Perceptions of Reality

The postulate is that the Bible has been transcribed so many times that the original message has been obscured due to either intentional or unintentional manipulation or embellishment. But how does that claim stand up to scrutiny?First of all, you have to remember that a scribe was considered a profession. In fact it was was a very prestigious career by virtue of the level of schooling it took. We forget that most people in ancient times were illiterate, and the scribes were not just literate but completely adept n their trade. You also have to consider that scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and certainly altering the Word, whether intentional or unintentional, would bring about dire consequences.But all of this is merely secondary information when we actually juxtapose certain copies from others. What do we see when we do so? We have had to go by the Masoretic text, Septuagint, and the Vulgate for centuries. What we find is that all of our present-day copies of the Hebrew text which come from an early period are in remarkable agreement. As if that wasn't enough, the Dead Sea Scrolls repudiate the bald assertion that the text has been tampered with.So, if you can demonstrate for me how the ancient Bible is significantly different from the ones I own, please share this esoteric information. The oldest copies we had were the Masoretic texts dating from 900 AD. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we empirically know that it dates back to the BC, and it is in total agreement with the Masoretic text. That means the Jews have been careful in transcribing over the centuries, which gives you no reason to continue with your suspicions.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

LOL! The original works of Plato don't exist either because it hasn't survived decay. And yet, do we see anyone questioning the validity of the text or subjecting its fans to a harangue on why the original no longer exists. No, they do not. But if you are so certain, I defy you to back up the claim. There is exactly 17 instances of disparity in the words between the Masoretic and the DSS. All of those words, minus one, are only variant in textual enunciation, like how an Englishman would spell 'honour' but an American might spell it 'honor.' There is no contextual change in the meaning of the words from the Masorettes to the Essenes documents. There is only one word that has caused a bit of a stir, and that translates to the word "light" in Isaiah. The DSS does not have it, where the Masoretic text. Again, the LXX has always stood up against scrutiny. It was always wondered whether or not the Masoretic and LXX differed on key areas, but when the DSS was discovered, it made it clear that very little deviation existed, such as which I already shared. What they supply is the translation evidence, i.e you'll see LXX = Septuagint, VL = Latin Vulgate, M = Masorettic text, DSS = Dead Sea Scrolls. They are quoting sources not giving you a disclaimer that the Bible can't be trusted as reliable document. Again, you and Nighttrain must have some esoteric knowledge because the harmony between the texts has always been known as remarkable. Therefore, you must have some special insight that no one else has. I've taken inerrancy to mean that Bible is God's Word from start to finish and that God will always make it so that His Word is unfailing-- meaning whatever He says you can take it to the bank. We all know that humans are fallible, but God is not. Some extend the meaning to mean that Bible is free from error, but there is some error from the original. The deviations are so nominal, however, that its absurd to question its historicity. If anything, it should be lauded for its meticulous effort to keep it free from deviation.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

is that ALL you have to say? Show me the original writings???So what if you see the ORIGINAL writings, do you read Hebrew and Greek??Will it make you a believer if I showed you the writings???

(1) Discussing the aspects of bible validity is not part of the perception of reality. Please take this issue to a new or other existing thread. Preferably on one of the bible forums.(2) As related to perceptions of reality, we have to wonder if even the first person was mentally capable of understanding the reality.(3) How do we know that similar communications with other people that resulted in other religions is not just as {valid\correct\real}?These last two points relate to ALL religions, not just christianity: how can we validate that even the 1st representation is a proper reflection of reality?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Discussing the bible is OT to this thread - there are enough other threads on this topic that it does not need to be discussed here.The question is how do we validate concepts where we do not have complete ... or any ... evidence.How do we judge that concept {A} is more likely to be real than concept {B}?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

the issue is determining validity of perceptions of reality, not in whether the bible is correct. we have enough of those threads to continue that discussion on one of those.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

please keep bible specific comments to a bible verification thread.this topic is about perceptions of reality and how can we validate them.part of this is recognizing that religious experiences are components of ALL religions, so discussing ONE is unfair to the others.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

the specific validity of one religion is not relevant to the topic of the perceptions of reality, as we have to allow discussion of religious experiences from ALL religions on an equal basis.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

the validity of scriptures is not relevant to perceptions of reality relating to ALL religions and their experiences. we have other threads to discuss that issue.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

