Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Evangelical Support Group
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 86 of 331 (398566)
05-01-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
05-01-2007 9:39 AM


Encounters with God
Phat wrote:
Have you ever had a personal encounter with God? Are you saying that because you have or have not, I must fall into your paradigm and world view for how things are? None of us have experienced the same things in our lives.
Encounters with God aren't that rare. I've certainly encountered, on an intimate and transcendant level, that which I consider the ultimate reality, the all, etc. It's funny that those raised Hindu interpret this to support Hinduism, those raised Muslim interpret this to support Islam, and those here in the Christianity-saturated culture of America often interpret that to support Christianity - in fact, to usually support their brand of Christianity.
Encountering God in no way suggests that the Bible is anything but a human work, any more than your encounter with God proves the Qu'ran, or my encounter with God proves, say Aurelius' "Meditations".
May your mind soar like the eagle-

-Equinox
_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 05-01-2007 9:39 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 121 of 331 (398739)
05-02-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
05-01-2007 6:42 PM


Re: Ignorance presupposes perfect knowledge
NJ wrote:
...those intimate and precious few moments with God where he is in communion with God. That's the kind of meeting that erases all doubt.
Erases all doubt in what? That a god of some kind exists? That Brahma exists? That the KJV is correct and the NIV is the spawn of bob? That the correct canon contains exactly 72 books because the Apocalypse of John isn't canonical? Really, have you written down what God said to you? Maybe you are misremembering it if you haven't. I know I have clearly remembered doing something, only to realize years later that it never happened and that I must be remembering something that I drempt one night.
I raised this question (post #77) in response to Phat when he brought up his experiences with God - millions of people have had encounters with God, including myself. They generally confirm the God that the person was raised with, or has been exposed to. Seems unsurprising to me. I think that Phat just missed post #77 in the flurry of posts, but it's a question that faces all of us who have encountered a transcendant experience.
Have a fun day-
Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-01-2007 6:42 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2007 6:17 PM Equinox has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 124 of 331 (398754)
05-02-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by truthlover
05-01-2007 10:52 PM


TL wrote:
I should point out in this thread what I've pointed out before, which is that for all practical purposes, there is really very little significant differences in the canons of the churches that care a lot about canons.
Hmmm. . Well, that depends on what you mean by “very little significant differences”. The canons have some differences (as discussed) and we can see how these differences arose over time - I”ve pasted a table of canons at the end of this post - we’ll see it if comes through ok. I see at least three ways that come to mind where the differences are significant.
First, remember that some Christians believe that people could end up in eternal punishment if they hear ideas that seem silly to them and thus reject the whole Jesus thing. If you have a minorly wrong or minorly less convincing belief, that could effect someone who is on the borderline between being saved or not, and may cause them to roast forever. The eternal writhing torture of even one person seems pretty significant to me, and we all know how large numbers work. A small difference in correctnesss multiplied by 8 billion humans seems to have a high probability that it’ll matter in at least dozens of cases.
A second reason is that the differences effect doctrine- the Orthodox canon has 7 more whole books, and also other changes here and there. These contain or at least are used to support differences in doctrine, such are petitioning to saints, etc. That’s not even getting into the big differences the KJV onlyists claim between the KJV and modern translations. The differences will thus effect what people do, how they think and all that, in addition to how they will affect people as per #1 above.
Thirdly, people who say that the differences are small and that the Bibles are pretty good at being the same are often also those who say that God directed and orchestrates the process of getting the scriptures from the distant past to our hands today. If God’s in control of this process, and the result is pretty good, then that seems to say that God is a pretty good God. Is your God just a pretty good god? Or is God perfect, omnipotent, and infallible? Pretty good may be pretty good, but it’s a far cry from perfect. I know this all too well, I work where we make a material that is 99.999999% pure. We test it every day, and if a batch is 99.99999% pure, then that cruddy batch of dirty junk is thrown in the garbage. I hope God is at least as good as or better than us belly-scratchers here at my company. It seems that attributing the pretty good status of the agreement between our bibles to God is saying that God is pretty good, which is fine if one worships a pretty good god. Do we really mean it when we say god is perfect, or is that just a euphemism for “pretty good”?
Yes, the differences are small compared to, say, the differences between Baptists and Gnostics, but are significant enough for millions of people to have killed each other over, and for the reasons above, seem to me to be too big too gloss over and ignore.
All the best-
Equinox
******************************************8
Notes on Canons used:
OT Canon Approx. year NT Canon
Septuagint = Current Catholic OT 2nd BCE
DSS- Uncertain, but appears somewhat similar to Catholic Bible, -Esther and + Enoch and other writings 1st BCE (Note- we mostly don’t have other Christianities’ Canons - they would probably be very different.)
