Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2019 7:21 AM
25 online now:
PaulK, RAZD (2 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume:
Total: 861,868 Year: 16,904/19,786 Month: 1,029/2,598 Week: 275/251 Day: 3/43 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 320 (396550)
04-20-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2007 11:41 PM


Re: What God Wrote.
DA writes:

And yet I notice that there is rather more agreement on the age of the Earth amongst geologists (of whatever faith or none) than there is amongst Christians, or even amongst creationists.

It is, apparently, much easier to reinterpret the Bible than to re-interpret the rocks.

If we Christians/creationists had one model programmed into our brains all the way up from pre-school through university doctorate we'd likely think alike also.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2007 11:41 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 04-20-2007 6:13 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2007 5:40 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 95 by iceage, posted 04-26-2007 5:59 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 320 (396551)
04-20-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
04-20-2007 5:06 PM


Re: What God Wrote.
If we Christians/creationists had one model programmed into our brains all the way up from pre-school through university doctorate we'd likely think alike also.

If all your models weren't made up, you might find it easier to agree on one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 04-20-2007 5:06 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 320 (396603)
04-21-2007 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
04-20-2007 5:06 PM


Re: What God Wrote.
If we Christians/creationists had one model programmed into our brains all the way up from pre-school through university doctorate we'd likely think alike also.

Fortunately for science, "programming" can't stand up to repeated exposure to the facts. For example, the people who discovered that the Earth was old were all "programmed" to believe that it was young: but they studied the facts of geology.

In the same way, people such as Glenn Morton and Steve Robertson were "programmed" by the cult of YEC to believe the Earth was young; and were both taught geology at the Institute for Creationist Research; but this faith couldn't stand up to actual contact with the evidence.

To quote Glenn Morton:

quote:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.


You may, therefore, lay aside your paranoid fears that geologists have merely been "programmed" to think that the Earth is old. They know it from repeated contact with the evidence; if the facts didn't fit, they'd be the first to notice.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 04-20-2007 5:06 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Equinox
Member (Idle past 3401 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 94 of 320 (397586)
04-26-2007 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Juraikken
04-19-2007 5:04 AM


please use the reply button - I almost missed your reply.
Juraikken wrote:


Equinox writes:
and that’s completely wrong. The JW bible has much less changed compared to, say, the NIV

are you serious? theres so many crap in that bible that has NOTHING to do with any of the canons at all. and the inconsistancy of it all is too much to bare. they believe that Christ is not equal to God, Christ died on a Steak instead of a cross, and they also believe that earth will never be destroyed or populated again. and the most eye catching one, that the soul will no longer exist after death. what is that?

As I’ve mentioned, there isn’t much difference in the text of their bible – I’ve read it, studied it, and commentary by scholars agrees with me on that (or, just show me major changes – they are very few, Jo 1:1 is the only one that comes to mind, and it is a change of a single word). All the differences in doctrine you mention are done using the same bible – just as Episcopalians have a radically different doctrine from Pentecostals, yet often use the same bible. Christians the world over regularly use the same exact verses to “support” polar opposite doctrines. In the cases you mention, the JW’s (one of whom is my sister), use the same verses other Christians do, and just “interpret” them to mean something else.

there is no difference in what they both have tho, except one explains things in a native tongue and more wordy (KJV) and the others explain the bible in the new tongue of today (NASB, NIV)

Um, no. If you had bothered to read the pages I linked to about the KJV onlyists, you’d know that the changes amount to as much text as the books of 1st and 2nd peter, and that they effect many of the main doctrines of Christianity, including what a baptism is, who jesus was, and so on. We can go over them point by point if you’d like.

You know, asking for us to forgive your ignorance is understandable, but it would sound a lot more credible if you would at least read the sources we give you to allow you to catch up.

Oh, and if you want a whole book of clear examples where early Christians changed the text on purpose to fit what they wanted it to say, you may be interested in “the orthodox corruption of scripture”, by Ehrman.

