Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did God say it, or did you say it?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 61 of 127 (548908)
03-02-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Flyer75
03-02-2010 9:28 AM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
But, the Jewish transcribers were meticulous in their translations.
Evidence please. Anyone can make unsupported assertions, please evidence this. I have facts and figures.
How do you explain the difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts. The Dead Sea scrolls clearly show that there were at least a few versions. Some the scroll agree with the Masoretic, some with the Septuagint and others differ from both.
As shown in The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995 -->The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995 -->The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995
Over 1/3 of the verses in the New testament alone have variations.
Also, you do know that many of our ancient classic books that have been found have never had an original found with them either yet college professors consider them completely historically accurate. In fact, the Bible has the MOST manuscripts that have been found backing it up. More then anything from Homer for example.
Oh you are in my wheelhouse now. Do you fundies actually believe this stuff or are you just comfortable spouting lies and untruths. You see I have evidence you do not.
Comparing the Iliad with the bible is disingenuous at best. The New Testament is a compilation, Iliad a single book by a single author. Also, the vast majority of manuscripts christians claim are just fragments. On comparing extant copies of individual books to the Iliad compares quite favorably. Book of Revelation 287, Iliad 650, Book of Acts has 573. Only the Gospels all combined show a significantly higher #.
Lets compare it to the Quran. The library of Astan-i Quds-i Razavi in Mashhad, Iran alone houses 11,000 manuscripts of the Quran. So using your argument the Quran must be more special than the Bible.
Source for this is The Rejection of Pascal's Wager, Paul Tobin, Authors OnLine, Limited, 2009 --> The Rejection of Pascal's Wager, Paul Tobin, Authors OnLine, Limited, 2009
Oh by the way. I don't know any college professors that teach that Homer is history, please point out who teaches this.
Edited by Theodoric, : Fixed db coding

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Flyer75, posted 03-02-2010 9:28 AM Flyer75 has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 62 of 127 (548931)
03-02-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by greyseal
03-02-2010 4:18 AM


Re: Re:Literal
quote:
without form and void is a bit more powerful a phrase than "empty and desolate". I think if they'd meant merely "empty and desolate" they should have said so...
They didn't say "without form and void" and they didn't say "empty and desolate." They said tohu wa-bohu. I suggest that they meant tohu wa-bohu.
quote:
...but now you have a problem. You want to believe in a literal bible when the original manuscripts are non existent, the authors unknown and even the translation is open to interpretation?
What's the problem? Any sort of literature, whether in one's mother tongue or not, is "open to interpretation," so must be interpreted carefully and correctly. This is also true of scientific writings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by greyseal, posted 03-02-2010 4:18 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by greyseal, posted 03-03-2010 3:48 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 63 of 127 (548932)
03-02-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by killinghurts
02-28-2010 8:11 PM


quote:
Because it may not be what God meant to say, if you "make it up" which is what an artistic license is then you don't know if it is really what God meant.
A good interpreter does not just "make it up." If this is what you meant when you said that hermeneutics has an "element of artistic license," then I disagree with your characterization of hermeneutics. I agree with the "art," but not the "license."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by killinghurts, posted 02-28-2010 8:11 PM killinghurts has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 64 of 127 (548985)
03-03-2010 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by greyseal
03-02-2010 4:36 AM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
greyseal writes:
And Peg, what makes you think YOUR interpretation is correct over ICANT's?
because it is impossible that the earth and all in it came into existence in 6 days.
Physically impossible.
Genesis says that God commanded the animals he had created to 'go forth and multiply' and im pretty sure that reproduction takes more then 1 day. God obviously didnt create each individual animal....he made several whom then went forth and multiplied....that would have taken years.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by greyseal, posted 03-02-2010 4:36 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by greyseal, posted 03-03-2010 3:52 PM Peg has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


