Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2017 12:46 PM
374 online now:
Dr Jack, DrJones*, nwr, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 367 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,448 Year: 19,054/21,208 Month: 1,813/3,111 Week: 34/574 Day: 34/38 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Can God lie?
xBobTheAlienx
Inactive Junior Member


Message 16 of 79 (99703)
04-13-2004 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object
04-12-2004 8:51 PM


The contradiction in post 1 is that the first 2 verses say that God is all-powerful and can do all things, but the third verse says he cannot lie, and He is therefore no capable of doing all things, and therefore no omnipotent.

I am glad that the Christians here are willing to admit there are errors in the translations. I know plenty of Christians who would try to say something like "well the 700 horses is reffering to only the full-grown male horses, while the 7000 is reffering to all of them". Ive been going to Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa my whole life, and 99.95% of the people there are retards who make moronic explanations and refuse to admit when they are wrong. They try to weasle their way out of their incorrectness with weak, obscure, idiotic arguments. This,in my opinion, is why so many people hate Christians; most are unable to use logic and reason.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-12-2004 8:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 04-13-2004 2:30 PM xBobTheAlienx has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-13-2004 3:51 PM xBobTheAlienx has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8788
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 17 of 79 (99705)
04-13-2004 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by xBobTheAlienx
04-13-2004 2:23 PM


don't generalize too much
This,in my opinion, is why so many people hate Christians; most are unable to use logic and reason.

It is pretty clearly not true that most Christians are unable to use logic and reason. You have been subject to a minority.

I also can't see many people hating those Christians who do "think" as you have seen. Distain and pity are a couple of more likely words.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by xBobTheAlienx, posted 04-13-2004 2:23 PM xBobTheAlienx has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 18 of 79 (99718)
04-13-2004 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by xBobTheAlienx
04-13-2004 2:23 PM


Let me say this in respect to the alleged omnipotence of God : There is one exception, He cannot create faith. He can provide a basis and create circumstances to extract and test faith but He cannot create the one thing He does not know : If a person will use their freedom to do otherwise to choose to trust Him by faith.

I am familiar with the church you mentioned and I agree with your assessment in general. Charismatics gloat over their experience with Christ and elevate that uniqueness to somehow make them superior members of the kingdom. The leadership of that particular church, contrary to internal opinions, adhere to standard fundementalist traits.

Without addressing the specifiics of so called contradictions contained in the Books of Kings, Chronicles, and both Samuels : We must remember that events that favor or disfavor the Northern Kingdom/Kings are slanted accordingly by their scribes, and the same goes for the Southern Kingdom/Chronicles. This is why events recorded by one kingdom disfavor the other in their record/source.

Also, contradictions should more accurately be described as descrepancies. Both sources confirm x amount of deaths, which means a battle took place, and as usual in war the defeated usually do not admit to the same number of deaths that the victor claims.

Bob : look forward to hearing from you and continuing the debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by xBobTheAlienx, posted 04-13-2004 2:23 PM xBobTheAlienx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by funkman, posted 04-13-2004 4:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 32 by Angeldust, posted 04-18-2004 1:12 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
funkman
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 79 (99719)
04-13-2004 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Brian
04-13-2004 11:58 AM


For all we know the ones we have now may be more harmonious than the originals

...except that God has promised to preserve His Word. Meaning that it won't get any worse over time. Also implying that it was right the first time, not that it might get better over time.

Also, the 700 or 7000 is technically a contradiction, it may be a copyist error but the two verses contradict each other. It is quite difficult to miscopy Hebrew numbers given that they have no numeral for 'zero'.

True, true. However, take a look at this link: www.carm.net/diff/2%20Sam10_18.htm
While Hebrew may not have a numeral for zero, it is plain to see how the characters used to designate numbers in Hebrew could easily be copied in error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Brian, posted 04-13-2004 11:58 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Brian, posted 04-13-2004 4:12 PM funkman has not yet responded
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 04-13-2004 4:17 PM funkman has responded
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-13-2004 9:27 PM funkman has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 2429 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 20 of 79 (99727)
04-13-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by funkman
04-13-2004 3:53 PM


Hiya,

except that God has promised to preserve His Word.

How doyou know this has been copied correctly?

