Biblical Tall Tales

quote:

---

Quibble?

​

Back on topic once again -

​

The original texts which mention "giants" are not in English. The word which we have translated into "giants" is more like "powerful men". Not far off, given some definitions

​

So, in otherword, saying that Rockafeller was a "giant" of industry does not imply that he was actually a 10ft tall business man.

​

However, see the passage about the flood that reads "There were giants on the Earth in those days." They don't think, powerful men, they don't think warlords or dictators. They think actual fee-fi-fo-fum giants.

---

Infact it means something even more specific than this and furthermore there are two words translated as "giants" in question in the OT. And it is because of instances like this one that the Septuagint and Vulgate are so valuable. See Hebrew is loaded with these types of words that have an even more specific meaning than what is merely being referred to. But when translated into Koine Greek or Latin, we can deduce it more clearly. Keep in mind that Christian Biblical scholars are numerous and have a much older scholarly tradition than the liberal Biblical scholars of today. Just because technically the Hebrew could mean this or that doesn't mean that it did. Context is critical and so is what it is translated into in other languages, by people who know what is intended in the Ancient Hebrew.

quote:

---

And army who's main warrior stood a foot taller than everyone else and was a "powerful" man does not necessarily have a rogue Homo Erectus offshoot dressed in armor as Randman suggests. It simply has powerful warrior of great reputation.

---

It doesn't matter. The Bible calls him a giant and it is definitely plausible. Do you have some condemning information that suggests otherwise?

quote:

---

That's one word and look at the trouble it's caused.

---

Yes, rather silly to doubt the reliability of the Bible based on this one word isn't it?

quote:

---

Let's talk about how "virgin" and "young girl" are the same word in Greek, shall we?

​

Mary was a pregnant young girl has a very different meaning that a virgin birth.

​

It's important to work out the definitions. That's not quibbling, that's translation.

---

And do you think that Christian scholars all throughout history are/were somehow inept at this? You give them too little credit. Liberal Scholarship, in the grand scheme of history, is, simply put, a peanut operation, compared to the substantially larger Christian scholarship. And don't kid youself, in a debate between scholars on matters like these, they would just make the Liberal scholars claims like this look silly and shallow.

One of your "minimum skips" is -11,600. that's 11,600 per character. If that fits into minimum skip, what do you consider maximum skip?Bible Codes is a math problem and nothing else. Let's pick a source and a grid size. I'll start a thread about it.

Sounds like an apeal to authority. "My scholar is bigger than yourse!"Post some actual translations or some links. This actually standard practice in this forum and is part of the forum rules. You need to supply external supporting evidence, especially when making claims like these.The amount of scholars is irelevant to the truth of the matter. Lots of folks (many of those same scholars in the fine christian scholarly tradition) thought tourching infidels to be a perfectly justifyable thing to do in the name of god.

Nuggin,No, However I'll conceed 11,000 is a bit high compared to the rest. If you take out this higher than normal skip the minimum averages out to around 800 skips. A quick averaging, has Moby Dick skips averaged out to approximately 46,000 skipsP.S. No need to have a thread on this. You need to get your averages down to around 800 skips to be in the ball park.

oh... so moby dick is just not AS accurate. Let's see, moby dick is about 60% as accurate as the bible. That's a pretty good score!Cool. I bet britanica will be like 90% as accurate.Thanks for pointing out that it has nothing to do with what book it is and everything to do with the score it gets. I guess we now have a scientific test for inerrancy and supernatural god-breathed works This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-02-2006 10:48 PM

quote:

---

You keep accusing people of having their logic break down, or not being able to follow your logic. The word logic appears in virtually every single post of yours on this thread.

​

Here's the problem - your arguments is not logical.

---

In which of my posts has this been demonstrated? Because as you are about to find out, it sure as heck ins't this one.

quote:

---

a) You state that you believe that the original text was infallible. But, you have no proof of this and no way to prove this.

