|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flaws in the Scriptures | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoBody Guest |
Has anyone here cared to address the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek versions of the scripturs, or are we trying to address problems with the english version only?
------------------But Who Am I? NoBody [This message has been edited by NoBody, 12-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Revenge of Reason Inactive Member |
You requested errors found in the Bible. I produced 3 and provided enough proof that you agreed they were errors. You are now stating they are copyist errors. First, how does this make them any less an error? Second, where is your proof that these are copyiest errors and not some other kind of error? I provided proof of my statement, now I am asking for proof of yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6039 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
quote: Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think you've established this at all, I believe you've only asserted it. How do we know the original text does not have these errors? [This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apostle Inactive Member |
Zhimbo and Revenge of Reason,
This is in reference to both of your concerns. I think part of what has given rise to some of the numerical discrepencies is that unlike the English language, the Jewish people did not have a set of numerals. Consequently, not unlike English, larger numbers require additional words. Although there was no absolute rule, more often than not, the largest number would appear first, and then the next number and so on. However occasionally these numbers would be written in reverse order. (i.e: 12 years and 300 years). When one examines the Biblical Hebrew or Ancient Jewish alphabet, it becomes easier to see how transcribing documents from one to the other could become very confusing and lead to copying errors. (Such errors are little different from a misspelled word in a text). Many of the words are very similar in spelling and even some of the letters are. One must also keep in mind that later generations were not as familiar with the ancient alphabet as the original authors were. Indeed there are mistakes in the manuscripts but it does not follow that these mistakes are also in the original copies. The following are some difficulties based on numerical issues;- 2 Samuel 8:4 - Acts 7:14 - 1 Corinthians 10:8 - 2 Samuel 24:24 - 1 Kings 4:26 - 1 Chronicles 22:14 - 1 Samuel 13:5 - 2 Samuel 24:9 - 2 Samuel 24:13 - Numbers 25:9 - 1 Samuel 13:1 First of all not all of these are errors. Indeed some can be explained. However, some are numerical errors, and we know that they are errors because they are contradicted by another books version of the account. How do we know which one is right? We make a gues based on historical fact and logic. We may also check in older Bibles. How do we know these errors were not in the original one.We are not certain but if the errors are not present in older documents it is certainly realistic that they are not present in the oldest source. Hopefully this has been some help. Thank you for you patience. I do not get a chance to respond every day as I would like to at times. Apostle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6266 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Many of the words are very similar in spelling and even some of the letters are.
Brilliant.
We are not certain but if the errors are not present in older documents it is certainly realistic that they are not present in the oldest source.
That is neither realistic nor relevant. At any stage in transmission there exists the possibility of error as well as the possibility of error correction. Furthermore, you know little or nothing about the "original" text. Read Deuteronomy 32:8 and tell us: does the urtext stand closer to the many proto-Masoretic variants, or to some vorlage of the Septuagint, or to the Samaritan Torah? How do you know?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apostle Inactive Member |
ConsequentAthiest
The senseless criticisms against my character are, of coarse, ridiculous. Any questions that you may have must be posed in such a way that I do not begin to doubt your own intentions. Apostle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6039 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
I'm sorry, but I've read and re-read CA's post, and I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean by "criticisms against my character".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apostle Inactive Member |
Zhimbo, perhaps 'criticisms against my character' does not quite describe it. Let me say what she, or he does do.
CA responds with sarcasm to one of my points calling it 'brilliant.' The individual also takes issue with my next point saying it is 'neither realistic nor relevent.' I do not display my beliefs or attempts at discussion on here for individuals to mistreat like that. If someone challenges me on something I will take the time and get them an answer. I dont believe that they will always accept it, but I do expect a higher standard of professionalism. You did not comment on my previous posting, in which I attempted to answer some of your concerns. Do you take issue with anything I wrote? Apostle [This message has been edited by Apostle, 12-19-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6039 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Well, as far as I can tell, you haven't showed that you know the original texts were correct. We have different books with different figures. I don't mind assuming one is right, but it sure seems like we can't assume both are right in the original texts - how do we know that the two books haven't disagreed from the start? Maybe I'm not getting something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi,
Well, as far as I can tell, you haven't showed that you know the original texts were correct. As you know, there is no way to show that the originals are correct since there are no extant originals. There is no way to prove that texts as ancient as these would have been correct in every detail anyway, history is not that easy. The authors of the Bible clearly had their own agenda and their propaganda is easy to spot, for anyone to claim that the originals were 'correct' do so purely on a faith basis, to claim it from any other angle is to show ignorance of their composition. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6266 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
If someone challenges me on something I will take the time and get them an answer.