Brian


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by funkman, posted 04-13-2004 3:53 PM funkman has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8788
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 21 of 79 (99728)
04-13-2004 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by funkman
04-13-2004 3:53 PM


a contradiction right here! :)
funkman writes:

...except that God has promised to preserve His Word. Meaning that it won't get any worse over time

funkman writes:

While Hebrew may not have a numeral for zero, it is plain to see how the characters used to designate numbers in Hebrew could easily be copied in error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by funkman, posted 04-13-2004 3:53 PM funkman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by funkman, posted 04-13-2004 4:27 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
funkman
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 79 (99730)
04-13-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object
04-13-2004 3:51 PM


Let me say this in respect to the alleged omnipotence of God : There is one exception, He cannot create faith. He can provide a basis and create circumstances to extract and test faith but He cannot create the one thing He does not know : If a person will use their freedom to do otherwise to choose to trust Him by faith.

At the risk of sounding harsh, this is heresy. Faith comes from God. Otherwise no one would ever get saved.
Romans 3:11 "There is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God." This clearly says that man in his natural, sinful state does not seek to know God, thus cannot make a choice to trust Him. And even if a man could choose Christ, is not that choice an action, i.e. a work?
Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
But works cannot get us into heaven. It must be faith. But where does that faith come from if it cannot come from us? This verse answers that, too. "... that we might be justified by the faith of Christ," So it is God who gives faith unto salvation to those He chooses to become saved.

What do you think about the doctrine of foreknowledge, predestination, and election?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-13-2004 3:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-13-2004 10:29 PM funkman has not yet responded

  
funkman
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 79 (99731)
04-13-2004 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by NosyNed
04-13-2004 4:17 PM


Re: a contradiction right here! :)
tricky, tricky!

The originals do not contain the errors. (of course I take this on faith, since we don't have the originals in our hands today) The copying error happened in the translation, and as I've already said, the translations are not what God has said to be infallible and inerrent, only the originals are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 04-13-2004 4:17 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Asgara, posted 04-13-2004 6:09 PM funkman has not yet responded
 Message 25 by SRO2, posted 04-13-2004 6:38 PM funkman has not yet responded

  
Asgara
Member
Posts: 1780
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 24 of 79 (99736)
04-13-2004 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by funkman
04-13-2004 4:27 PM


Re: a contradiction right here! :)
Glad that is finally cleared up. The bible as we know it is fallible and error prone. We do not have any originals so we have no idea what are errors let alone which of the contradictory issues is the correct one.

Thanks for admitting that.


Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by funkman, posted 04-13-2004 4:27 PM funkman has not yet responded

    
SRO2 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 25 of 79 (99737)
04-13-2004 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by funkman
04-13-2004 4:27 PM


Re: a contradiction right here! :)
Well, which one are you using? The copies or the original? I mean, if I found out a translation of something was done wrong, I'd use the original.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by funkman, posted 04-13-2004 4:27 PM funkman has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 26 of 79 (99778)
04-13-2004 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by funkman
04-13-2004 3:53 PM


Anyone who immediately dismisses the Bible because of errors reveals their massive ignorance and/or dishonest intent. There are literally thousands of source manuscripts written and copied across Africa and Eurasia over hundreds and hundreds of years. These sources were written in Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, Syriac, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Latin, etc,etc. Yet the common denominator amongst all these sources is a maximum 5% variation of content and this 5% variation never touches anything but very minor controversies.

Would you dismiss evolution over previous errors and minor controversies ? Would you dismiss evolution because of peppered moths and Piltdown Man ?

You have 12 frickin manuscripts for the entire works of Herodotus yet everything he says is gospel truth. The Bible is accurate, its just that the powers that be do not like what it says.

Biblical translation is very difficult and it requires the brightest minds to objectively research word meanings. Yet, some people would have you believe that difficulty equals "unknowability", they want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Then there are ignorant persons who cling to this country bumpkin dismissal of Holy Writ because of the lack of numerous original sources.

Evolutionists have no explanation as to what causes the flukes and accidents that get the balls rolling (original sources if you will) yet that gaping hole in their theories is at best a minor controversy.

Likewise in Biblical translation the solid majority of sources are indeed copies of originals. When the various dead languages (greek, coptic, syriac, aramaic, ethiopic, etc.etc.); written in different locations at different times (ancient) end up saying the same thing (5% variation maximum) then guess what ? That is what the originals said and for anyone to say otherwise defies logic and intelligence.