Josephus - 22 books in OT, unknown which are missing. 1st CE
Esdras - 24, again not known which ones. 2nd CE
150 CE Marcion = Luke + Pauline letters (not including 1 &2Tm, Ti)
Jamnia - Some Scholars think that a council was held then to establish Jewish Canon ~2nd CE
Bryennios - 27 book OT, seems similar but details unknown.
2nd CE Tatian = Proto Orthodox Church father, rejected Acts and all Pauline letters
3rd CE Muratorian Canon = +Rev Pt, - Jm, -1 &2Pt, -Hb, -2Jn
3rd CE Origen = doubted Heb, James, II Peter, II & III John, and Rev
OT includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1-2,4 Maccabees 3rd CE Claromontanus = +3rd Cr, Acts of Paul, Ap of Peter, Br, &Hr, -Ph, 1-2 Th, & Hb
4th CE Eusebius accepts 20, disputed include Jm, Jd, IIPet, acts of Paul, Hermas, Rev Peter, Rev John, 2 & 3 John, Barnabas, Gos Heb.
4th CE Addai = 17 book = Dia + Acts + 15 Pauline (incl. Hb & 3 Cr), - Pt, -Jn, -Rev, -Jm, -Jd
4th CE Cheltanham = rejects Hb, Jd, Jm, questions 2 & 3 Jhn, 2Pet.
>363 CE Synod of Laodicea = Lacks Rev.
- Es, + Baruch, otherwise roughly = Prot
367 CE Athanasius = NT
380 CE Apostolic Constitutions = NT + Clement, + Apostlic Constitutions, - Acts, -Rev
394 CE Bishop Amphilocus =NT - 2Pet, - 2&3Jn, - Jd, -Rev
Catholic OT -Baruch 397 CE
3rd of Carthage = NT
Jerome appears to favor Prot OT, but Pope argues for Catholic OT (??) 400 Vulgate = Current NT
Catholic OT + Ps 151-155, +2 Baruch 5th CE Peshitta = NT- 2Pet, - 2&3Jn, - Jd, -Rev, those added in 1800s.
540s CE V. Fuldensis = NT + Paul’s E to Laodiceans
~ Prot OT - Es 7th CE “60” Canon = NT- Rev
8th CE John of Damascus = NT + Didache, + Ap const.
Prot. OT 1511 KJV=NT
Prot. OT 16th CE Luther = kept Hb, Jm, Jd & Rev, but moved them to the back of the NT
= Catholic OT (by vote of 24 yes, 15 no, 16 abstain) 1546 Trent = NT
=Catholic OT, + Ps 151, 1 Es,, 3Mc, 4 Mcs, and PMsh
1673 Greek Orthodox Canon = NT
=Prot. OT 1830 Mormon Canon = NT + 3rd Testament
1870 Vatican I approves additions to Gospels that were added ~ between 150 CE & 1000 CE (?).
1927 Vatican states that 1Jn 5:7 open to dispute
Catholic OT +En, 1&2 Es, Jub, new 3Mc Origin ? Ethiopian Canon = NT
Those show the disagreements over the large question of the canon. There is significant disagreement on a verse by verse level too. Some verses have been removed wholesale, and many more are subject to differences (variants) between our manuscripts. Here are some problems on a verse by verse level:
Top 10 Doctrines the KJV-Onlyists say are attacked by modern translations (from Wiki article):
1. The Deity of Jesus Christ is attacked often in the modern versions (see Gn 22:8, Mic 5:2, 1Tm 3:16, Hb 1:8)
2. The Trinity is attacked. Most modern versions delete 1Jn 5:7.
3. The virgin birth is attacked, by altering Isa 7:14 in some versions.
4. The doctrine of a literal fiery hell is attacked, by changing the word 'hell' to 'depths', 'grave', 'hades', etc.
5. The first Gentile salvation recorded in scripture, the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39), is attacked by most modern versions deleting all of Acts 8:37, his saving testimony, which also sets the Biblical requirement for Believer's Baptism, ...If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest...;
6. The salvation of St. Paul is attacked, by altering Acts 9:6;
7. The blood atonement of Jesus Christ is attacked in several places, one example being the removal of through his blood from Col 1:14
8. Salvation as a one time, permanently settled event in the life of any believer is attacked by inserting the word being into 1Cor 1:18;;
9. The ascension of Jesus Christ is attacked by removing and carried up into heaven from Luke 24:51, despite Luke's own reference to the ending of his Gospel in Acts 1:2
10. Salvation as a requirement for heaven is attacked by removing of them which are saved from Rev 21:24
KJV Onlyists say that a total of more text than the whole books of 1 & 2 Peter is removed by modern translations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by truthlover, posted 05-01-2007 10:52 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 126 of 331 (398761)
05-02-2007 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Hyroglyphx
05-02-2007 12:44 PM


Re: Logical fallacies
NJ wrote:
Rabbinical scholars have been pouring over various books of the Tanakh for thousands of years. We aren't merely talking about the Pentateuch, but also the Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, etc. From the time of Jesus, these were all very well known to the common Jew and were identified as God-given Scripture.