These may just as easily be perceptions from other sources, your personal knowledge and world view interpretations again structure how you see these experiences, not necessarily that they would not be perceived by people of other religions for similar reasons. Why do you think that happens? Does sex change the way reality is perceived? How would it do that? Plus you say this happens to both you and your husband ...The question is - regardless of sex and faith and race and any other demographic - how do we determine perceptions of reality are based on reality?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Could you elaborate a little on the 'other sources' because I've tried to imagine other sources and could not come up with any. No, but I would say that sex changes the reality because of the perception.For expample when a man speaks to a man he thinks in manly terms, but when he speaks to a woman he thinks, that perhaps the reality is not the same for them and therefore they must speak differently to them for that reason. So, even though reality doesn't really change the logical reasoning changes gear to serve the disadvantage many men think women are naturally given because she is physically weaker than he and tied up into her emotions. For the most part they are right. It takes alot of discipline for me, more specifically, training by my husband to not think with my emotions when it comes to logic and to put things in their proper perspective. Plus there is the long winded problem that alot of women deal with because of this semi/false reality placed upon them that makes them feel the necessity to explain things five different ways to be sure you get the point. This I believe comes from a womans job of having to explain things to children. Its actually an excellent quality in the adult world because of the intricacies involved in communication. It can be a bother to men because they think they get the point already. But women know the problems of communication and so they are careful to explain themselves in depth not because men are like children to them but that the language is complex and requires care when using it to explain complex things.I'll come back and respond to the rest in a moment.The question is - regardless of sex and faith and race and any other demographic - how do we determine perceptions of reality are based on reality?

Apologies,RAZD, for derailing the thread.
Thoughts at random.
I guess the concept of reality must be allied to a certain number of observations--claims, if you will. Dunno where the cutoff point will be reached. 5? 10? 20? Certainly, there will be anecdotal experiences reported, and they may even be genuine, in a realistic sense, not delusional. But, they remain oddities until such time as more of the same surface, and we can assess whether the proposers are reporting something factual or an experience of the mind. Many tales of seafarers were dismissed as delusions till repeated physical sights and concrete evidence caused them to pass from fantasy to fact. Some were so bizarre (like the Kraken and mermaids) that the tales were never accepted. (Anyone who has seen a manatee or dugong up close will never confuse the two with mermaids. :-p).With mass hysteria, religious conversions, riots, etc., are we dealing with mental aberrations on a grand scale, or something on the chemical level? I suppose physical apparitions tend to get confirmed a lot sooner than apparitions of the mind, even though both were reported.On the individual level,how is one to determine the reality of what may be an optical illusion in the desert? Walk it off? Have forty winks and see if it goes away? Surely, knowledge of these aberrations must be fundamental to making a judgement. Just like being aware of the avenues that the mind can wander down gives us a tool to pick real from unreal. Somewhere in the reported incident may lie clues to separate fact from fancy. Does the recipient vary the story from day to day? Does the reporter embellish (a la Matthew) the tale at repeated tellings? Does it retain clarity over a period? Are the names changed to protect the innocent? Yet we have had so many great concepts and inventions that were created within our minds, even if it took physical work to bring them to fruition. Were they delusional? What of the ideas and inventions that didn`t pan out?While it might take a bit of the spontaneity out of life, I guess a sceptical frame of mind should put new claims of unusual events or concepts on hold until such times as they can be compared with similar claims,and excluding all other possible explanations. Accepting oddities first-up is the province of children and the gullible.

No probs, I'm guilty as well. Repetition of experiences even if it cannot be replicated at will would seem to me to be an indicator.Of course in these areas we must include not just religious apparitions and out-of-body experiences, even telepathy, but also

• Bigfoot
• Yeti
• Loch Nessy
• UFO's
• Ghosts (and just in time ...)