(1)
Message 65 of 127 (549059)
03-03-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Flyer75
03-02-2010 9:28 AM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
Christians don't believe this though greyseal. We believe that the Bible was written by men, inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what God wanted them to write.
excuse me, but we have three "men" here (humans is longer to type, so natch, sorry Peg
* Peg - says God clearly meant "YOM" as we use the word "age" (i.e. "the days of")
* ICANT - says God obviously meant "YOM" in it's most literal obvious meaning as "day"
* Moses - well he's dead. He just said Yom
* God - ? well, everyone is proclaiming they know what God meant, but nobody can actually ask the fellow
so written down or not, inspired or not, there's at least two valid interpretations here which are following exactly what God said, yet coming to two wildly different answers.
Which one has the real direct God hotline?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Flyer75, posted 03-02-2010 9:28 AM Flyer75 has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 66 of 127 (549060)
03-03-2010 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by kbertsche
03-02-2010 3:26 PM


Re: Re:Literal
They didn't say "without form and void" and they didn't say "empty and desolate." They said tohu wa-bohu. I suggest that they meant tohu wa-bohu.
yes yes, but what does it mean?
quote:
...but now you have a problem. You want to believe in a literal bible when the original manuscripts are non existent, the authors unknown and even the translation is open to interpretation?
What's the problem? Any sort of literature, whether in one's mother tongue or not, is "open to interpretation," so must be interpreted carefully and correctly. This is also true of scientific writings.
what's the problem? the problem is that when such a simple phrase cannot be pinned down, the text's use as anything other than literature is highly suspect. You talk about interpretation, but what you treat it like is translation.
1+1=2 is a formal, simple mathematical equation which can be written in many ways and many tongues, and when translated it will always be the same thing (philosophical discussions on "what is the number 2" and so on notwitstanding).
But "tohu wa-bahu" ? the last word is apparently nonsense and the first word has many meanings - from formless (so "not existing" is fair) to "wasteland" or "empty" (in which it would not be) to "vain" which is...something else entirely.
And yet you treat this book as if it were the same as the mathematical equation of "1+1=2" when it quite clearly is not.
God may have said...something...and it was translated into "tohu wa-bahu" (let's say), and now it's been translated several times again and it's ended up as "empty and desolate", "formless and void" and many other alternatives, none of which mean quite the same thing.
All these translations, right from the very, very first ones that we don't even have any more, are quite obviously the words of men, and unless the magical sky-daddy's ability to guide humanity has ebbed to nothingness over the years, you can hardly claim that modern translations are any worse or any better than contemporary scribes and translators.
yet still they differ.
These words, they don't seem to be God's words, do they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by kbertsche, posted 03-02-2010 3:26 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by kbertsche, posted 03-03-2010 5:04 PM greyseal has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 67 of 127 (549061)
03-03-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Peg
03-03-2010 12:52 AM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
greyseal writes:
And Peg, what makes you think YOUR interpretation is correct over ICANT's?
because it is impossible that the earth and all in it came into existence in 6 days.
Physically impossible.
silly me, I thought Yahweh was omnipotent. tsch. shows what I know.
so, he couldn't have sped up reproduction, or allowed the animals to reproduce asexually, or allowed some other sort of special magical reproduction seeing as, you know, he can create an entire universe and breath life into mud and all that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Peg, posted 03-03-2010 12:52 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Peg, posted 03-03-2010 5:58 PM greyseal has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 68 of 127 (549063)
03-03-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by greyseal
03-03-2010 3:48 PM