---

This has already been addressed. I do not need PROOF. I can use logic and evidence to support my argument. Read the forum rules, it covers this.

quote:

---

b) You state that copies of the original text contain errors.

​

c) You agree that all we have are copies of the original text.

​

Therefore, all we have are copies which contain errors.

​

So, even if (a) were correct - which is an assumption. b and c still make it moot.

---

Let me spell it out for you. If the original document was inerrant, and the copies have some minor errors, then we have a copy of an inerrant document with ONLY trivial errors. This becomes even more clear, when we realize that many of these errors are known and we know what the correct words are supposed to be, because other copies do not conatin the same error. So please stop dodging this point and asserting the same thing over and over without addressing this.

quote:

---

You gave us a link to a definition of innerant
"Inerrancy refers to text that is considered accurate, truthful, totally free of error, and without mistake."

---

You have skipped the quote I gave, and given an earlier excerpt from the same link, before the matter was clarified about what we Evangelicals mean when we use the word "inerrant." I don't appreciate you deliberately distorting my argument. It's not like I haven't emphasized the matter and then some already.In post #150 of this thread, another poster had this to say about you.

quote:

---

nuggins, considering they mention Atlas as an example of something not trustworthy, I am left wondering if you are deliberately misrepresenting things here.

​

Is that your intent?

​

This seems to be a pattern on your part. When you find data that contradicts your stance, rather than change your stance or address the data, you try switching the topic, and sometimes misrepresenting the data.

---

Now I know that he was not jumping to conclusions. The entire quote that I gave, in post #174, really says this.

quote:

---

Generally, "inerrancy" refers only to the original handwritten (a.k.a. autograph) copy of each of the books of the Bible. Subsequent copies may contain accidental copyist errors or intentional additions/deletions by forgers

---

The part that Nuggin quotes is at this website too. Here is the link.http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm Anyone wanting clarification on this issue can go there and see for themselves. Apparently Nuggin cherry picked the part, that minus what I said, would make it look like I am wrong. Nuggin please refrain from doing this in debates with me in the future. I sincerely try to understand your viewpoint, rather than merely give an opposing one, even if it neccessitates misrepresenting yours to remain valid. Please show me the same courtesy in the future.

quote:

---

Since, logically, all copies of the Bible which exist today contain errors, then no copy of the Bible which exists today is inerrant.

​

And since there is not inerrant masterwork to spellcheck against (if there ever was one) there is no way to correct 100% for the errors.

​

If an error occured which predates all our existing copies of the texts it would appear in every copy and would be assumed to be innerant. There is no safeguard against this.

​

The only thing which comes close to being a safeguard is when we find an older version of the text, like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

​

An older text is presumably the result of less copy generations from the original. (An assumption on my part - but one that holds up in this case given the extreme time difference and language difference between the DSS and, let's say, the KJV).

​

When an older, more closely related text, contains different information - say that Goliath was 6'6", and that information fits better into what we know of the world - say that Goliath was 6'6", what reason do we have to doubt that version?

​

That's the whole point of this thread. The modern Bible says one thing about a particular tall tale, and older text says something different and more reasonable. Why should we assume that the more modern, less reasonable Bible, is correct, especially when it suggests a race of Giants for which we lack data?

---

I already gave an explanation as to how the Bible was well preserved. I also already asked you to address those points. You do not have any evidence nor reasonable logic that counters my explanation as to how and why modern Bibles are still basically the same text as when the Bible was originally written. Just so doesn't cut it. You need to address my points and/or present another counter argument that is also plausible and would over-ride what I have pointed out already.The fact of the matter is that many ancient texts have few copies and are themselves copies of copies of copies, etc. But no one goes on tirades hollaring about how what we have is so unrereliable when it comes to those documents. So why is it that the Bible is the exception? And requirements not imposed on other ancient texts are readily, and even eagerly, imposed on the Bible by many modern skeptics?

hrmm, what do you think would help in that process. Oh, I know, I could switch to a less rigid language. Perhaps one that doesn't seperate consonents and vowels. Something like Hebrew?I bet the skip distance on Chinese tests is even more accurate, given that they can come up with whole sentences in just a few characters.Does that mean that the Chinese are even more choosen than the Jews?