Also, I’m glad that others pointed out the John thing. Come on.


equinox writes:
Um, no. They are word for word identical for stretches in many places. I teach at the university level, and this is widely know to be solid proof that one copied from the other.

not really becuase i just read the lat chapters in all of the 4 gospels and see major and minor differences. saying:
"Jesus was encountered by Judas"
"Judas came up to Jesus"
"Judas walked up to Jesus"
"Judas went up to Jesus"
those are minor differences that you might think are still "exact replicas" but then there are major differences that they did not copy off of eachother

Again, it doesn’t sound like you have bothered to use the resources I handed to you on a silver platter. Use the parallel text page and you’ll see word for word copies in many places. If you don’t see them, then ask for me to point some out and I’ll do so. No time now, I’ve got to get home (I’ve got a 2 week old son to help out with).

they heard what Judas said PROBABLY from ONE guard and they all wrote the same thing down.

And do you really think the terrified disciples of an executed criminal would be walking up to roman guards and asking them questions? Hey, I’ve got some swampland in florida that I’m looking to sell, it’s a good deal, really…..


equinox writes:
For your information, Josephus wasn’t even born until years after Jesus died, he wasn’t a Roman, he wasn’t a guard, and he clearly didn’t think Jesus was all that special, since he didn’t convert to Christianity.

my mention of him wasnt for converting to christianity in the first place, would you read what i say? it was to have PROOF that Jesus was not fairy tale

I did read what you said. You said you had accounts written by Roman guards who had seen Jesus. You didn’t just say that you had proof Jesus wasn’t a fairy tale. I agree with you that we should stick to what each of us says. You also admitted that you made a mistake, which is fine – thank you. The only reason I responded again to this Josephus line is because you have reverted to backpeddling from the eyewitness roman guard claim, instead of admitting it and moving on as you did previously.

well then, what makes your idea the un-distorted one over mine? who gave you the absolute power to discern what is distorted or not?

It’s not a “my idea vs your idea” thing. All people deserve respect, but not all ideas. Ideas are to be tested, discussed, compared, and such. The ideas I’ve mentioned are less distorted because they are based on evidence, not on parroted church doctrine. The ideas I’ve mentioned are easy to check by simply looking at the actual text of the bible, and on the historical record. As I’ve said before, don’t take my word for it, check on it yourself.

Have a fun weekend everyone-

-Equinox


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Juraikken, posted 04-19-2007 5:04 AM Juraikken has not yet responded

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4174 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 95 of 320 (397589)
04-26-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
04-20-2007 5:06 PM


Re: What God Wrote.
Buzz writes:

If we Christians/creationists had one model programmed into our brains all the way up from pre-school through university doctorate we'd likely think alike also.

One could easily say that the Round Earth theory is widely accepted *only* because it is the lone model programmed into our brains all the way up from pre-school through university doctorate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 04-20-2007 5:06 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 96 of 320 (397721)
04-27-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
04-15-2007 11:46 PM


Men Wrote God's Words in the Bible
Hi,
You got pretty nice question which I quote below:
Now I ask, being that man is the screw-up prone creature he is, how successful has God been at maintaining Biblical quality control down through the ages? Perfect quality control? Near perfect? The general story is correct? The book still has some valid use? It's worthless?

1. Yes man is definitely screw-up. Since he acted as poor secretary of God, what he wrote contains Errors. But the question--let me see if I understand you correctly--is: 'Do these errors invalidate the truthfulness of the Bible?' Is the Bible still worthwhile?

Errors in the Bible could be compared to 2 or 3 court witnesses who do not give exactly the same testimony word for word. But, the judge would accept these testimonies as truthful--if they do not really contradict each other. The judge's duty is to try to reconcile this seemingly contradictory statements. If they do reconcile, then their testimonies are judged truthful. On the opposite--if 2 or more witnesses give exactly the same account of an incident--word for word-- a wise judge would through away these testimonies as coming from "rehearsed" or "expert" witnesses.

What would be your opinion if say Matthew, Marc, Luke, and John give exacly the same account of the Gospel? Would you treat them as independent witnesses or "rehearsed, even 'paid'" witnesses.