Re: Re:Literal
quote:
These words, they don't seem to be God's words, do they?
To steal a phrase from Kenton Sparks, the Bible is "God's Word in Human Words."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by greyseal, posted 03-03-2010 3:48 PM greyseal has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 69 of 127 (549066)
03-03-2010 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by greyseal
03-03-2010 3:52 PM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
greyseal writes:
so, he couldn't have sped up reproduction, or allowed the animals to reproduce asexually, or allowed some other sort of special magical reproduction seeing as, you know, he can create an entire universe and breath life into mud and all that?
the bible doesnt even imply that it was all instantaneous so why assume that it was?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by greyseal, posted 03-03-2010 3:52 PM greyseal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Flyer75, posted 03-03-2010 7:59 PM Peg has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2423 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 70 of 127 (549071)
03-03-2010 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Peg
03-03-2010 5:58 PM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
Peg writes:
the bible doesnt even imply that it was all instantaneous so why assume that it was?
Nor does the Bible imply that it took billions of years for creation, so why assume that it was?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Peg, posted 03-03-2010 5:58 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 03-03-2010 8:53 PM Flyer75 has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 71 of 127 (549075)
03-03-2010 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Flyer75
03-03-2010 7:59 PM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
Flyer75 writes:
Nor does the Bible imply that it took billions of years for creation, so why assume that it was?
yeah, lets ignore the meaning of the hebrew word used and just assume that moses actually wrote the english word 'day'
why not, everyone else does

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Flyer75, posted 03-03-2010 7:59 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Flyer75, posted 03-03-2010 9:40 PM Peg has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2423 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 72 of 127 (549082)
03-03-2010 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Peg
03-03-2010 8:53 PM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
Peg,
So you've spent this whole time telling all of us that YOM can mean other periods of time other then a literal day, which I didn't disagree with you on, yet you now want to claim without any proof that with CERTAINTY it means millions of years????? When it CAN mean a literal day also?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 03-03-2010 8:53 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Peg, posted 03-03-2010 11:30 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 73 of 127 (549093)
03-03-2010 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Flyer75
03-03-2010 9:40 PM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
Flyer75 writes:
So you've spent this whole time telling all of us that YOM can mean other periods of time other then a literal day, which I didn't disagree with you on, yet you now want to claim without any proof that with CERTAINTY it means millions of years????? When it CAN mean a literal day also?
without any proof???
how long does it take for a diamond to form
how about coal?
How long does a landmass, covered in hot magna from an erupted volcano, take to re-vegetate?
How long does it take for the light from the sun to reach the earth?
could all this have really happened in 24hours? I think the evidence is fairly clear on that and therefore how could the Yom of Genesis be a 24 hour day??? It couldnt. So the logical interpretation of the account is that the Yom in this instance was a very long time, ages, eons, milleniums or simply... a very long Yom.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Flyer75, posted 03-03-2010 9:40 PM Flyer75 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by greyseal, posted 03-04-2010 3:13 AM Peg has replied
 Message 85 by hERICtic, posted 03-06-2010 6:57 AM Peg has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


(1)
Message 74 of 127 (549111)
03-04-2010 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Peg
03-03-2010 11:30 PM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
without any proof???
how long does it take for a diamond to form
how about coal?
How long does a landmass, covered in hot magna from an erupted volcano, take to re-vegetate?
How long does it take for the light from the sun to reach the earth?
could all this have really happened in 24hours? I think the evidence is fairly clear on that and therefore how could the Yom of Genesis be a 24 hour day??? It couldnt. So the logical interpretation of the account is that the Yom in this instance was a very long time, ages, eons, milleniums or simply... a very long Yom.
So God in your opinion can't do anything supernatural, like, say, bringing the dead back to life? Or walking on water? Or making a bush burn without actually burning? Or turn water into wine or a staff into a snake?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Peg, posted 03-03-2010 11:30 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Peg, posted 03-04-2010 4:31 AM greyseal has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 75 of 127 (549112)
03-04-2010 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by greyseal
03-04-2010 3:13 AM


Re: actually...it's not that simple
Greyseal writes:
So God in your opinion can't do anything supernatural, like, say, bringing the dead back to life? Or walking on water? Or making a bush burn without actually burning? Or turn water into wine or a staff into a snake?
Yes he can, but we are not talking about him manipulating physical laws, we are talking about him setting creation into motion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by greyseal, posted 03-04-2010 3:13 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by greyseal, posted 03-04-2010 7:10 AM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024