|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical Tall Tales | |||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:Infact it means something even more specific than this and furthermore there are two words translated as "giants" in question in the OT. And it is because of instances like this one that the Septuagint and Vulgate are so valuable. See Hebrew is loaded with these types of words that have an even more specific meaning than what is merely being referred to. But when translated into Koine Greek or Latin, we can deduce it more clearly. Keep in mind that Christian Biblical scholars are numerous and have a much older scholarly tradition than the liberal Biblical scholars of today. Just because technically the Hebrew could mean this or that doesn't mean that it did. Context is critical and so is what it is translated into in other languages, by people who know what is intended in the Ancient Hebrew. quote:It doesn't matter. The Bible calls him a giant and it is definitely plausible. Do you have some condemning information that suggests otherwise? quote:Yes, rather silly to doubt the reliability of the Bible based on this one word isn't it? quote:And do you think that Christian scholars all throughout history are/were somehow inept at this? You give them too little credit. Liberal Scholarship, in the grand scheme of history, is, simply put, a peanut operation, compared to the substantially larger Christian scholarship. And don't kid youself, in a debate between scholars on matters like these, they would just make the Liberal scholars claims like this look silly and shallow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Check out your link then compare to my link in respect to the skip distances used. One of your "minimum skips" is -11,600. that's 11,600 per character. If that fits into minimum skip, what do you consider maximum skip? Bible Codes is a math problem and nothing else. Let's pick a source and a grid size. I'll start a thread about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Sounds like an apeal to authority. "My scholar is bigger than yourse!"
Post some actual translations or some links. This actually standard practice in this forum and is part of the forum rules. You need to supply external supporting evidence, especially when making claims like these. The amount of scholars is irelevant to the truth of the matter. Lots of folks (many of those same scholars in the fine christian scholarly tradition) thought tourching infidels to be a perfectly justifyable thing to do in the name of god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Nuggin,
No, However I'll conceed 11,000 is a bit high compared to the rest. If you take out this higher than normal skip the minimum averages out to around 800 skips. A quick averaging, has Moby Dick skips averaged out to approximately 46,000 skips P.S. No need to have a thread on this. You need to get your averages down to around 800 skips to be in the ball park.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
oh... so moby dick is just not AS accurate. Let's see, moby dick is about 60% as accurate as the bible. That's a pretty good score!
Cool. I bet britanica will be like 90% as accurate. Thanks for pointing out that it has nothing to do with what book it is and everything to do with the score it gets. I guess we now have a scientific test for inerrancy and supernatural god-breathed works This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-02-2006 10:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:In which of my posts has this been demonstrated? Because as you are about to find out, it sure as heck ins't this one. quote:This has already been addressed. I do not need PROOF. I can use logic and evidence to support my argument. Read the forum rules, it covers this. quote:Let me spell it out for you. If the original document was inerrant, and the copies have some minor errors, then we have a copy of an inerrant document with ONLY trivial errors. This becomes even more clear, when we realize that many of these errors are known and we know what the correct words are supposed to be, because other copies do not conatin the same error. So please stop dodging this point and asserting the same thing over and over without addressing this. quote:You have skipped the quote I gave, and given an earlier excerpt from the same link, before the matter was clarified about what we Evangelicals mean when we use the word "inerrant." I don't appreciate you deliberately distorting my argument. It's not like I haven't emphasized the matter and then some already. In post #150 of this thread, another poster had this to say about you.quote:Now I know that he was not jumping to conclusions. The entire quote that I gave, in post #174, really says this. quote:The part that Nuggin quotes is at this website too. Here is the link.http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm Anyone wanting clarification on this issue can go there and see for themselves. Apparently Nuggin cherry picked the part, that minus what I said, would make it look like I am wrong. Nuggin please refrain from doing this in debates with me in the future. I sincerely try to understand your viewpoint, rather than merely give an opposing one, even if it neccessitates misrepresenting yours to remain valid. Please show me the same courtesy in the future. quote:I already gave an explanation as to how the Bible was well preserved. I also already asked you to address those points. You do not have any evidence nor reasonable logic that counters my explanation as to how and why modern Bibles are still basically the same text as when the Bible was originally written. Just so doesn't cut it. You need to address my points and/or present another counter argument that is also plausible and would over-ride what I have pointed out already. The fact of the matter is that many ancient texts have few copies and are themselves copies of copies of copies, etc. But no one goes on tirades hollaring about how what we have is so unrereliable when it comes to those documents. So why is it that the Bible is the exception? And requirements not imposed on other ancient texts are readily, and even eagerly, imposed on the Bible by many modern skeptics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