To illustrate the process of reconciling seemingly contradictory ones, take this example from an "autobiography" ( fictitious)

Page 1: Joe, the author is a fat guy
Page 2: Joe is a thin guy.

If you do not continue to read. You will throw away the book as being false.
But if you continue reading page 10, you'll read: 'Joe got sick of polio when he was 3 amd this affected his legs'

Now, page 10 gives light to pages 1 and 2. You will arrive at this correct conclusion: 'Joe is a fat guy with thin legs!'.

Critics of the Bible often point out similar "contradictions" w/o thoroughly examining these supposed verses. In the books of Kings and Chronicles, you will find many "contradictions" like this king started ruling at age 18, on a different page ( say, Chronicles) you will find an account which says that that king ruled while age 21. W/o further reading and not enough insight, critics harp on these "errors" . But, do a little research and you will find out that one author started counting from the time that king CO-RULED w/ his father. Another, would start counting from the time that king was the SOLE ruler.

Is the Bible worthwhile. Definitely yes. Take for example Death Penalty. The Bible explains that the TWIN purpose of this penalty: (a) DISCOURAGE others from committing evil, and (2) REMOVE the evil doer. Man in his foolishness concentrated on (a) and misread Christ's words to forgive. So what did man do? Remove the death penalty. Outcome? Teen agers commit horrific murders and get light penalties.

I hope I somehow enlightened you on the Bible.

Edited by AdminPD, : Fix quote box


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-15-2007 11:46 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2007 12:34 PM NOT JULIUS has responded
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 04-27-2007 2:43 PM NOT JULIUS has responded
 Message 100 by iceage, posted 04-27-2007 2:53 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15394
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 97 of 320 (397724)
04-27-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by NOT JULIUS
04-27-2007 12:15 PM


Re: Men Wrote God's Words in the Bible
A couple of points to consider

quote:

On the opposite--if 2 or more witnesses give exactly the same account of an incident--word for word-- a wise judge would through away these testimonies as coming from "rehearsed" or "expert" witnesses.

The Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) contain enough word-for-word (or very closely similar) material that we know that there was a significant amount of copying.

quote:

In the books of Kings and Chronicles, you will find many "contradictions" like this king started ruling at age 18, on a different page ( say, Chronicles) you will find an account which says that that king ruled while age 21. W/o further reading and not enough insight, critics harp on these "errors" . But, do a little research and you will find out that one author started counting from the time that king CO-RULED w/ his father. Another, would start counting from the time that king was the SOLE ruler.

Well, no typically you won't FIND it. What you will find is that Christian apologists INVENT co-rulerships to explain away the contradictions. There is a difference between discovering a fact and inventing an excuse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by NOT JULIUS, posted 04-27-2007 12:15 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by NOT JULIUS, posted 04-27-2007 2:43 PM PaulK has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17297
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 98 of 320 (397727)
04-27-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by NOT JULIUS
04-27-2007 12:15 PM


Re: Men Wrote God's Words in the Bible
pilate_judas writes:

The judge's duty is to try to reconcile this seemingly contradictory statements.

Not really. The judge's duty is to determine whether or not there is any truth in either statement. If there are substantial differences between the statements and if there is no outside evidence to support either statement, then the judge's duty is to disregard both statements.

'Joe got sick of polio when he was 3 amd this affected his legs'

Now, page 10 gives light to pages 1 and 2. You will arrive at this correct conclusion: 'Joe is a fat guy with thin legs!'.

That isn't necessarily the "correct" conclusion. It's a made-up reconciliation that doesn't really confirm the statement that "Joe is a thin guy". Thin "legs" do not confirm thin guy.

That's an illustration of how bad apologetics can be.

Is the Bible worthwhile. Definitely yes.

Agreed.

Take for example Death Penalty.

Your comments on the death penalty are completely out to lunch, but that belongs in another topic. (This one, for example.)

I hope I somehow enlightened you on the Bible.