The problems may be more in breaking them down into common categories that try to separate the experience from the experiencee (and their perceptions of reality).There is also the question of leaving trace evidence. That is one of the crunches - is it delusion or real? Is everything illusion? Can we ever know?It's a pandora's box if you open it a crack. Skeptism and curiosity perhaps are the keys, skepticism's reluctance coupled with curiosity's adventurism. Maybe just drinking liquids and eating well will help - all cultures have anecdotes of ascetic behavior and vision, and this is probably the most - not primitive but early - discovery of hallucinogenic type visions, certainly we see evidence of it in australia, the americas, asia, and the middle east.Certainly these kinds of experiences can be induced by numerous means: does that make the experience less telling? Some study here could show that such visions occur when parts of the brain are {blocked\inactive\... or otherwise occupied?} We see this behavior with the god-helmet and this pattern with brain scans on nuns and monks.But we also see references to these kinds of experiences in ancient religious texts, and it may be possible to bring modern understanding to part of what was going on. Others may have different explanations - the griffin of greece based on interpretations of fossil dinosaurs (protoceratops) - where the perceptions of reality color how things are interpreted, and making a world where kraken is not bizarre. Perhaps the dragon of china is also based on a fossil, perhaps an Elasmosaurus?This is why knowledge is cumulative, sometimes anchored in the past, and some things that seem bizarre are not strange in a new light.Perhaps we are trading old myths for new, more coherent ones.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Telepathy, sensations out of sync with time, extra-sensory perceptions, as a repository of sensing spirit world items, making predictions, etcetera, with different perceptions of who is causing them. No question that no two people can share the same experience, and that there is a sexual divide based on different {agenda\need\ability}, but this doesn't change data, information, logic. It may change the way fantasies are constructed, but anyone can base a world view on a fantasy (such as that men are superior to women). For the same size? We shouldn't mistake sexual dimorphism size for physical ability. The gorilla and chimpanzee are much stronger than human because they have a slightly longer leverage arm where their muscles attach to the bones (and if you look at your arm and visualize where the tendon attaches to the forearm to allow lifting of objects it is obviously near the fulcrum of the elbow, so a small increase there makes a major difference in strength). There is no similar difference between sexes.The rest comes down to differences in the development of muscles, (where there is some advantage from hormones - those mood drugs - for men). Only if you let men define what are "emotions" -- ever seen two guys go at a knock-down fight for no reason other than their emotions? The display behavior at sports games?Do you let men get away with "it's natural for boys to fight" without also putting the blame on their hormones and emotions ... ? But you see this with everyone emotionally attached to a concept. The more that attachment is based on belief the more the emotional elements interfere with the logical ones. This is the heart of denial of evidence contrary to a belief, not that the evidence can't be true but that you can't believe it is true. One reason I'll never understand men wanting polygamy ... Certainly communication is one of the strengths of women. This fact was recognised in some ancient (and some not so ancient) cultures where the cultures do not bias men over women the way judeo-christian/middle-east\etc cultures do.See Forgotten Founders (on-line book) about the role of native indian tribes in the formation of a democratic govenrment in the USof(N)A -- and the role of women on their councils. No hurry, this thread won't go away for another 200 or so posts (they set a ~300 post limit on threads just to keep things fresh).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