That was mostly true, but somewhat misleading. It’s true that various jewish sects (there wasn’t just one Judaism in Jesus’s day any more than there is one Christianity today) did accept more than just the Pentateuch as scripture. Some like the Sadduccees accepted more books, while others like the Pharisees accepted fewer books. Books that were more widely accepted were the Pentateuch, proverbs, psalms, etc. Books that were less widely accepted were Esther, Enoch, Micah, Obadiah, Daniel, Maccabbees, etc. While it’s safe to say that Jesus did mean at least the widely accepted books, it’s unclear which of the others Jesus would have considered scripture. (The Essenes were know to have rejected Esther, for instance).
Since most of the less accepted books did end up in the protestant OT, and even more in the Catholic OT, it seems likely that Jesus would have considered the current bible to contain some heretical books in the OT, not to mention what he would have thought of the NT (let’s leave that to another thread!).
The Jewish Canon does not appear to have been established until the end of the first century or so. The Septuagint was written well before that, of course, but it contains the Orthodox OT, which the protestant reformers apparently didn’t consider correct, so the Septuagint doesn’t help anyone claim that the Jewish canon was established earlier.
To claim that Jesus’ reference to “Holy Scripture” establishes the OT canon is just as erroneous as saying that the verse in 2 Tm establishes the NT canon.
Equinox
Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2007 12:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 139 of 331 (399035)
05-03-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Hyroglyphx
05-02-2007 6:17 PM


KJV only Christians
Erases all doubt in what? That a god of some kind exists?
Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying.
OK, then what you are saying your experience proves makes sense. Please do not extend it, as I’ve so often seen done, to erase doubt that, say, Jesus was born of a virgin, or that the bread literally becomes flesh at communion, or that the KJV is inspired, or that the God of the Bible (as if that were clear in itself) exists, or that Jesus died for your sins. People of all faiths use non-doctrinal encounters with God to affirm their whole system of belief. Even I believe in God, depending on how you define that term.
The differences between the NIV and the KJV do not change the textual meaning any more than Olde English does to modern English.
What is the difference between:
"Thou hast found sin in my heart"
Compared to:
"You have found sin in my heart"
First, some changes are much larger than that, I hope we both agree. For instance, from GoJ chap 5:
KJV has:
In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
NIV has:
Here a great number of disabled people used to lie”the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.
The total amount of text removed is claimed by KJV onlyist Christians to be greater than the entire texts of I and II peter put together, and futher say that the following major Christian doctrines are attacked:
1. The Deity of Jesus Christ is attacked often in the modern versions (see Gn 22:8, Mic 5:2, 1Tm 3:16, Hb 1:8)
2. The Trinity is attacked. Most modern versions delete 1Jn 5:7.
3. The virgin birth is attacked, by altering Isa 7:14 in some versions.
4. The doctrine of a literal fiery hell is attacked, by changing the word 'hell' to 'depths', 'grave', 'hades', etc.
5. The first Gentile salvation recorded in scripture, the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39), is attacked by most modern versions deleting all of Acts 8:37, his saving testimony, which also sets the Biblical requirement for Believer's Baptism, ...If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest...;
6. The salvation of St. Paul is attacked, by altering Acts 9:6;
7. The blood atonement of Jesus Christ is attacked in several places, one example being the removal of through his blood from Col 1:14
8. Salvation as a one time, permanently settled event in the life of any believer is attacked by inserting the word being into 1Cor 1:18;;
9. The ascension of Jesus Christ is attacked by removing and carried up into heaven from Luke 24:51, despite Luke's own reference to the ending of his Gospel in Acts 1:2
10. Salvation as a requirement for heaven is attacked by removing of them which are saved from Rev 21:24
Do we agree that the changes amount to much more than just forms of words such as hast/have?
Whether or not the difference affect doctrine is something that non-KJV onlyists fall back on, but simply looking at the statement shows that it makes no sense. Many Christians start out with their doctrine, and then read the bible such as to make the Bible fit their doctrine. So of course changes won’t effect doctrine, since it’s already decided.
For instance, if I found a “Bible” that listed only the Nicene creed and a couple other sentences, and claimed it was a new, correct version of the bible, one could claim that this new “version”, that is less than a page long, is not a significant difference, since it doesn’t change any doctrine.