The fact that the copy sources were produced in different places and in various dead languages at completely different times/years, all from preceding copies, and those copies from preceding copies until it was first copied from the original, and yet the content of ALL these sources contain a maximum 5% variation MEANS the Bible is accurate. No other conclusion can be made unless the facts of this post are ignored. Once again, powers that be just don't like what the Bible says so they attack via this dogmatic issue of translation difficulty equals unknowability nonsense.

Source of information : Dr. Gene Scott


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by funkman, posted 04-13-2004 3:53 PM funkman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Brian, posted 04-15-2004 6:58 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 27 of 79 (99802)
04-13-2004 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by funkman
04-13-2004 4:21 PM


The statement of mine that you cut and pasted is the message of the Bible

Funkman quote :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the risk of sounding harsh, this is heresy. Faith comes from God. Otherwise no one would ever get saved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with this statement of yours and it is completely compatible with my cut and pasted statement which you called "heresy".

Once again, God can provide a basis for faith, He can create circumstances to extract and test faith but He cannot create faith - only you/I can create that which God wants. This is why, in the Bible, faith is not defined. God seeks to see what our free will capabilities can produce in the area of trusting Him.

Hebrews 11:1 does NOT define faith - it proclaims what faith accomplishes. The rest of the chapter demonstrates examples of faith that previous persons produced in their particular circumstances.

Calvinian predestinarianism IS HERESY......PERIOD !

IF free will exists God cannot be perfectly omniscient. When any given verse of scripture says God knows "all"/"everything" Genesis 22 provides the exception to those verses.

Genesis 22:12 has God telling Abraham "Now I know thou fearest me".
This means what it says, until a certain moment arrived God did not know FOR CERTAIN if Abraham feared Him. This chapter clearly defines the strict confines of the exception of God's omniscience.

Fear is a synonym for trust and love. If you fear God you will trust God and in so doing you love God. Trusting God is the only way to demonstrate love for an invisible being.

Conclusion :

God knows all the choices we face in any given circumstance, but He does not know for certain if we will choose to use our free will to trust Him in that circumstance given the opportunity to do otherwise.
He is prepared to react in either scenario BUT HE DOES NOT KNOW FOR SURE because the potential "trustee" has free will - the ability to change mind at will. This fact, understood in this context, (Genesis 22 ) demonstrates the exception to God's omniscience.

I don't think I am right - I know I am right.

I will read your response but I will not keep arguing this subject. I do not want this topic to drift into this area against the will of the topic creator.

Thanks,

Willowtree


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by funkman, posted 04-13-2004 4:21 PM funkman has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 2429 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 28 of 79 (100177)
04-15-2004 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object
04-13-2004 9:27 PM


Anyone who immediately dismisses the Bible because of errors reveals their massive ignorance and/or dishonest intent.

I honestly do not think that I have ever met anyone who has done this. But you still need to explain why so many highly educated people who have spent a lifetime studying and teaching the Bible find so many errors in it.

There are literally thousands of source manuscripts written and copied across Africa and Eurasia over hundreds and hundreds of years. These sources were written in Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, Syriac, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Latin, etc,etc. Yet the common denominator amongst all these sources is a maximum 5% variation of content and this 5% variation never touches anything but very minor controversies.

I have never been impressed by this statistic, it is quite widespread on the Net, but it is never satisfactorily outlined. What exactly do you mean by this 5% figure?

You should try comparing the genealogies in the Books of Genesis and Exodus in the Samaritan Pentateuch, The Septuagint Codex Alexandricus, and the Masoretic Text, and then get back to me. (Example of harmony: lifespan of Kohath in MT and SP 133 years, LXX 130 years. Amram in MT 137 years SP LXX 136 years (incidently the LXX(Vatanicus gives Amrams lifespan as 132 years).

I have been looking at biblical chronology in three different Bible texts, here are the genealogies of Genesis 5.

The first figure is the age at which the begat their first child, second column is their remaining years of life, and third column is total lifespan. Stats taken from Jeremey Hughes The Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology JSOT 66 Sheffield 1990.

