apple pie.  

 

There is a huge difference between the pie made by a Master Baker -- and an assistant.

 

Apple pie.  What an example.  The Snake from Genesis would approve.       Maybe, you don't care where your apples come from?          "The gift of knowledge ......."   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

15 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Perhaps "mediocre" was a poor choice of word for me to use... But the point I was trying to emphasize was that God delegates task to His servants.. I didn't mean to imply that the scriptures were of mediocre importance, but only that God assigned certain people to accomplish a job that they could easily do.. And of course, I believe "All Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16), so I don't believe the writers were fallible. 

If they weren't fallible how have there been so many errors contained within the perfect book?  God made the writers infallible, but not the copyists?  Pretty big oversight on the part of that perfect being, who if he felt the need could have made us all born with the knowledge needed...or, if you think the book is perfect...Jeremiah 31 31-34:  The days are coming when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel...(Isn't the new testament your new covenant?)...I will put my law in their minds and write it on their heart.  No longer will they teach their neighbor(how I WISH you Christians would shut up about it, but you sure won't), or say to one another, "know the lord" because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest(now, it's surely not just me, but don't we all preach today that we are all equal?  God says there are some greater than others...hmmm).

 

I don't have knowledge of God written on my heart, nor do I know all his law as he proclaims in your perfect book.  Neither do you or other Christians.  Know how I know that?  Because none of you can agree on what his law is.  If it were written on your hearts as he proclaimed in your infallible book, there would be no need to argue.

 

But I gotta wonder how many times you are going to change your mind about that perfect book.  "so I don't believe the writers were fallible."...up until someone points out a simple error in the book that is.  Then you are the first to cry scribal error, mistranslation...or any other number of excuses.  See, if the book were perfect, it certainly wouldn't need you to come up with excuses.

[Dan56]

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

You compared the publication of Scripture, to baking apple pie. 

 

Correct, just as God supplies the apples for a pie, He supplies the Word for scripture.. And I personally don't believe the forbidden fruit was an apple.

 

11 hours ago, cuchulain said:

God made the writers infallible, but not the copyists?

 

Correct... Try translating old Hebrew into over 1500 different languages, in fact, try translating anything into +1500 languages and I guarantee you'll run into some translation issues since there aren't exact corresponding words to express and match everything word for word from language to language, so it requires some transliteration. As I previously explained, when you have over 5000 manuscripts, its not hard to evaluate and know where copyist errors may have occurred. So I'm convinced that today's bible is near perfect from what was originally written, the dead sea scrolls proved that. The Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea caves has been dated to around 200 B.C.. Isaiah wrote his original scroll around 700 B.C. and it may have been in use up until around 200 B.C. This means that it is possible for the Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea caves to be a copy made directly from Isaiah's original scroll. And more important, the Isaiah scroll found there proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible used today, with just slight spelling variations. How's that for accuracy? 

 

11 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I don't have knowledge of God written on my heart, nor do I know all his law as he proclaims in your perfect book.

 

You do have knowledge of His law, Jesus summarized it with just two commandments (Matthew 22:36-40).. And nearly everyone has knowledge of the gospel since its been published throughout the world. You may not have accepted it into your heart, but I believe those verses in Jeremiah were referring to believers, you need to accept a message before it can be heartfelt

 

12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

But I gotta wonder how many times you are going to change your mind about that perfect book.  "so I don't believe the writers were fallible."...up until someone points out a simple error in the book that is.

 

I've been consistent in stating that I believe the original writings were mistake proof. And I've also been consistent in saying that scribal errors are easily detected.

[cuchulain]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Correct, just as God supplies the apples for a pie, He supplies the Word for scripture.. And I personally don't believe the forbidden fruit was an apple.

 

 

Correct... Try translating old Hebrew into over 1500 different languages, in fact, try translating anything into +1500 languages and I guarantee you'll run into some translation issues since there aren't exact corresponding words to express and match everything word for word from language to language, so it requires some transliteration. As I previously explained, when you have over 5000 manuscripts, its not hard to evaluate and know where copyist errors may have occurred. So I'm convinced that today's bible is near perfect from what was originally written, the dead sea scrolls proved that. The Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea caves has been dated to around 200 B.C.. Isaiah wrote his original scroll around 700 B.C. and it may have been in use up until around 200 B.C. This means that it is possible for the Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea caves to be a copy made directly from Isaiah's original scroll. And more important, the Isaiah scroll found there proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible used today, with just slight spelling variations. How's that for accuracy? 