Nope. ;)


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by NOT JULIUS, posted 04-27-2007 12:15 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by NOT JULIUS, posted 04-27-2007 2:53 PM ringo has responded

NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 99 of 320 (397728)
04-27-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by PaulK
04-27-2007 12:34 PM


Re: Men Wrote God's Words in the Bible
Hi Paul,
The Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) contain enough word-for-word (or very closely similar) material that we know that there was a significant amount of copying.

"very similar" is not proof of rehearsed witnesses. On the contrary, it is proof of persons witnessing same events. As to the copying, it is proof of existence of formal records at that time. That is why Luke can say 'I've traced this account from beginning to end'. Matthew can trace Jesus geneology coz of these records. Even the books of kings mention: 'are the acts of king so and so not recorded in this and that book?'

How would you critic the gospel if they were not "synoptics" and varied greatly, say, name of the messiah wa Jesus (by John, Joel (by Matthew), Abraham by (Luke)? Would you believe them? Or, Matthew reported that Jesus was killed by a spear, while Mark would report that he was killed by hanging? Would such scenario be more believable to you than the present "synoptic" gospels?

Well, no typically you won't FIND it. What you will find is that Christian apologists INVENT co-rulerships to explain away the contradictions. There is a difference between discovering a fact and inventing an excuse.

I'm no apologist. But, I disagree that co-rulerships are invented as an excuse. For one, Solomon "co-ruled" w/ David when the latter was too old. ( That's why he was given a beautiful maiden as a sort of human blanket. But, no more heat. He he he )Even secular records of history proves that there were co-rulers, vice-regents, etc.

By the way, I have forgotten how to "quote" could you please help?

my kind regards,
Gov. Pilate

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed quote boxes by changing the closing qs/ to /qs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2007 12:34 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2007 3:21 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4174 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 100 of 320 (397729)
04-27-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by NOT JULIUS
04-27-2007 12:15 PM


Re: Men Wrote God's Words in the Bible
Judas writes:

Errors in the Bible could be compared to 2 or 3 court witnesses who do not give exactly the same testimony word for word.

NO No no. That is only one small class of errors in the bible...

The larger issue with the bible is that it is riddled with philosophical inconsistencies.

  • You are saved by works; No you are saved by grace and faith.

  • Love your enemies; Kill and destroy your enemies (OBTW keep the young virgins women children for yourselves)

  • God is mercy; Show no mercy do not spare the little children or the pregnant women.

  • God loves children; Blessed are they that dash their enemies little ones on the rocks.

  • God is a God of peace; God is a man of war and the lord is his name.

  • God does not change his mind; God relents.

  • God is omnipotent and knows the future exhaustively; The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

  • God is not a God of confusion; The Lord confused the language of the whole earth (because evidently God who created nebula 50 light years across was threaten by a unified world)

  • Love your neighbor; Enslaving your neighbor is OK, but if you do strike your slave be sure that he/she lingers for a day. There are many, many examples of not loving you neighbor throughout the Bible.

  • Salvation in the older texts is within the context of deliverance from temporal/physical oppression/poverty; in the New Testament salvation is from eternal hell. Paradise in the OT is the Garden, Paradise in the NT is paved streets of gold and other worldly. (One can see the *evolution* of the concept of heaven and hell by reading the Bible).

    These is just off the top, I could go on - but I think you get the picture.

    And then there are the errors of omission. Or the complete lack of insight or understanding of the nature of world beyond the contemporary understanding at the time of writing?

  • Cosmology. The greatest understatement of all times has to be the short phase in Genesis "and he made the stars also". Or how about The stopping of the Sun in the sky, reversing the suns shadow, stars falling to the earth, The earth's foundations, the dome of the sky embedded with stars, etc.

  • Genetics. Just how does one breed spotted goats?

  • Geometry. The ratio of diameter to the circumference is what?

  • Zoology. What animals chew cud?

  • Physiology. Women came from a rib? Adam must have an extra rib just for this.

    etc...

    As I like to point out, not one discovery of the natural world has every come about by a literal or *inspired* reading of the Bible.

    Errors of ethical absolutes..

