Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The new teachings of Jesus
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 61 of 106 (345325)
08-31-2006 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by ringo
08-30-2006 11:25 PM


Re: Could be is not an argument
yeah you're right, the cannon I speak of hasnt been in existence since Iranaeus spoke of it in the 2nd century, the council of Nicea didnt speak of it in 325 AD. The council of Trent didnt add to it in the 14th century.
What I said is obviously an obscure minority view that has not been scrutinized for 1800+ years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ringo, posted 08-30-2006 11:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by ringo, posted 08-31-2006 1:09 AM ReformedRob has not replied
 Message 68 by truthlover, posted 09-01-2006 7:31 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 62 of 106 (345326)
08-31-2006 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by ReformedRob
08-31-2006 12:58 AM


Re: Could be is not an argument
ReformedRob writes:
What I said is obviously an obscure minority view that has not been scrutinized for 1800+ years.
Yes. Thanks for conceding that.

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 61 by ReformedRob, posted 08-31-2006 12:58 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 63 of 106 (345348)
08-31-2006 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by ReformedRob
08-30-2006 7:58 PM


Re: Could be is not an argument
ReformedRob writes:
No one else here seems to have a sense of humor and debates quickly degenerate into the ad hominem which I must confess to occasionally as well.
...ahem......(cough, cough).......excuse me?... like I said in Message 37 :
Legend writes:
see, it's nothing to do with what he (Irenaeus) believed to be genuine or not. It's just the mystical number four - may be he was a numerologist. I bet his lucky lottery numbers were 4 and 44.!
so now you have two arguments shot down already!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ReformedRob, posted 08-30-2006 7:58 PM ReformedRob has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 64 of 106 (345654)
09-01-2006 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Nuggin
06-27-2006 9:40 AM


Re: Let he who without edit, make the first add
During the 1,000 years before it's spontaneous appearence in the Holy and Unchanging Bible which was written by men directed by God so they can't possibly have made any mistakes, no Biblical scholar made any mention of the passage.
Can you give your source for this? This seems EXTREMELY unlikely.
The passage is questioned as not originally part of John's Gospel, but unmentioned until AD 1000? Seems unbelievable.
edit: It is unbelievable. I Googled John 7:53. From http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html:
"It is not in the earliest manuscripts (with one exception); in those manuscripts where we do find it, it is not found in one place. Some have it at the end of John. Some put it after our John 7:36; one puts it after 7:44. Some have it in Luke, after Luke 21:38."
FORGERY IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN has a list of comments in various Bible translations about the passage. It's not in the "oldest and best" manuscripts, but it is in some ancient ones.
Edited by truthlover, : Added Google search info

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Nuggin, posted 06-27-2006 9:40 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 65 of 106 (345656)
09-01-2006 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jazzns
06-27-2006 11:12 AM


Re: Let he who without edit, make the first add
Genesis 2:19 -
KJV: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;
NIV: Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.
There is a big difference between "formed" and "had formed". The first is inconsistent with Genesis 1 emphasizing the reality that they are 2 different creation stories. The second gives you some wiggle room to say that Genesis 2 is "the details".
Or, maybe the KJV just poorly translated the Hebrew.
{

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jazzns, posted 06-27-2006 11:12 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by arachnophilia, posted 09-03-2006 10:06 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 66 of 106 (345657)
09-01-2006 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jazzns
06-30-2006 4:15 PM


Re: Let he who without edit, make the first add
there is a sticky situation they may be getting themselves in by claiming that the NIV (for example) is the innerrant word of God.
Just as sticky in the KJV

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 06-30-2006 4:15 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 67 of 106 (345658)
09-01-2006 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by ReformedRob
08-28-2006 1:23 AM


Re: Fundies believe in No Christ but My Christ
Iraneaus in Against Heresis detailed the existing cannon of the bible at the beginning of the second century and Iraneus was directly taught by an apostle, the cannon of which was supported by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.
Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who tradition says was appointed to his office by John. He makes no claim that his canon was taught by the apostles, and no pre-Nicene canon matches Nicea exactly.
I'm pretty sure, by the way, that Nicea issued no canon. Later 4th century councils did "decree" a canon.
And experts (Nestle/Aland text) believe they know in each and every case how the word variation occured making the Bible word perfect.
This isn't true. Those "experts" would be embarrassed if they heard you say that. They'd look the other way and pretend they didn't know you. (Sorry, just being honest.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ReformedRob, posted 08-28-2006 1:23 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 68 of 106 (345661)
09-01-2006 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by ReformedRob
08-31-2006 12:58 AM