 Text		MT			LXX	SP

Adam 130 + 800 = 930 130 + 800 = 930 230 + 700 = 930
Seth 105 + 807 = 912 105 + 807 = 912 205 + 707 = 912
Enoch 90 + 815 = 905 90 + 815 = 905 190 + 715 = 905
Kenan 70 + 840 = 910 70 + 840 = 910 170 + 740 = 910
Mahalalel 65 + 830 = 895 65 + 830 = 895 165 + 895 = 895
Jared 162 + 800 = 962 62 + 785 = 847 162 + 800 = 962
Enoch 65 + 300 = 365 65 + 300 = 365 165 + 200 = 365
Methuselah 187 + 782 = 969 67 + 653 = 720 167 + 802 = 969
Lamech 182 + 595 = 777 53 + 600 = 653 188 + 565 = 753

There is far more than a 5% variation between these texts and the variation rate would be extremely high when you consider that the dating of all biblical events would also be different, for example for the same genealogies above the MT has the age of the world at 1651 years, the LXX has the world at 1307 years, and the SP has the world 2207 years old. Biblical chronologies are a disaster if you take them out of context.

The early texts are constantly in conflict with the ages of not only how old these guys were when they died, but also when they fathered their first child. If you want any more examples from these texts, let me know and I will post them.

You have 12 frickin manuscripts for the entire works of Herodotus yet everything he says is gospel truth.

All 12 far older than any Bible, and all 100% in agreement with each other, no 5% here.

But you are using this as a figure of speech arent you? Any one that has even a basic knowledge of Herodotus knows there are errors in his work, I will assume you are saying this for dramatic effect.

The Bible is accurate, its just that the powers that be do not like what it says.

Accurate in what regard?

Biblical translation is very difficult and it requires the brightest minds to objectively research word meanings. Yet, some people would have you believe that difficulty equals "unknowability", they want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But when some of these brightest minds, such as Martin Noth, Roland de Vaux, or Robert Carroll show errors in the text you wont believe them?

Likewise in Biblical translation the solid majority of sources are indeed copies of originals. When the various dead languages (greek, coptic, syriac, aramaic, ethiopic, etc.etc.);

Hold on there WT, I think you have made a slight error, you have listed Greek as a dead language, I take it this was an oversight?

written in different locations at different times (ancient) end up saying the same thing (5% variation maximum) then guess what ?

But none of these were written independent of the other texts, and they were selected for their harmony. It isnt as if the books of the Bible were written in isolation and they were suddenly brought together and they some how magically matched up, the Chronicler, for example, clearly sat with Samuel and Kings in front of him and revised them, or mutilated them if you want to be completely honest.

That is what the originals said and for anyone to say otherwise defies logic and intelligence.

It actually makes more sense for the originals to be a total mess and the consequent books to be attempt to remove errors and difficulties, if the originals were perfect then there would have been no need for people, such as the Chronicler, the Priestly author, the Elohist or the Deuteronomist to edit, revise and splice the texts together.

The fact that the copy sources were produced in different places and in various dead languages at completely different times/years, all from preceding copies, and those copies from preceding copies until it was first copied from the original, and yet the content of ALL these sources contain a maximum 5% variation MEANS the Bible is accurate.

But which version is ACCURATE, the one that is 3% different from what, what are these texts varying FROM! The variation is UNKNOWN as there are no originals, the originals COULD be 50% different from the extant texts for all anyone knows, and the 5% MAY (though I really dont believe this) only exist between extant docs.

No other conclusion can be made unless the facts of this post are ignored.

Not at all, we dont need to ignore any of these FACTS, although you might have to explain clearly what the 5% variation actually means in this context.

Once again, powers that be just don't like what the Bible says so they attack via this dogmatic issue of translation difficulty equals unknowability nonsense.

Truth is WT, the translation of the texts is the least of the Bibles problems. Archaeology, science and history have, especially in the last 100 years blown Bible accuracy 100% (not 5%)

Source of information : Dr. Gene Scott

Is this the only source you ever read WT?