Yaro, 60% ? 800 skip verses 46,000 skips

Nuggin, No Go for it. This message has been edited by The Golfer, 01-02-2006 11:03 PM

That's a good point, and let me tell you why. No one is claiming Heroditus is inerrant and god-breathed. No one is claiming the Illiad is special. No one is claiming Gilgamesh really happened.That's the difference? People are claiming the bible has a magic sky man behind it. People claim that the whole world was made in a week and that donkeys could talk. That's the problem.Heroditus gave us lots of historical tidbits verified by archeology, but no one takes seriously his claims of gold-digging ants, etheopians with black sperm, and men with heads in their chests.Some people want to take seriously, myths of the same caliber, which appear in the bible.This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-02-2006 11:16 PM

quote:

---

Why, yes, we can PROVE the fact of evolution 100%. What can not be proved 100% is the MECHANISM of how evolution works. This is different between the fact that evolution happens (a fact that can be proven, and the Theory of evolution (which are a variety of different models to describe on how it happens.

---

This another debate entirely. So let's skip it here to stay on topic. OK? Nuggin too.

quote:

---

You should expect strong disagreement over that.

---

I can see that now and no doubt it can result in a rather large debate itself. So I'll just skip the point to remain on topic.

quote:

---

Some of the people you are referring to as non-Christians might actually be Christians who do not accept inerrancy. Others likely have been Christians (often evangelicals) before coming to their current views.

---

IC.

quote:

---

That depends on what is meant by "inerrancy". It could mean
# when what the text says disagrees with observation (including scientific observation) then we have misunderstood the text and must find a different way of understanding it; or
# when the text disagrees with observation, then observation is wrong.

​

If you mean "inerrancy" in the second sense, then any contradictory observation refutes inerrancy and you are depending on ad hoc special pleading to believe otherwise.

---

I think it's inerrant to begin with. People misunderstand the Bible in more ways than just what is relevent in regard to scientific observations. I'm not afraid or unwilling to debate issues where skeptics claim the Bible is incompatible with science. But I am only one man and have only so much free time too, so I think I need to stick to one topic at a time.

Forms, you are either deliberately trying to piss people off, or you really aren't listening. You have NOT presented LOGIC or EVIDENCE to support your belief that the original copies of the Bible are inerrant.The closest you've come is saying that you believe that the first copy was inerrant, and that people would have done a good job copying it.That's not evidence. That's not even close to evidence. If it is your belief, that's fine. But since it is you who with the extraordinary claim - that the original text is inerrant - it is up to you to prove it, not up to us to disprove it.Additionally, your lambasting me for quoting the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the link YOU GAVE is flat out annoying. If you don't like the definition it gives - DON'T LINK IT.So far as I can tell, everyone on this thread except for you agrees that "inerrant" means "free from error".Somehow, in your world, "inerrant" means "with errors, but not a lot of them." Just to be clear, to most of us "many" means "most but not all". I hope that it means that to you.If it does, then you are saying that the Bible contains errors that we don't know about. How you can refer to unknown errors as being ONLY trivial seems a bit disinginous. Do you have some special guide to the unknown errors that no one else knows about?As for this idea that "other copies" don't contain the error. This only holds up each of the "old copies" was copied directly from the original. But even you aren't claiming that that is the case.These copies are in fact copies of copies. And, any error which predates the oldest copy we have could be in every version and completely undetectable. Again, you are the one making the extraordinary claim here, so it falls to you offer PROOF.Just so you know, saying that "the rabbis probably did a good job" is not proof.

Nicely evaded.

the greater point still stands. You are reducing the "supernatural bible" to a score on some dumb test which is basically a mathmatical wordgame you can play on any book.Worse plot device since lucas introduced midi-clorine as the explanation for The Force.