Re: Could be is not an argument
Well, you were looking for evidence of losses. Since you're so fond of Irenaeus (as I am), you should enjoy this quote:
Truly, then, the Scripture declared, which says, "First(2) of all believe that there is one God, who has established all things, and completed them, and having caused that from what had no being, all things should come into existence:" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV:20:2)
The only unfortunate thing here is that this Scripture is from the Shepherd of Hermas, from Book II in the first commandment. I don't think that this book, Scripture to many early Christians, is included in your 27 book Canon.
This is from Not Found - Webflow HTML website template:
quote:
We know, for instance, that Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon in Gaul (France), in works produced about 185 C.E., regarded the twenty books that later appeared in Eusebius' "acknowledged" category as canonical books. In addition, he recognized Revelation and the Shepherd of Hermas, for a total of twenty-two. Early in the next century, Origen of Alexandria endorsed twenty-two writings as canonical. Origen's list was nearly identical with those accepted by Irenaeus and listed as "acknowledged" by Eusebius.
I have Irenaeus' Against Heresies on both my computer and my bookshelf, but I was unable to figure out how to do a search that would find his "list."
That same web site tells you what is commonly known to historians, which is that Athanasius in AD 367, 42 years after the Council of Nicea, is the first person to produce a list that exactly matches our 27-book NT.
quote:
The first list of "canonical" books that names the same twenty-seven writings found in our New Testament appears in the Easter letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, in 367 C.E. He names them in a different order, to be sure. Even so, the first list that agrees with ours was a long time in coming.
It would help that if you're going to announce things as proven, you'd get some facts right.
The Council of Trent, btw, ran from 1545-1563, which would be the 16th century, not the 14th.
yeah you're right, the cannon I speak of hasnt been in existence since Iranaeus spoke of it in the 2nd century, the council of Nicea didnt speak of it in 325 AD. The council of Trent didnt add to it in the 14th century.
What I said is obviously an obscure minority view that has not been scrutinized for 1800+ years.
There's 4 statements you make here. Every one is accurate (those things did not happen, just as you say they didn't). Unfortunately, you meant them all sarcastically.
Edited by truthlover, : Fixed coding

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ReformedRob, posted 08-31-2006 12:58 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 69 of 106 (346297)
09-03-2006 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ReformedRob
08-28-2006 1:23 AM


Re: Fundies believe in No Christ but My Christ
2) Nothing has ever been lost from the Bible. We have over 24 manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts and whenever there was a question any info like notes in the margin were included in the text when being copied. It ends up that there are only addit'l variations on words included in sentences. The Bible is 99.5% word perfect and the variations are simply extra word variations that were in the margin that copiests were afraid to leave out and included. And none of the variations were in significant passages. And experts (Nestle/Aland text) believe they know in each and every case how the word variation occured making the Bible word perfect. so no reason to doubt the wording of the Bible.
patently and totally untrue. one needs only look at a catholic bible to determine this for themselves. they have about a dozen extra books, and several books are longer. the septuagint, the greek translation of the bible in 200 bc, included these books. the protestant bible does not. and since 200bc is before protestantism, books were evidently excluded from the bible.
as for word variation, look up the book of jeremiah. you will find that there are two major variations on the order of the book itself. one version is like you took the other, cut it into chapters, and then shuffled it. the dead sea scrolls contain BOTH versions, and not all modern bibles have the same version.
so if modern bibles are not 99.5% the same, which version do you think is 99.5% the same as the old version?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ReformedRob, posted 08-28-2006 1:23 AM ReformedRob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by truthlover, posted 09-05-2006 12:35 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 70 of 106 (346298)
09-03-2006 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ReformedRob
08-30-2006 9:29 PM


Re: Could be is not an argument
Every supposed lost book of the bible like the gnostic gospels has serious problems that preclude a serious claim that it is a lost book of the bible. The most recent being the 'Lost Gospel of Judas'. The evidence against the gnostic gospels, the Judas gospel and the scrolls found at the dead sea that are not part of the canon is clear.
the "serious problem" is that it's not in the bible. your argument is actually quite circular -- it was excluded from the bible, therefor it shouldn't be in the bible. the argument of contradiction is just silly: "book X is the bible, book Y says the opposite thing as book X, therefore, book Y should not be in the bible." there's two problems with that, of course. how do we know book X should be in the bible? maybe it should be excluded because Y contradicts it. the other problem is, what about book Z which already contradicts book X, yet is still in the bible? at the end of the day, the argument always boils down to "tradition." "so and so accepted these books and only these book, and i agree." there's no reason, it's just belief.
so, what would actually qualify as a real serious problem, limiting inclusion? how about books that don't so much as mention god? should we let those in the bible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ReformedRob, posted 08-30-2006 9:29 PM ReformedRob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-04-2006 2:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 71 of 106 (346300)
09-03-2006 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ReformedRob
08-30-2006 10:37 PM