has telepathy been scientifically proven or is it a belief? I'm not sure what do you say?sensations out of sync with time?
How is that possible? I mean scientifically.extra sensory perceptions...
would dreaming a dream about something happening a week in advance fall into that category? Or seeing something in my mind that has not yet occurred and there be no logical reason for it to occur. It was a real picture in my mind in that I could describe it to detail. What made it supernatural was that the vision or picture I described took place before the event actually occurred. I myself did not see it. I guess I could say my husband lied. But that is out of character for him.I looked it up and it says that it means perception outside the range of normal sense perception. (gee that was informative!)
Thanks to the american heritage dictionary.Either way, it looks like your suggesting something that science cannot prove. Maybe you are and so I'm guessing that perhaps you do not think that there is "no" supernatural but that "whose" supernatural is "the" supernatural "one" in which to beleive.
If that is the case, I'm in agreement. If somebody tells me they have had a supernatural experience, I have no reason to think them a liar. And to think that all have lied about their experiences in order to promote their religion I find..well not impossible but highly improbable. Like the evolution thing. Anyway, so, if then 1 percent of the whole told the truth about the supernatural experience, then we must contend with that one percent.So we would have to determine that they were not all suffering from an altered reality??? Which would look like what exactly? A kindergarden example would be great if you can manage it. I know sometimes its hard to simplify these things down to the lowest term possible but I would appreciate it. I do this with my husbands brother all the time who is the intellect in both perception and "word" if you know what I mean. He may say, a sentence involving a series of words I've never heard of and when I question him to the point of vaguely getting at the heart of the idea I usually end with saying, "oh so your saying blah blah blah blah blah" ("blah" for lack of example)but the example is basically one of reducing the explanation to at least a Jack and Jill level. It's fun you ought to try it, I have to do it all the time with the kids. See how long I took explaining all that???O.k. next I did not mean to infer that the sex of a human changes the reality of an experience. It may give one a different view of the reality. Since reality is multifaceted and it takes a well rounded person to see the many facets it has. Hence the saying "there's more to that than meets the eye" It is so true, and I believe that man is more apt to see things with certain eyes and women see things with different eyes. No two sights supercede the other but both are necessary. I feel God made the woman in such a way to "aid" the man in life. Hence the term "help meet" The man and the woman are a lock and a key. One without the other is useless. Its not that it cannot be done but God said that it was "not good for man to be alone" and I "believe" that. There I go believing stuff again.
I'm sure it can be scientifically proven. Probably has.
What does it mean when you believe in something before it is proven by science?
And concerning your final statement about the fantasy of men being superior, I do not think it is a fantasy. They are in fact superior in many things but then so are women above men in many things. There is nothing wrong with being superior, only in demeaning the existance of another in connection with your superiorness. (is that a word?) under normal circumstances its plain to see that women are more emotional (meaning they are more sensitive to the emotional because the role they are in is a nurturing role (keen to seeing emotional needs. They seem to be naturally equipped to handle it. Meaning the chemical levels in their body are prepared for that) Their job requires them to be less physically stronger than that of the man. A mans job usually requires them to be physically stronger than the woman. Even if he has an office job he has the mental and physical capabilities and stamina and testostrone to bring the strong male out in himself when needed. I realize that these roles have been reversed in many instances and I also believe it has hurt society greatly because of they have attempted to change reality because of improper perception. (Notice I didn't say false? Because it is a true perception in that it is truly perceived as such but that doesn't make it proper, just like me thinking your a woman doesn't make you one, it may have you behave as one but it would require surgery to make it a reality.) But the roles of a man and woman have been reversed for reasons that prompted them to be reversed. (male not appreciating his help meet and causing her to be unfulfilled which in turn causes her to seek fulfillment from other means. This is stemmed from a male not knowing/taught his position and its responsibilites in the marriage and/or a female not knowing/taught/accepting her position and responsibilities in the marriage or vice versa) Either one of those being out of order or lacking will cause deficiencies in the person that must be met and will therefore seek means to be met. It is Gods plan for a marriage and it works beautifully when applied properly. He has it so the man does not think of himself but instead the wife, and he has it so the woman does not think of herself but instead the husband. It's not 50 50 but 100 100. Any other way results in incomplete fulfillment. It is my perception and belief and reality that the only way to become these sorts of people is to have God/JesusChrist create in us a new person, through His love toward us which in turn we project to others. [qs]The rest comes down to differences in the development of muscles, (where there is some advantage from hormones - those mood drugs - for men).