You need to get your averages down to around 800 skips to be in the ball park. hrmm, what do you think would help in that process. Oh, I know, I could switch to a less rigid language. Perhaps one that doesn't seperate consonents and vowels. Something like Hebrew? I bet the skip distance on Chinese tests is even more accurate, given that they can come up with whole sentences in just a few characters. Does that mean that the Chinese are even more choosen than the Jews?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Yaro, 60% ? 800 skip verses 46,000 skips
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Nuggin,
Does that mean that the Chinese are even more choosen than the Jews? No
I bet the skip distance on Chinese tests is even more accurate, given that they can come up with whole sentences in just a few characters. Go for it. This message has been edited by The Golfer, 01-02-2006 11:03 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
The fact of the matter is that many ancient texts have few copies and are themselves copies of copies of copies, etc. But no one goes on tirades hollaring about how what we have is so unrereliable when it comes to those documents. So why is it that the Bible is the exception? And requirements not imposed on other ancient texts are readily, and even eagerly, imposed on the Bible by many modern skeptics? That's a good point, and let me tell you why. No one is claiming Heroditus is inerrant and god-breathed. No one is claiming the Illiad is special. No one is claiming Gilgamesh really happened. That's the difference? People are claiming the bible has a magic sky man behind it. People claim that the whole world was made in a week and that donkeys could talk. That's the problem. Heroditus gave us lots of historical tidbits verified by archeology, but no one takes seriously his claims of gold-digging ants, etheopians with black sperm, and men with heads in their chests. Some people want to take seriously, myths of the same caliber, which appear in the bible. This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-02-2006 11:16 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:This another debate entirely. So let's skip it here to stay on topic. OK? Nuggin too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:I can see that now and no doubt it can result in a rather large debate itself. So I'll just skip the point to remain on topic. quote:IC. quote:I think it's inerrant to begin with. People misunderstand the Bible in more ways than just what is relevent in regard to scientific observations. I'm not afraid or unwilling to debate issues where skeptics claim the Bible is incompatible with science. But I am only one man and have only so much free time too, so I think I need to stick to one topic at a time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Forms, you are either deliberately trying to piss people off, or you really aren't listening.
I do not need PROOF. I can use logic and evidence to support my argument. You have NOT presented LOGIC or EVIDENCE to support your belief that the original copies of the Bible are inerrant. The closest you've come is saying that you believe that the first copy was inerrant, and that people would have done a good job copying it. That's not evidence. That's not even close to evidence. If it is your belief, that's fine. But since it is you who with the extraordinary claim - that the original text is inerrant - it is up to you to prove it, not up to us to disprove it. Additionally, your lambasting me for quoting the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the link YOU GAVE is flat out annoying. If you don't like the definition it gives - DON'T LINK IT. So far as I can tell, everyone on this thread except for you agrees that "inerrant" means "free from error". Somehow, in your world, "inerrant" means "with errors, but not a lot of them."
we have a copy of an inerrant document with ONLY trivial errors. This becomes even more clear, when we realize that many of these errors are known and we know what the correct words are supposed to be, because other copies do not conatin the same error. Just to be clear, to most of us "many" means "most but not all". I hope that it means that to you. If it does, then you are saying that the Bible contains errors that we don't know about. How you can refer to unknown errors as being ONLY trivial seems a bit disinginous. Do you have some special guide to the unknown errors that no one else knows about? As for this idea that "other copies" don't contain the error. This only holds up each of the "old copies" was copied directly from the original. But even you aren't claiming that that is the case. These copies are in fact copies of copies. And, any error which predates the oldest copy we have could be in every version and completely undetectable.
I already gave an explanation as to how the Bible was well preserved. I also already asked you to address those points. You do not have any evidence nor reasonable logic that counters my explanation as to how and why modern Bibles are still basically the same text as when the Bible was originally written. Again, you are the one making the extraordinary claim here, so it falls to you offer PROOF. Just so you know, saying that "the rabbis probably did a good job" is not proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
quote:I think it's inerrant to begin with. People misunderstand the Bible in more ways than just what is relevent in regard to scientific observations. I'm not afraid or unwilling to debate issues where skeptics claim the Bible is incompatible with science. But I am only one man and have only so much free time too, so I think I need to stick to one topic at a time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
the greater point still stands. You are reducing the "supernatural bible" to a score on some dumb test which is basically a mathmatical wordgame you can play on any book.
Worse plot device since lucas introduced midi-clorine as the explanation for The Force.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024