- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4279
212d
@Suzianne said@divegeester said
Apparently you only start threads to yell at people.
I’m inviting conversation by starting this thread and the many others I start.
Would you like to converse about the OP?
---------------------------------------------------------------
I say this: How do we know that dive is a spoiled brat? Just look at the expiration date on the package, and also note the mold and mildew already present. This brat is not worthy of grilling/roasting.
All we can do is to heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward us with good.
@divegeester saidThe short answer is: We don't. I've said here a number of times "there are some things we have to take on faith"
How do we know that what is written in the Bible is an accurate account of “what God said”?
You can toss insults at me for being evasive on this (again) but the fact remains that using logic, math, physics or other disciplines to explain, prove, or disprove what is in the Bible is futile.
@mchill saidExactly.
The short answer is: We don't. I've said here a number of times "there are some things we have to take on faith"
You can toss insults at me for being evasive on this (again) but the fact remains that using logic, math, physics or other disciplines to explain, prove, or disprove what is in the Bible is futile.
211d
@mchill saidI for one am already aware of this, thank you.
The short answer is: We don't. I've said here a number of times "there are some things we have to take on faith"
You can toss insults at me for being evasive on this (again) but the fact remains that using logic, math, physics or other disciplines to explain, prove, or disprove what is in the Bible is futile.
There are people who regularly use text from the Bible and claim it is “the word of God”, “the commands of God”, “the truth of God” etc.
My question remains; how do they know this about the Bible?
211d
@Suzianne saidMy question is: HOW do you know the Bible is what people (contemporary men and women) say it is?
The fact remains that the Most High has shed his blood for us. Because of this, those with faith KNOW. Those without faith, the very "faith of the mustard seed", merely ASK, over and over and over and...
@divegeester saidThe short answer is that you don't, and no one else does either. The oldest complete MS of the Bible dates to the end of the 9th c. CE; only four tiny scraps survive from within one generation of the life of Jesus comprising, in total, less than one hundred words. That is a huge gap with no certified chain of custody covering the intervening centuries. Moreover, the fact that the extant MS from the 9th c. agrees with the four surviving scraps is no reason to suppose that the rest of 9th c. MS would agree with the rest of the scraps from the 1st c. if there were any more scraps from the 1st c.
How do we know that what is written in the Bible is an accurate account of “what God said”?
The Bible itself is no certification of its truth. No more so than is Homer's Illiad or the Upanishads or The Book of Mormon.
I suggest you do some basic historical research and find out how and where and when the Bible came to be. It is, to put it bluntly, a patchwork which came together over a period of centuries and was not canonized until the 4th c. CE by a cadre of Roman bishops who culled a much larger corpus of scrolls held by various No. African and Asian Churches (each one claiming to have been founded by one of the Apostles) to be sacred. Most of the candidate scrolls were declared apocryphal, for reasons the Roman bishops did not chose to make known. One simply cannot take it 'on faith' that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God without assuming that God would not let the Roman bishops to err either in selecting some scrolls for the canon and rejecting others.
A good place to start would be Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorized Edition. Fox is a well-respected historian of the period with no particular axe to grind.
@moonbus saidThere are several copies, not only that the disciples also had disciples that wrote what they were taught there is no doubt that these guys were all preaching the same message. You can deny it all you want, but there is more showing the Biblical accounts were written by who they claim they are than any other ancient document from the past. The surprising thing is the amount of text that we do have considering the efforts to destroy them over time as well.
The short answer is that you don't, and no one else does either. The oldest complete MS of the Bible dates to the end of the 9th c. CE; only four tiny scraps survive from within one generation of the life of Jesus comprising, in total, less than one hundred words. That is a huge gap with no certified chain of custody covering the intervening centuries. Moreover, the fact tha ...[text shortened]... orized Edition.[/i] Fox is a well-respected historian of the period with no particular axe to grind.
211d
@KellyJay saidForget that the Bible is supposed to be the Word of God. Treat the Bible as you would any other ancient book, Homer or Aristotle or Plato: "What's the chain of custody?" That is the question any historian has to ask. Nine centuries gap back to the apostles is a long time, plenty of time for errors of copying and of translation to creep in.
There are several copies, not only that the disciples also had disciples that wrote what they were taught there is no doubt that these guys were all preaching the same message. You can deny it all you want, but there is more showing the Biblical accounts were written by who they claim they are than any other ancient document from the past. The surprising thing is the amount of text that we do have considering the efforts to destroy them over time as well.
Biblical scholars are in general agreement that the apostles themselves left no writing. The gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by anyone who actually knew Jesus. The earliest gospel is considered to be Mark's, who many scholars believe to have been Peter's secretary; most biblical scholars believe Mark's gospel to have been written not earlier than 80 years after the death of Jesus, some put it up to 110 years later. So Mark is hearsay, not an eyewitness. Luke and Matthew are paraphrases of Mark and other documents of unknown authorship and authenticity which have not survived. So hearsay paraphrased from more hearsay.
If someone were to present the Nicomachean Ethics as the work of Aristotle, but based on only four extant fragments paraphrased by the secretary of one of his students 80 or 110 years after Aristotle's death, and the rest of it with a gap of nine centuries to the next complete MS for which there is a credible chain of custody to the present day, he'd be pilloried in the academic world as a fraud.
@KellyJay saidThat the disciples were “preaching the same message” has nothing to do with the question in the OP. Nor has there preaching in NT times got anything to do with who wrote the OT.
There are several copies, not only that the disciples also had disciples that wrote what they were taught there is no doubt that these guys were all preaching the same message. You can deny it all you want, but there is more showing the Biblical accounts were written by who they claim they are than any other ancient document from the past. The surprising thing is the amount of text that we do have considering the efforts to destroy them over time as well.
Why not take the question in the OP head on and discuss it?
211d
@divegeester saidThen the answer is, "you don't know that the Bible records what God said." I don't think any thoughtful Christian thinks the Bible is anything but what people said, and the question is, whether those people were inspired by God or just making stuff up.
That the disciples were “preaching the same message” has nothing to do with the question in the OP. Nor has there preaching in NT times got anything to do with who wrote the OT.
Why not take the question in the OP head on and discuss it?
211d
1 edit
@divegeester saidMy bad. I took the question to be addressed to anyone with an interest in ancient sacred literature.
Why are you directing this at me, I’m the one asking the biblical literalists 😅