Secondly, and more importantly - saying that the versions are the same is again raising the “pretty good god” issue. In other words, are you saying that the versions are the same because God is in control of the process of Bible transcription? If so, you are saying that God is just a pretty good god, because the KJV and the NIV are pretty good in agreement in most places, but obviously aren't perfectly in agreement. If you think humans are in control of the process, then why do you care if the results differ? You are entitled to interpret the evidence any way you’d like, but you are not entitled to pretend the evidence doesn’t exist.
66 books in the modern canon, 72 if you add apocryphal texts.
I was making an example of what a simple encounter with God doesn’t prove. Besides, the majority of Chrisitians use a bible with 73, not 66 books, though if you see my notes at the end of my previous post, the books in the canon has seesawed quite a bit over time, even for the new testatment. How are you sure that the 66 book canon is correct?
God does not speak to me audibly. But out of a well spring in my heart come torrents of His words.
The medium doesn’t matter. I was asking how you keep them from being changed over time in your mind, as happens normally with many human memories. This is important because if your ideas about what God said change in the wrong way, you could end up in Hell for all eternity.
Maybe you are misremembering it if you haven't.
Maybe flying pink elephants live in the 6th dimension. Maybe flugersnorts swim in the 7th.
I have no evidence of the elephants or flugersnorts. However, there is tons of evidence that people misremember things. There have been plenty of studies showing that people regularly fabricate memories, change their meanings, change the words they heard people say, and on and on.
From my own life, my father met with a boyhood friend, and described how he remembered the time that they were out on a cold day, and how this friend had suddenly told my father to be still, and pulled out a handgun and shot at a clump of grass a ways away. They walked up to the clump, and retrieved the shot rabbit, which the friend said he knew was there because he could see the exhaled breath of the rabbit. My father's friend replied that the memory never happened, because he has never owned a gun, or even hunted rabbits.
How would you know if you weren't sure in the first place?
Ah, but I was sure in the first place. That’s the whole point, that memories we are “sure” of could still be misremembered, and without outside evidence, we have no way of knowing.
And what do you have to say for those that weren't raised with God, but some other notion of god? There are innumerable converts from other religions that have met HaShem. What about them? Ravi Zacharias grew up in India, heir to a caste of Hindu priests. And yet on a bed of suicide, knowing nothing of Christ, did he come to meet him.
Well, several things. First, that cases of people having religious experiences of deities outside their raised religion do happen. People like Ravi and others certainly have heard enough of the other religion to be somewhat familiar with it. Plus, even if that weren’t the case, how would you (you, NJ) know? Couldn’t RZ or anyone else make up an experience like that wholecloth? A combination of those two is most likely, I think, where someone like RZ has heard a few things, has a religious experience, converts, then learns more, then tells the story to people who already know a lot of Christian stories, and it is all woven together easily. Even with these, as Ice age pointed out, sticking within what you were raised with is overwhelmingly more common.
But really, there is only one of three things to choose from.
But really, to exclude the thousands of other options makes no sense. Maybe you have met one God, and the 32 others haven’t met you yet. Maybe you’ve met two gods pretending to be one. Maybe you’ve met a demon who has convinced you he is God so as to keep you from the one true Buddhist church. Maybe the God you met espouses a 81 book canon. Maybe there are no gods, but people have a tendency to make them. Maybe after death we all gain the ability to enter into people’s thoughts, where they think we are God or Gods? Who knows? I always cringe at the “do you believe in God?” question, because it is so massively oversimplified that the only thing it does is demonstrate to me that the asker hasn’t given the question of God any thought.
Oh, and do we have a similar picture of Jesus’s statement about the OT (did you see post 126)?
Enjoy this day-
-Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2007 6:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-05-2007 1:25 PM Equinox has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 145 of 331 (399061)
05-03-2007 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by truthlover
05-03-2007 2:53 PM


Re: Jars Christian Cult Of Ignorance
Lists of what books of the NT could be included with Scripture began as early as AD 161, where we have the Muratorian fragment giving a canon very similar to the one decided on in the 300's.
Minor clarification:
There is no date on the Muratorian fragment (even if it had one, that wouldn't be the final word). It is usually dated to around the end of the 2nd to the middle of the 3rd century (which could approximately include TL’s date - I’m not disagreeing with that date in general, just that it’s too specific and at one end of the range). Marcion’s canon is earlier, around 150 - of course Marcion was a considered a heretic by the Catholic church, but his canon was an abridged GoLuke + Paul’s (non-forged) letters.