  • Why does the Bible consider women inferior? The law in the OT is stacked against women, rape is differentially punished, virgin female children can be used as war booty, A menstuous woman are unclean, etc.

    In fact, the soul of a *man* can die if he comes near a menstrual woman. Which implies that women do not have souls.

  • Slavery is acceptable and even required in some circumstances within the Law.

  • Blood and sacrifice to atone for sins?

  • Different set of rules for foreigners

    And then there are the errors of failed prophecies...

  • Cities that were to be destroyed and be nevermore are now thriving cities.

  • When did the Nile ever dry up.

  • When was Egypt ever depopulated and no one every walked across it for 40 years.

  • The present generation (at the time of Jesus) will live to see the end.

    The Bible is overwhelmingly obvious to be written by humans.

    The Bible documents:

  • The evolution of a monotheistic religion.

  • Man's grappling with the issues that arise after the transition from hunter/gather tribes to agricultural city-states.

  • Human's dealing with mortality.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 96 by NOT JULIUS, posted 04-27-2007 12:15 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 102 by NOT JULIUS, posted 04-27-2007 3:09 PM iceage has responded

  • NOT JULIUS
    Member (Idle past 2734 days)
    Posts: 219
    From: Rome
    Joined: 11-29-2006


    Message 101 of 320 (397730)
    04-27-2007 2:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 98 by ringo
    04-27-2007 2:43 PM


    Re: Men Wrote God's Words in the Bible
    Not really. The judge's duty is to determine whether or not there is any truth in either statement. If there are substantial differences between the statements and if there is no outside evidence to support either statement, then the judge's duty is to disregard both statements.

    If you took up law and remember your "statutory construction" then you will know what I am talking about. Incidentally, the best legal minds have always found golden bits of wisdom from the Bible. As you have probably noticed, many Supreme Court justices, love to quote the Bible. That is how these learned men value the Bible.

    That isn't necessarily the "correct" conclusion. It's a made-up reconciliation that doesn't really confirm the statement that "Joe is a thin guy". Thin "legs" do not confirm thin guy.

    That's an illustration of how bad apologetics can be.

    The conclusion was "Joe is a fat man w/ thin legs". Sounds logical to me.

    Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed quote boxes. Needs to be /qs, not qs/.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by ringo, posted 04-27-2007 2:43 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by ringo, posted 04-27-2007 3:22 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

      
    NOT JULIUS
    Member (Idle past 2734 days)
    Posts: 219
    From: Rome
    Joined: 11-29-2006


    Message 102 of 320 (397734)
    04-27-2007 3:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 100 by iceage
    04-27-2007 2:53 PM


    Re: Men Wrote God's Words in the Bible
    Hi Iceage,

    The larger issue with the bible is that it is riddled with philosophical inconsistencies.

    You are saved by works; No you are saved by grace and faith.

    Love your enemies; Kill and destroy your enemies (OBTW keep the young virgins women children for yourselves)

    God is mercy; Show no mercy do not spare the little children or the pregnant women.

    God loves children; Blessed are they that dash their enemies little ones on the rocks.

    God is a God of peace; God is a man of war and the lord is his name.

    God does not change his mind; God relents.

    These are typical "loopholes" that I think have been answered logically and exhaustively by many biblical scholars. I do not wish to add to their voices. But let me just point out some which could easily be solved w/ a little further study of the Bible--not the art of NIT PICKING.

    Alleged contradiction: "You are saved by works; No you are saved by grace and faith." It is also written, that we (true Christians) were made to do God's works. No contradiction here. That w/c you quote and that verse that I recalled ( Eph 2:8-10 ??) could be reconciled as: 'God gave us the grace so we can be saved by doing his works--not ours'. Any pseudo-Christian who tells you that faith is enough--ask him why is the Bible so thick of "do's" and "don'ts" if it were so.

    Alleged contradiction: "God is mercy; Show no mercy do not spare the little children or the pregnant women."