I don't say this as an insult, I am just interested in how widely you study this stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-13-2004 9:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-15-2004 11:25 PM Brian has responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 29 of 79 (100299)
04-15-2004 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Brian
04-15-2004 6:58 AM


Willowtree quote :
______________________________________________________________________
Anyone who immediately dismisses the Bible because of errors reveals their massive ignorance and/or dishonest intent.
______________________________________________________________________

Brian's response :
______________________________________________________________________
I honestly do not think that I have ever met anyone who has done this. But you still need to explain why so many highly educated people who have spent a lifetime studying and teaching the Bible find so many errors in it.
______________________________________________________________________

Your response seems to imply that I subscribe to Biblical inerrancy - I do not. Inerrancy is a sacred cow of fundementalism. I have, in times of sheer boredom, defended inerrancy when opponent was citing some passage that could easily be explained. I find the various inerrancy topics that exist in this forum to be a complete waste of time.

When God possesses His word it is a given that it is inerrant. When He transfers that word to a chosen vessel for recording it instantly has the potential to become eligible for error. The Bible says God could of used angels to communicate His word but He declined. He purposely chose error-prone Adamkind and decided that He could live with the errors. God and His eternal genius COULD OF produced a written record that would be irrefuteable, He didn't because that would negate the need for faith and thus ruin Adamkind's reason for being.

Dr. Scott spends his entire life correcting the errors in the Bible.
My original point was to dismiss the ridiculous and prevalent notion that errancy equals unreliability/unknowability.

Brian quote :
______________________________________________________________________
I have never been impressed by this statistic, it is quite widespread on the Net, but it is never satisfactorily outlined. What exactly do you mean by this 5% figure?
______________________________________________________________________

This was your response to my claim that the content of the Bible varies 5%.

Dr. Scott says 2-3% but I went with the high.

This means, that whatever source you go to, from whatever dead language, that whatever translation is made, that the content of what is being said/communicated varies from 2-5%. This fact/claim is intended to declare that whatever the Bible says, it says with consistency, that the various sources, written in various places and times, in various dead languages are all communicating the same information with a maximum 5% variation. This is why God chose to communicate His word this way: We have irrefuteable CORROBORATION that the content within all says the same thing.

Dr. Scott presently is demonstrating this fact every week during his sermons on Romans. For about 10 weeks now he has written 3:25 on the clear boards from the greek, syriac, aramaic, coptic, arabic, and ethiopic sources/manuscripts. They all say the exact same thing with minor variations; like "through faith in his blood" or "by his blood through faith". What Dr. Scott has proven concerning the various versions is the translation error of "propitiation". All the sources just cited say "propitiatory" - huge difference theologically.

Then you present genealogy descrepancies.

Very valid questions you raise - obviously.

Brian I do not know the answers to these questions/points.

Not to make light of this evidence but to theists this is minor controversies. The common denominators are: The persons in question did indeed live. They had children, etc.etc.

The 5% variation claim is made in behalf of the entire Bible with the percent rising in certain chapters/verses and declining to nill in still others.

Your point concerning the genealogy inconsistencies is apparent. I would need to retrieve the extensive teaching Dr. Scott has conducted here and review it thoroughly.

BTW, what do you think of the LXX as a source ? I am very curious.

BTW, is Matthew's genealogy in error ?

You caught my point concerning Herodotus. I was prepared to drill you but after thinking about it I knew it was a cheesy attempt - sorry.
Some people take Herodotus at face value and I cannot figure out why.

Yes I listed greek to be a dead language. When I say greek I wrongly assume everyone already knows that I am speaking about "N.T./koinae" greek.

Brian quote :
______________________________________________________________________
It actually makes more sense for the originals to be a total mess
______________________________________________________________________

What ?

Did you accidentially fall asleep while typing this ?

If you didn't then what on Earth could this mean ?

The implications are outrageous BUT I will give you a chance to explain. I would place a happy face here if I knew how.

About Dr. Scott : He is not a writer. He has not written a book in at least 25 years, yet he has written about 20 or so books.
I study with Dr. Scott on a full time basis via my close proximity, yet anyone can do the same 24 hours a day. His teaching is 24/365 via the internet (picture and sound), satellite, short-wave radio. I also study sources that he uses which are offered by this website :
www.capstonebooks.com

Brian I know your expertise and interest is in the O.T.

I actually value you as a source as I rarely ever venture outside of Dr. Scott recommended sources only because there are so many. Why study sources that challenge settled issues ?
Occasionally I keep up on what the enemy is doing (Burton L. Mack types), but Dr. Scott teaches from the greatest array of sources and subjects - I never get bored and I receive a very well rounded exposure to what is relevant in these end times : God's Word. I wish you would listen to Dr. Scott as there are atheists who do for the very purpose of trying to refute him. I can't prove it but I believe he has the second highest IQ in the world.