Good. Does the urtext of Deuteronomy 32:9 stand closer to the many proto-Masoretic variants, or to some vorlage of the Septuagint, or to the Samaritan Torah? How do you know?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Apostle : The m.o. of atheists is to deflect away from the argument when they are percieved to lose advantage. You should respond one time when insult is initiated and then ignore them.
Atheists assume the Bible a myth, this is their starting position of bias and there is nothing wrong with it except when they deny it and claim some silly objectivety that doesn't exist. Everyone has an ax to grind regardless of what they claim. Remember this: It is impossible for someone who does not believe in the existence of miracles to be objective concerning the Bible which records a lot of miracles. Christianity begins with the claim of a miracle - the Resurrection of Christ. Do you think an atheist would ever entertain the evidence of this miracle for even an hour ? Their mind is made up and they use every ounce of energy they have denying anything that contradicts their starting assumptions. I like reading your posts, stay focused and know when to ignore those who sidetrack the debate with cheap shots of insult.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6266 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
You should respond one time when insult is initiated and then ignore them. How very convenient. Tell me. Does the urtext of Deuteronomy 32:8 stand closer to the many proto-Masoretic variants, or to some vorlage of the Septuagint, or to the Samaritan Torah? How do you know?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2792 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
WILLOWTREE writes:
Hello Willow, Atheists assume the Bible a myth, this is their starting position of bias and there is nothing wrong with it except when they deny it and claim some silly objectivety that doesn't exist. Everyone has an ax to grind regardless of what they claim. I am atheist. I do not consider the Bible a myth; and that is not my starting position of bias. My break with 'faith' began while I was training to become a minister of my (former) church. You are correct to say that "Everyone has an axe to grind regardless of what they claim." You must realize, of course, that this applies to yourself as well. Just thought you should know that many hard atheists have been produced by virtue of deep Christian experience and superior familiarity with scripture. I realize how strange this probably sounds to you but I am honest and sincere in my dis-belief. At the same time, I am profoundly moved by the contents of the Bible, and obsessively engaged in its study. Enigmatic? Perhaps. But to the few and proud who share this boat, it is perfectly understandable. Pitiable? Probably. For we are haunted by the demons of our religious past and attracted to forums such as this, like moths to the flame. Here we share thoughts which we cannot comfortably reveal to friends and family. Here we discover the strengths and weaknesses of our logic. Here we encounter new reasons to (un)believe . Here we experience the cameraderie of like minds, meet esteemed champions of the opposing veiw, and thrill upon the triumph of our occasionally successful arguments. We also take our lumps here. For better or worse, we are still learning, or should be. And it is people like yourself: sincere, concerned, intelligent opponents who provide us with the hours of challenging entertainment we find on this site. Therefore: Thank you for being you. BTW. Since this is my first response to your posts: Hello! And welcome to EvC. db
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Willowtree
You can use this post of yours in order to butress your point you so quaintly posted here.
I like reading your posts, stay focused and know when to ignore those who sidetrack the debate with cheap shots of insult. You can show this to apostle to see how it is done. You are a moron to quickly criticize Dr.Gene ScottAs you know he has a Ph.D. from Stanford. His Ph.D. is from the university itself and not from any department which makes it the most prestigious. He is the only person in the history of Stanford to request an oral exam to get his minor in geography. This means any professor from any department could attend the exam and ask him any question. If you miss one question then you flunk. He passed. Dr.Scott's degree is a research degree. He was taught that you were not qualified to offer an opinion in any subject until you read every book ever written on the subject. His IQ is 202 and he is the only person that I know of who demands that nobody send any money to him unless it is in response to his teaching and to pay what you think it is worth. That is the criteria.Dr.Scott is the only person in the world whose voice is heard on every square inch of the globe 24 hours a day 365 days a year all paid for by the aforementioned criteria. He lost his faith in college, but as a kid he once saw his father get up off a death bed when he was dying of rheumatic fever. With the memory of this miracle in the back of his brain he decided he had to settle the issue : Did Jesus rise from the dead or not ? For the next three and a half years he read every book on the subject ever written when at the end of that three and a half years he layed down the last book and concluded from the evidence that Jesus rose. You are a coward sitting in the comfort of anonymous land insulting a great person like Dr.Scott. You aint even qualified to lick up his spit off the ground. How typical of your kind to insult someone just because they are not of your persuasion. Comfort yourself with your standard of rational enquiry, Dr.Scott's standard is to read every book ever written on a subject THEN open ones mouth. For some reason this logidemic thing has you obviously jealous, why I don't know. You have no basic respect which serves the stereotype of your kind - common dunce giving the rest of neo-Darwinism a bad name. Shut up punk Very excellent example I believe. ------------------"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." R.P. Feynman
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024