The muratorian canon is very similar to the Athanasian NT canon, as truthlover mentioned. It adds the apocalypse of Peter, and excludes 1 & 2 Peter, James, Hebrews and 3rd Jn. If that’s “very similar” or “significantly different” depends on your tastes.
However, on the matter you are quoting him, he is simply and factually wrong.
Spong per Phat quote writes:
So the claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is itself a non-scriptural term and indeed was imposed on the texts of the Bible at a much later time to meet the need of church leaders to have an ally in their struggles to clarify their authority.
. ..began as early as AD 161
I’m not sure Spong is factually wrong. He could be thinking the same thing Truthlover is thinking. After all, the 2nd/3rd century could be thought of as “much later” by Spong while still being “as early as” to Truthlover.
Have a fun day all-
-Equinox
P. S. Truthlover gets yet more respect points in my book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by truthlover, posted 05-03-2007 2:53 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by truthlover, posted 05-03-2007 4:06 PM Equinox has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 159 of 331 (399251)
05-04-2007 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by truthlover
05-03-2007 4:06 PM


Tertullian was the same. His _Prescription Against Heretics_ argues that the "heretics" have no right even to use the Scriptures. They belong to the catholic (PO) churches.
That he does. He claims that heretics are not to be even engaged in debate over the scriptures due the reason you say. (of course right after that he goes on for page after page doing what he says not to do - engaging a discussion showing how the scriptures back up his position).
You have a point, and I don't disagree. The early PO church (and some non - PO as well) certainly did lean heavily on apostolic succession at least as much as on being backed by the ideas of scripture (at least 2nd cent and later - the very earliest scriptures show the opposite - the the early Christians of all stripes argued about things - see many of the pauline letters and letters forged in paul's name).
You are also certainly correct that the protestants denied apostolic succession and relied heavily on scripture. Maybe it is a method that comes and goes over history as the circumstances warrant?
Have a fun weekend-
Equinox
Edited by Equinox, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by truthlover, posted 05-03-2007 4:06 PM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Equinox, posted 05-04-2007 4:43 PM Equinox has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 160 of 331 (399253)
05-04-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Equinox
05-04-2007 4:34 PM


Why?
Phat wrote:
ask me questions which I will attempt to relay through the lens of the author.
Why would you want to? I mean, why not just say what you think,instead of practicing parroting protestant preachers points?
On one hand, I appreciate your honesty in telling us that that is what you'll be doing (instead of doing it secretly), but I guess I don't get why the lens of someone else is desired.
Maybe the exercise of practicing this may help convince you of the arguments you want to be convinced of? Or did I miss the reason?
Have a good weekend, I'll be back on monday-
-Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Equinox, posted 05-04-2007 4:34 PM Equinox has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 176 of 331 (399871)
05-08-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Hyroglyphx
05-05-2007 1:25 PM


Re: KJV only Christians
Note, section below, between the ***, has been moved over to a thread on this topic. I only left it here for reference.
**********************************************************
________________________________________
OK, then what you are saying your experience proves makes sense. Please do not extend it, as I’ve so often seen done, to erase doubt that
I'm merely speaking from personal experience. Others have basically said that my experience means nothing-- that I probably had a moment of delusion, or what have you.
How annoying is it for somebody to critique a personal experience of someone else?
I’m not saying you were delusional - I too have had transcendent experiences, as have millions of others. I’m merely pointing out that your transcendent experience is worthwhile in proving to you that there is a God, but not useful in proving to you that the KJV Bible is inerrant, unless that’s what God said to you. Your experience is certainly not proof in proving much outside yourself anyway. I so often see people bring up a divine experience just of “god”, and then extend it to say it proves their religion over that of others. Do we agree that there is a difference there?
People of all faiths use non-doctrinal encounters with God to affirm their whole system of belief. Even I believe in God, depending on how you define that term.
I'm not going to criticize or minimize anyone's experience with God. I believe that God comes to people of other faiths to redirect them. I believe people who have no doctrinal understanding of God, have moments with Him to goad us towards Him.
I’m not minimizing anyone’s experience, and I’m not minimizing God. OK, so you are saying that these millions of people have millions of experiences that strengthen their non-Christian faiths, and this is all because the Christian God is trying to get them to become Christian? That’s a lot worse than saying that God is just “pretty good” - it’s saying that God is incompetent. Not to mention how much you are denigrating other’s belief systems.
I was asking how you keep them from being changed over time in your mind, as happens normally with many human memories. This is important because if your ideas about what God said change in the wrong way, you could end up in Hell for all eternity.
Look, you are entitled to come up with whatever excuses you want or assign for me whatever deficiencies you want me to have.
I’m not blaming you for any deficiencies. You are human, just as I. I was pointing out that you are attributing super-human memory to yourself. Everyone (including myself), as long as they are human, will misremember things.