[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-15-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Brian, posted 04-15-2004 6:58 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 04-16-2004 5:49 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Brian, posted 04-16-2004 5:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 2429 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 30 of 79 (100352)
04-16-2004 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Cold Foreign Object
04-15-2004 11:25 PM


HI WT,

Let me say at the start that I admire your honesty on several of the matters being discussed, it is a welcome relief from the usual bluffing I find on forums like this. I agree with your outlook that if we don't know the answer to something then we admit we don't know.

Your response seems to imply that I subscribe to Biblical inerrancy - I do not. Inerrancy is a sacred cow of fundementalism. I have, in times of sheer boredom, defended inerrancy when opponent was citing some passage that could easily be explained. I find the various inerrancy topics that exist in this forum to be a complete waste of time.

I know you aren't an inerrantist, I have read a few of your posts before on the matter. I myself cannot be bothered with the silly arguments over this verse says 2 and another says 3, it is a waste of time.

Dr. Scott spends his entire life correcting the errors in the Bible.

So we agree that the bible has errors in it, once we admit that then we have to be open to the possibility that nothing in it is reliable, and then believers should understand why some people do not trust the Bible.

This was your response to my claim that the content of the Bible varies 5%.

Dr. Scott says 2-3% but I went with the high.

The 5% is well touted around the Net.

But I have NEVER seen the criteria properly explained before, for this to be correct then every extant text would have to be compared, I really have no idea how a percentage could be arrived at.

Not to make light of this evidence but to theists this is minor controversies. The common denominators are: The persons in question did indeed live. They had children, etc.etc.

Yes I know there are these common denominators, however, a difference in a genealogy has a knock on effect, it alters the dating of the flood, of the Patriarchs, the bondage in Egypt etc. this would *suggest* that there has to be more than a 5% variation. Having said all that, the 5% variation thing would take many years to unravel, so until I see a decent breakdown of the stats, I am going to suspend my judgement about this.

BTW, what do you think of the LXX as a source ? I am very curious.

I am not tryng to be pedantic here, but which particular LXX, there are quite a few, the Alexandricus, Vaticanus, Cottonianus and the Venetus.

But generally speaking, the LXX is far too ridden with translational errors, 72 authors translate it in 72 days (if this isnt a myth)doesnt augur well. The Jews rejected it because of the many errors in it. The Red Sea (Sea of Reeds) fiasco is down to a mistranslation in the LXX, and the erroneous 'virgin' birth translation is well known. It should also be noticed that when the LXX was first written the books of the Old Testament had not been fixed yet, so the LXX contains more books than the Jewish scriptures. Some LXX texts contain Judith, Tobit, two (or 4) Books of the Maccabeans, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon etc. There are far too many errors to go into individually, but in general, I don't see the LXX as reliable at all.

BTW, is Matthew's genealogy in error ?

Oh well, this would depend on what we accept as an error, I think it serves a purpose, it is definately schematic in nature, but I don't think it is meant to be taken literally.

It actually makes more sense for the originals to be a total mess

Well look at it this way, if you were gieven a text to read and copy for future generations, would you leave errors in it or would you remove them and add more accurate information?

My argument here is that the originals *could* have been quite different from what we have now and subsequent editors may have removed many errors that we don't even know about today.

It doesn't make sense for a perfect text to break down into what we have today, it makes more sense for texts based on the original to be more accurate.

Again though, it is far more complex than this, for example many Books are composite accounts written at different times and in different places. The pentateuch is an amalgamation of at least four different authors, the P, D, E and J sources, these different sources can (in many cases) confidently be identified as coming from different sources, this is why there are more than one version of many Bible events, two creation myths, two flood myths, two (at least) Exodus myths for example.

We are simply never going to know what the originals said, it is pure speculation, however, this could mean that they were indeed harmonius and perfect, but I don't see why Jews would corrupt them if they were. You see the Bible authors make no real attempt to disguise what they were doing, the Chronicler is quite happy to revise samuel and kings, now why are these books allowed to contain conflicts in narrative? I am more likely to ask myself *why* the Chronicler felt that he had to revise the earlier work.

Catch you later.

Brian


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-15-2004 11:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017