    No, contradiction. God is really merciful. But, he has also to act as a judge. It is written, that after so many warnings if an evil man does not turn around even his roots (children) will be uprooted. Where is the fairness here? Think of it this way: 'If God will not get rid of the wicked completely--yes even by destroying their 'seeds'--would he not be unjust to those trying to live righteously?

    You must forgive Gov. Pilate for not answering completely your list. Herod's wife is bugging him. He he he he.

    ps Darn, I don't know how to quote.

    Regards,
    Gov. Pilate

    Edited by Adminnemooseus, : /qs, not qs/.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by iceage, posted 04-27-2007 2:53 PM iceage has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 106 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 3:33 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded
     Message 108 by iceage, posted 04-27-2007 4:26 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 15394
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 3.3


    Message 103 of 320 (397738)
    04-27-2007 3:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 99 by NOT JULIUS
    04-27-2007 2:43 PM


    Re: Men Wrote God's Words in the Bible
    quote:

    "very similar" is not proof of rehearsed witnesses. On the contrary, it is proof of persons witnessing same events.

    Well they're more than just "very similar", and not one of the authors of the three Synoptics can be reliably idenified as a witness of the events.

    quote:

    As to the copying, it is proof of existence of formal records at that time.

    No, it isn't. There's no evidence of any other documents except, possibly one containing the material found in both Matthew and Luke and not in Mark ("Q"). And even that is disputed.

    quote:

    Matthew can trace Jesus geneology coz of these records.

    Except he doesn't mention using any records and Luke comes up with a quite different genealogy (and spare me the fiction that Luke was giving Mary's genealogy - it's not what the book says).

    quote:

    How would you critic the gospel if they were not "synoptics" and varied greatly, say, name of the messiah wa Jesus (by John, Joel (by Matthew), Abraham by (Luke)? Would you believe them?

    What does that have to do with what I said ? In case you've forgotten the similarities go well beyond those expected from people recounting the same events.

    quote:

    I'm no apologist

    You're not a professional apologist, but you certainly are an apologist and showing all the faults associated with apologetics.

    quote:

    I disagree that co-rulerships are invented as an excuse

    I've seen it done. On this forum. I don't say that there are no co-rulerships ever. I do say that they are often invented. If you disagree, why don't you find an example where there is a definite co-rulership (it must be explicitly mentioned) and one book dates the reign from the start of the co-rulership and another from the start of the sole reign. That's what you said happened. So how about just one case where we know that it happened ?

    Use the "peek" function to see how I produce quotes. Or follow the link


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 99 by NOT JULIUS, posted 04-27-2007 2:43 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 107 by NOT JULIUS, posted 04-27-2007 4:15 PM PaulK has responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 17297
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 2.5


    Message 104 of 320 (397739)
    04-27-2007 3:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 101 by NOT JULIUS
    04-27-2007 2:53 PM


    Re: Men Wrote God's Words in the Bible
    pilate_judas writes:

    If you took up law and remember your "statutory construction" then you will know what I am talking about.

    Well, it isn't up to me to look it up. It's up to you to make your own case.

    In any event, we're not talking about statutes here, we're talking about witnesses. How does statutory construction have any relevance?

    The conclusion was "Joe is a fat man w/ thin legs". Sounds logical to me.

    The conclusion is barely plausible - but only if you assume the two accounts have to agree.


    Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 101 by NOT JULIUS, posted 04-27-2007 2:53 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

    Garrett
    Member (Idle past 4425 days)
    Posts: 111
    From: Dallas, TX
    Joined: 02-10-2006


    Message 105 of 320 (397742)
    04-27-2007 3:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by Taz
    04-16-2007 12:43 AM


    Re: Is there such a thing as "The Bible?"
    Taz please refrain from shooting down valid points with meaningless accusations. Nobody is smearing science. The user is merely pointing out that someone who is versed in philosophy and/or religion can pick through true and false writings based on contextual evidence, much in the same way a trained scientist can determine between a true or false theory based on the evidence.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by Taz, posted 04-16-2007 12:43 AM Taz has not yet responded

    Prev1
    ...
    56
    7
    89
    ...
    22NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019