*******************************************************
Now, for the KJV part:
1. The Deity of Jesus Christ is attacked often in the modern versions (see Gn 22:8, Mic 5:2, 1Tm 3:16, Hb 1:8)
Which fundy atheist website did you go to gather these questions? How do any of these verses "attack" the Deity of Christ? If anything, they confirm them. This is the NIV translation.
Please explain to me how this passage questions the deity of Jesus?
OK, I’ll do that. Here are two of them:
"Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together." -Genesis 22:8 NIV
Have you ever heard the terminology that Jesus is the Lamb of God? That has its origins in this passage, where Jesus because the ultimate atoning sacrificial lambs for all sins. How does that bring his deity into question.
The KJV has:
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself, a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. KJV
In the NIV, God is providing an offering. He could be providing a plain old lamb, without any reference to Jesus. A lamb is just a plain old lamb. Now compare that with the KJV. In the KJV, God is providing himself as the lamb. Thus, in the KJV, Jesus is the lamb of God without question.
Next one:
The NIV has:
"Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory." -1st Timothy 3:16 NIV
So WHO appeared in the flesh? The preceding verses don’t make that clear, so whoever that was, even if it were Jesus, could have been just a person, a prophet, or whatever (after all, the Bible says that Enoch and Elijah were taken up in glory, and they were just people. Now, compare with the KJV:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. KJV
This time, WHO in the flesh, etc? God. There is no question as to whether or not Jesus was God, and not just a person.
The others are like this. Minor changes, but they can change the meaning of the text.
Which fundy atheist website did you go to gather these questions?
Anyway, that's all that I'm at liberty to look up since its evident that, where ever you got your information from, its incorrect.
This is from the Christians who see only the KJV as inspired. You don’t have to ask which website, I provided one of them (the wiki page) in my earlier post - did you bother to check the links I provided? Anyway, I’m sure you’ve come across KJV only type Christians, but since you are calling them “fundy atheists”, I’ll provide a couple more links. I don’t think anyone would say that chick tracts are done by atheists.
Chick.com: Attack, The
The King James Bible Defended!
Do we agree that the changes amount to much more than just forms of words such as hast/have?
No, we don't agree.
NJ, I gave the example from John 5 where around 3 dozen continuous words were removed - more than an entire verse - and there are plenty of other places like that. Many verses are deleted wholesale. Dozens of examples are listed here http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/niv-verses%20missing.htm. Now, you and I may disagree as to which (if any) have the “correct” bible, but I don’t understand how you can say that the KJV doesn’t differ by more than the forms of words. If I were a Christian, would you still deny a difference?
Whether or not the difference affect doctrine is something that non-KJV onlyists fall back on, but simply looking at the statement shows that it makes no sense. Many Christians start out with their doctrine, and then read the bible such as to make the Bible fit their doctrine. So of course changes won’t effect doctrine, since it’s already decided.
What you are suggesting is that there is some grand conspiracy propagated by, who, we'll never know, to make Jesus out to be something He isn't.
No, I’m not. Human groups don’t work that way. Instead, ideas become popular (or supported by powerful institutions), and then people independently support those idea. No vast right ring conspiracy is required. Do you think all of the hundreds of millions of people who oppose President Bush are in a massive secret conspiracy? I don’t either.
The translations are close. But lets take 10 random passages and see if there is a great disparity between them.
1-10
That was done completely at random. Do you see any great disparity that would cause you to question the validity of the translation itself? I see nothing so great that it cannot be reconciled by the minor variations in the English language.
Well, duh . . If you take a few passages out of the 700,000 words of the Bible, of course there is a good chance they’ll match. I hope you don’t consider something OK in other areas of your life after checking less than 1% of it. Why did you ignore the section of John I posted? In that section, the NIV had completely deleted three dozen words? There are plenty of others, like Acts 8:37, etc.
You know about Marcion, right? He took the G of Luke, cut out anything that he didn’t like (any reference to the OT or Jewish prophets), and published this as the G of Luke. Now, I just opened Luke to 10 random places, and none of them were places that Marcion had cut out. Does that mean that Marcion’s gospel of Luke is fine? Hey, I just asked 10 people here if any of them had cancer - none do, so cancer must not exist! Wow, I should get a Nobel prize for curing cancer! You say that’s silly? You’re right, that’s exactly what it is.
For instance, if I found a “Bible” that listed only the Nicene creed and a couple other sentences, and claimed it was a new, correct version of the bible, one could claim that this new “version”, that is less than a page long, is not a significant difference, since it doesn’t change any doctrine.