[qs] it doesn't take much advantage to be stronger. Even if he is a little stronger the difference is there and obvious usually. Sure a woman can go out into the field and become GI Jane and probably out do alot of men in alot of things. But dad cannot breastfeed the baby. And GI Jane may be able to become alot like a man in alot of things and maybe even better but she will require surgery and chemical body changes (if there is a surgery for that) as well as would the male in order to accomodate the procreation with this female turned male. Now I know there is no such surgery for that. The whole concept is utterly unnatural and causes for much problems on all human levels. I didn't mean to imply that men do not have emotions. On the "balanced" level, a man is usually content to talk specifics. A woman on the other hand tends to discuss the details of the specifics. It is why the husband should value her opinion. For God has given her special eyes that easily see things their eyes are not always focused to see. It should bring them together in a helpful way. Unfortunately when the husband and wife do not understand this, the wife usually feels left out of life and so begins to overly assert often times unasked for opinions in order to feel important and if the husband does not accept her advice (often times laced with criticism) she takes it personally. If he is a good husband he is suddenly trapped. For if he gives in to her tactic he is not acting as a husband should (considering all options including the opinion of the wife and then doing what he sees as best) and if he doesn't give in to her tactic, she will make him pay in ways he could never have imagined. It is a cruel procedure but I don't know many women who are not guilty of it. no, I do not, for manliness has nothing in common with frivolous fighting. Not that there aren't times when it is manly to fight. For there is a time. It would be no different letting a woman get away with, "oh, I'm p.m.s.ing, thats why I'm so moody."Sure there are chemicals that would have us bend to their will but that is what is so different about the human. We have the ability to choose what we will think and how we will feel and act accordingly. We have something that science cannot put in a test tube and measure or test. We can reason and rationalize and communicate thoughts in abstract ways. We do not have to say yes to 'pms' we can say, 'no' Discomfort does bring out certain qualities and behaviors in people, but to say we cannot help ourselves is just a lie we like to believe so that we don't have to stop. Men have the excuse of testostrone for unmanly behaviour, women have the excuse of harmones for their devious ploys, and parents have the excuse of ADD for their absent or bad parenting. This is the one I couldn't wait to get to.
I believe that we are emotional creatures on different levels in different degrees. That is a fact. So, we have the problem of emotions on every level with every concept. To what degree is the question, are our emotions affecting our concept/perceptions/reality. For some it is very difficult to spank their child. I have conflicting emotions when I have to. My mental emotion passionately asserts that if I do not then I am creating a creature that will think it is god. My heart emotions think of the pain it will cause and how they may not understand and think that I do not love them. Although I have conflicting emotions that are both strong, I have to make a rational decision, with the good of the child in mind. What is more important? Creating a creature that thinks it is god (and an unruly god it would be!) or worrying that perhaps they will think that I do not love them? I can tell you what I choose! But then there are parents that do not understand those ideas or concepts because the reality of them has not invaded their lives (yet) but once you create the unruly god you will have a very hard time uncreating it!
Now your talking all out emotional war. The object of the game soon becomes, not what is best for the child (not that they ever knew what that was) but what is quickest for the parent. Parents who "don't know" what to do with a child will try and find ways to appease "it". If you don't know what the child needs then give it what it wants. Shut that thing up becomes the constant rule. Thus feeding the unruliness of the little god that is growing into a monster that controls two grown adults. The source of ADD. Ignorance in parenting. A perfect example of how what you don't know does indeed hurt you. And the child.If there is evidence to disprove God then we should certainly look in to it. If there is evidence to disprove my supernatural experiences or whatever you want to call them, I am open to listening. For the truth does not change with concept, perception,evidence, or belief. The truth is the truth. All the rest may change in attaining the truth but the truth will always remain as it is. No matter how many ways you twist and turn the cube, if it is unmeddled with, it will remain a cube. that is quite funny and easy to answer. The only situations where you find polygamy is where a religious belief is observed that meddles with the truth of a woman being seen and not heard, thus solving your insightful but nonexistant problem. LOLthanks for your time again--------------------------------------------------------------------------------