Re: Could be is not an argument
Not mine...the one whose authenticity and attribution has been responsibly verified.
maybe you're reading different books than i.
the apocrypha is every bit as verified and authenticated as any other section of the bible. which, btw, is "not very well at all." what's more, it's also just as traditionally accepted, too.
you know that holiday jews celebrate around christmas time, when they get eight nights of presents, instead of one morning? wanna tell me what book of the bible that comes from?
Nice ad hoc/ad hominem attempt though
it's not and ad hominem. you are defending your bible as the correct one. jar is just making sure that you keep that in mind. you're saying your bible is the correct. not the ones with more books, extra chapters, etc.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ReformedRob, posted 08-30-2006 10:37 PM ReformedRob has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 72 of 106 (346302)
09-03-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by truthlover
09-01-2006 6:26 AM


Re: Let he who without edit, make the first add
quote:
Genesis 2:19 -
KJV: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;
NIV: Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.
There is a big difference between "formed" and "had formed". The first is inconsistent with Genesis 1 emphasizing the reality that they are 2 different creation stories. The second gives you some wiggle room to say that Genesis 2 is "the details".
Or, maybe the KJV just poorly translated the Hebrew.
imho, the kjv is generally quite literal and accurate. the niv is more idiomatic, and tends to translate with regard to tradition and dogma.
the tense in question:
quote:
— -
v'yetser yahueh elohim min-ha-adamah...
and-(he)-formed [the lord] god from-the-soil...
past perfect, in verse 8:
quote:
...ha-adam asher yatsar
...the man that (he)-had-formed
past imperfect, in verse 7:
quote:
— -
v'yyetser yahueh elohim et-ha-adam...
and-(he)-formed [the lord] god (d.o.)-the-man...
so, it might be a typo (missing yud), or they might have ascribed the wrong vowels to it. either way, there seems to be a scribal error. but i can't say for certain, i'm honestly not all that clear on tenses in biblical hebrew.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by truthlover, posted 09-01-2006 6:26 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 73 of 106 (346467)
09-04-2006 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by arachnophilia
09-03-2006 9:28 PM


Re: Could be is not an argument
arachnophilia writes:
at the end of the day, the argument always boils down to "tradition." "so and so accepted these books and only these book, and i agree." there's no reason, it's just belief.
Indeed. It's all about comfort levels.
And convenience, to be sure. If the 66 books of the Protestant Bible didn't represent God's complete revelation, why would God let the Zondervan company publish them in one volume and label the whole thing Holy Bible?
Start asking whether some books really belong in that lineup and others should have been included and... well, it gets a bit untidy.
Better not to think too much. Better to leave these questions to those divinely inspired shepherds of the flock who stand closer to the Almighty.
The book sellers.
so, what would actually qualify as a real serious problem, limiting inclusion? how about books that don't so much as mention god? should we let those in the bible?
I'm looking forward to seeing an answer to this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by arachnophilia, posted 09-03-2006 9:28 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by arachnophilia, posted 09-04-2006 3:52 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 74 of 106 (346470)
09-04-2006 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ReformedRob
08-30-2006 8:35 PM


Re: You say 66, I say potato...
ReformedRob writes:
Let's see, we have 66 books written by 40 authors over a period of a little over 1300 years
Only 66?
What have you got against Baruch? The Wisdom of Sirach? 3 Maccabees? Psalm 151?
These books were part of the Septuagint--the Bible used by the first generations of Christians.
You've read these books and decided they are not divinely inspired? On what basis?
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ReformedRob, posted 08-30-2006 8:35 PM ReformedRob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 09-04-2006 2:59 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 75 of 106 (346471)
09-04-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Archer Opteryx
09-04-2006 2:55 PM


Re: Could be is not an argument
Or Enoch and First Adam and Eve since almost all of the concepts of Satan and his Fall seem to come from those two.
AbE:
The other thing I always find somewhat humerous is that so many take the quote "All Scripture" to mean the Bible, which of course, didn't even exist at the time and so was NOT what they were refering to.
Edited by jar, : note on "Scripture"

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-04-2006 2:55 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024