The idea is to be as close to the original manuscripts as possible. That means to compare the Dead Sea Scrolls, Coptic text, Armenian text, Gothic text, Ethiopian text, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, etc. You have to remember that transcribing was considered a professional career in antiquity. Obviously, no printing presses or photocopy machines existed, so it was the scribe who was trained to copy documents. And in an age where illiteracy was prevalent, the scribe was considered a very learned individual. The task for the scribe was usually an undertaking assigned to a devout Jew. They didn't just pick random people off of the street to perform this job. Its also important to remember that the Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and, therefore, were extremely careful in transposing documents. They did not hastily write things down. This was an arduous and meticulous task, exhibiting great detail and reproof.
Yes, that’s true for the OT, but for centuries (Before there were monks in monestaries), the NT was indeed transcribed by people off the street. It’s important to realize this difference between the OT and the NT. Even the copying of the OT was far from perfect, though much better than the NT. We have tons of examples were scribes removed or added text, both in our manuscripts the NT and OT.
Secondly, and more importantly - saying that the versions are the same is again raising the “pretty good god” issue. In other words, are you saying that the versions are the same because God is in control of the process of Bible transcription?
I'm saying that they are in remarkable agreement. I believe that it is entirely possible to have textual errors, and I believe it is entirely possible that God could preserve His Word. . . ..rs... A young, Bedouin shepherd.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was the most outstanding archeological discovery of the twentieth century. The authenticity of the DSS at this point is beyond reproach. In fact, with the exception of the book of Ruth, every book of the Tenach was discovered.
Now, where the DSS ties into the Massoretic text is shown in the comparing of the two. The Essenes and Masorites were extremely close to one another in accuracy. Only 17 letters were found different by contrast. You might think that is a lot, but when I say they were different, it’s like the difference between ”honor’ and ”honour.’ They produced no change to the meaning of the text whatsoever, just like the NIV produces no real change to the textual meaning of the KJV. Out of it all, only one word was truly questionable, but even it did not change the effect of the meaning.
Did you cut and paste that from an apologetics website? It’s just plain incorrect. I have the DSS right here, and looked up some things myself. Often the apologetics websites focus on the Isaiah scroll, since it is most similar to the Masoretic text. However, even the single book of Isaiah has literally hundreds of differences (not just 17), and many other books have much more. (on another note, the DSS has the entire book of Ruth, it’s missing Esther, probably because many Jews didn’t consider it part of the Bible.)
One example of the differences is in the book of psalms. The DSS is different in again, hundreds of places. Psalms up through 90 are mostly the same, except for the many errors. Psalms 90-150 are significantly different in three ways. First, there are the errors we discussed (missing or added letters, words, sentences) that appear to be accidents. Second, there are intentional changes in content, where the Psalm is changed. Third, they are rearranged. Oh, and there are 9 new psalms that are added wholesale. Other books also have significant changes, including entire sentences. Please, find out for yourself, you’ll be able to talk without making Christians look nave. If you’d like the DSS books of the OT, here they are (get the top two books on this page) :
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-4714678-3826545?
url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=dead+sea%2C+abegg
All the best-
-Equinox
P.s 'looks like I should move the god experience part to the other thread. I have to go now, hopefully I can do that within a few days...
Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed text (I hope)
Edited by Equinox, : indicated section that now belongs in another thread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-05-2007 1:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Phat, posted 05-08-2007 9:47 PM Equinox has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 178 of 331 (399978)
05-09-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Phat
05-08-2007 9:47 PM


Re: KJV only Christians
Phat, I’m confused. First of all, I’m not sure if you are arguing that the sections you posted are perfectly preserved as the same, or that they are not perfectly preserved as the same. If the latter, then it seems like the moving goal posts again, where at first NJ says there are no differences except for single words like “Hast” instead of “Have”, which then changes to “different translations of phrases”, and new goalposts in your post, to “having a similar general meaning”, and in NJ’s post to “no changes in doctrine if interpreted correctly”, which as I pointed out, is a meaningless goalpost.
Are you saying that a perfect God has ensured the perfect agreement of the paragraphs you posted, or are you saying that they are clearly different? They do have a similar general meaning in many places, but I for one sometimes had a hard time lining them up word for word (especially since the message version is a third longer than the KJV version).
However, regardless of that, even if they were very similar (and NJ did a good job of providing some that were much more similar than the one you provided from the message version), would that not be pointless anyway? As I pointed out in my last post, that’s a tiny fraction of the Bible, and to show that this place is the same says nothing about all of it - remember that it only takes a change in a couple words or even letters to significantly change the meaning of any text. After all, even in a document that has been extensively changed to say something completely different, sections of even many consecutive, identical words could no doubt be found.