 

 

You do have knowledge of His law, Jesus summarized it with just two commandments (Matthew 22:36-40).. And nearly everyone has knowledge of the gospel since its been published throughout the world. You may not have accepted it into your heart, but I believe those verses in Jeremiah were referring to believers, you need to accept a message before it can be heartfelt

 

 

I've been consistent in stating that I believe the original writings were mistake proof. And I've also been consistent in saying that scribal errors are easily detected.

To your first point.  Translation should be simple...with the help of God.  If he can make the original error proof, why not the copies?

You believe the original writings were mistake proof?  Why?  Have you viewed the originals?  You consistently tell me that the copies are unchanged from the originals, yet now easily use the scapegoat of "scribal error" once again...but you have never seen the originals to know that they are unchanged.  But you insist this is proof.

 

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, cuchulain said:

To your first point.  Translation should be simple...with the help of God.  If he can make the original error proof, why not the copies?

You believe the original writings were mistake proof?  Why?  Have you viewed the originals?  You consistently tell me that the copies are unchanged from the originals, yet now easily use the scapegoat of "scribal error" once again...but you have never seen the originals to know that they are unchanged.  But you insist this is proof.

 

 

As I previously mentioned, the new testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous (+5000), they can be cross-checked for accuracy, and they are very consistent. Its funny how nonbelievers dismiss the accuracy of the most widely documented writings of the new testament, while accepting the reliability of comparable ancient writings like Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and other authors.. I have a hunch that even if you had the original manuscripts, you wouldn't believe them anyhow, so your essentially demanding proof of something you've dismissed as false?

[cuchulain]

Cant prove up...so blame me for my not accepting?

[Songster]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

As I previously mentioned, the new testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous (+5000), they can be cross-checked for accuracy, and they are very consistent. Its funny how nonbelievers dismiss the accuracy of the most widely documented writings of the new testament, while accepting the reliability of comparable ancient writings like Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and other authors.. I have a hunch that even if you had the original manuscripts, you wouldn't believe them anyhow, so your essentially demanding proof of something you've dismissed as false?

Dan, cuchulain has no desire for an honest exchange of views. He's what my wife calls a "right-fighter" (one who demands that his opinion or position be recognized or proclaimed as "right", even if it's wrong.) 

"Those that refuse assistance on the path to enlightenment are deservedly doomed to dwell in darkness."

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, Songster said:

Dan, cuchulain has no desire for an honest exchange of views. He's what my wife calls a "right-fighter" (one who demands that his opinion or position be recognized or proclaimed as "right", even if it's wrong.) 

"Those that refuse assistance on the path to enlightenment are deservedly doomed to dwell in darkness."

 

 

 

 

Wait.  You're serious.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Songster]

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

Wait.  You're serious.

When one's eternal soul is concerned......

Yes. Deadly serious......

From my understanding of "atheists", some believe humans have souls. Others don't.

Which are you?

If you're an atheist that does not believe that a human body possesses an infinite soul...

You may very well amuse yourself with flippant and/or derisive comments to those possessing a knowledge beyond your understanding.

If you're an atheist that does believe one has a soul...

It might be prudent to heed the words of one that is certain of the fact that the soul IS immortal.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Songster

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

16 minutes ago, Songster said:

When one's eternal soul is concerned......

Yes. Deadly serious......

From my understanding of "atheists", some believe humans have souls. Others don't.

Which are you?

If you're an atheist that does not believe that a human body possesses an infinite soul...

You may very well amuse yourself with flippant and/or derisive comments to those possessing a knowledge beyond your understanding.

If you're an atheist that does believe one has a soul...

It might be prudent to heed the words of one that is certain of the fact that the soul IS immortal.

 

 

You know a lot less about my understanding than you think.  Your evaluation of your own understanding is lacking in substance.

 

For the rest -- you think that you are in a position to lead someone to enlightenment?  You?  Of all the smug, condescending, arrogant.....  Words fail.  Try and impress someone, with your great wisdom, who gives a crap.