Have a fun day-
-Equinox
P.S. I’m not sure which part you corrected in the last post, but thanks, you probably helped.
Edited by Equinox, : refined length number

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Phat, posted 05-08-2007 9:47 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Phat, posted 05-11-2007 2:09 PM Equinox has replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 180 of 331 (400938)
05-17-2007 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Phat
05-11-2007 2:09 PM


Re: Doth thou understandeth?
Phat wrote:
I am of the personal opinion that they lead a reader to the same conclusion if the reader is interested in grasping the overall concept.
You only come the same conclusion reading the Bible only if you’ve already decided what that conclusion is (yes, I did read the link). Even without looking at the Bible, that fact is obvious based on the actions of millions of Christians. There are thousands of Christian denominations, many using the same bible as other groups that believe extremely different things. It became obvious to me long ago (and is probably already obvious to you), that a liberal Hindu or Muslim is much closer in belief to a liberal Christian than the liberal Christian is to a fundamentalist Christian. This is true on almost every count - ask who Jesus is, what God is like, the origin of the earth or life, how to treat homosexuals, how to attain salvation, how the world will end, and on and on. That’s true even thought they aren’t even using the same text (a Bible is not a Qu’ran).
So the fact that two conservative Christians (or more) can come to the same conclusion based on two significantly different bibles (say, the message and the KJV) means nothing. It doesn’t matter if the reader wants to grasp the overall concept - anyone reading something wants to do that, or they wouldn’t bother reading it. What matters is which general concept they want to grasp.
My question to you was whether the above two passages said basically the same thing or not.
They are clearly different on many points. The message version contains ideas and concepts that are simply not in the KJV - they were added. The KJV passage never mentions anything about
“anticipate a response”, nor
being conceited (“full of oneself”)
or that Jesus “acted to set things right in this life”
and many other things. The message version has simply added new ideas so that it fits with the modern expectations. If that modern expectation is what you are expecting, then it reads fine, but that’s not what the original manuscript said.
This all shows a profoundly low expectation of what we pretend to think is an all-perfect God.
We read stuff. That’s what books are for. We read all kinds of books - a sci-fi book here, a romance novel, a science textbook there, etc, in our daily lives using the hours as we wish. It struck me that if someone told me I could read a book not by Dan Brown, or Isaac Asimov, or Einstein, but by the actual creator of the entire universe - THE one true perfect God who created galaxies, planets, suns, elephants, T. Rexes, viruses, quarks, redwoods, Niagara falls, Olympus Mons, Europa, Hale-Bopp, sex, myself, supernovas, languages, gamma rays, mangoes and flamingoes - then why would I read anything else? The all perfect creator of all that is knows a helluva lot more than the author of my textbook about electronic physics or metal recrystallization, and must be an infinitely better writer than a mere human like Tolkien or Tolstoy. I would read it over and over, and devote hour after hour to learning it. Even if I only had a snippet - lacking the whole thing, it would be a treasure worth more than countless mere human books.
Would I, faced with the wonder of our universe (not to mention the idea of a burning Hell or a blissful heaven), and offered a chance to hear from the very creator himself, waste even a minute watching a sitcom, or necking, or playing pool, if I could instead spend that time directly drinking in the words of the maker of all? Of course not - that would be a huge statement of what little significance I put on the word of God.
Would I tolerate a human to change the word of God, from what God gave us to something that is more in line with what a human wanted, though it still seems to have the “general meaning” God intended? Of course not - every jot and tittle would be perfect, and changes would therefore be blasphemy. To make even a small change would be saying that I either didn’t think much of God, or that I considered myself on par with or superior to God, or that I didn’t consider the rendition we have to be reliable.
Yet almost no-one, not even those who call themselves Bible-based Christians, acts as if they really believe the Bible is the word of God. Most Christians haven’t even read it all (!). It certainly isn’t memorized and recited over and over, or used to wallpaper our homes, or played over and over on the radio, as would be the case if we really believed it was the actual word of God - at least, I’d be in favor of all those things if I took seriously the idea that it was the word of God. Instead, Christians treat it as “interesting” or “worthy of respect” or “occasionally useful”. The few who do seem to take this word of God idea seriously are the scariest of the fundamentalists - for good reason, since the Bible has some pretty scary parts (yes I’ve read it).
What we just saw on this thread, where new concepts are woven into an openly changed text and no one seems to mind, again underscores that fact that most Christians don’t seem to believe that the Bible is the actual word of God any more than us non-Christian do.
What do you think? How would you handle text that you really believed to be words from the almighty creator of everything seen and unseen, the master of universe and the decider of the destiny of every living thing?
-Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Phat, posted 05-11-2007 2:09 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2007 12:07 AM Equinox 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