210d
@KellyJay saidYou’re talking about the gospels?
I have spelled out the number of copies written that are all in agreement with each other spread out over time and distance from each other if they were not coming from the same source they would not agree with each other, it isn't like today where they can write each other and compare text. That fact alone shows they came from the same source, not only from the writers of those texts but those who followed them who also were all saying the same thing.
They weren’t written independently of each other and at a “distance from each other”
What is it you are claiming?
Where are your references?
@KellyJay saidWhat you describe are nothing but copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies and no original. The fact that they (mostly) agree simply means that if there was an error in any one of them, it got copied again and again.
I have spelled out the number of copies written that are all in agreement with each other spread out over time and distance from each other if they were not coming from the same source they would not agree with each other, it isn't like today where they can write each other and compare text. That fact alone shows they came from the same source, not only from the writers of those texts but those who followed them who also were all saying the same thing.
You weren't there when those documents were written. You don't know that the authors, whoever they were, actually saw what they claimed happened. Not one of gospels was written by an eyewitness who knew Jesus; the authors of the gospels were all going on hearsay, decades years after his death. In short, there was no original. All we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of hearsay.
Imagine someone 'reporting' on the assassination of JFK based on four tiny fragments from unknown persons' memoirs 80 years after the alleged assassination, and a pile of other clippings in various stages of deterioration from centuries later, in a different language. There's your New Testament: tertiary, at best.
209d
1 edit
@moonbus saidYou are correct and seeing that they continually agree with the earliest copies shows you that these were carefully controlled not by a small number of priests at any single point in time, but by people from all over time and continents. The documents that make up the New Testament were originally written in the lifetime of the events given internal evidence within scripture and external events that we know happened at specific times. As I pointed out the people who knew the people who wrote them also wrote what they were taught and we see a commonality between their accounts and what is in scripture, you do not get that with any other old writing as we do the Bible.
What you describe are nothing but copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies and no original. The fact that they (mostly) agree simply means that if there was an error in any one of them, it got copied again and again.
You weren't there when those documents were written. You don't know that the authors, whoever the ...[text shortened]... from centuries later, in a different language. There's your New Testament: tertiary, at best.
209d
@KellyJay saidI will give you an example of an error, which crept into the gospels at an early stage and was copied over and over again: the Virgin Mary. This is based on a mistranslation. The error occurred when Hebrew was translated into Greek. The Hebrew word for what Mary was was almah. What this meant in Hebrew society that time was a legal and social status, not a physiological status. It meant that she had never been married before, not that she had never had sex before. This was mistranslated into Greek as Parthenos, from which we derive our modern word parthenogenesis meaning asexual mode of reproduction. This error was copied again and again, and is the basis of the Catholic doctrine of immaculate conception. The fact that all the copies agree does not mean that it’s correct, it simply means that the error has been reproduced.
You are correct and seeing that they continually agree with the earliest copies shows you that these were carefully controlled not by a small number of priests at any single point in time, but by people from all over time and continents. The documents that make up the New Testament were originally written in the lifetime of the events given internal evidence within scriptur ...[text shortened]... ccounts and what is in scripture, you do not get that with any other old writing as we do the Bible.
209d
@PettyTalk How about the question: Has the bible ever proved to be wrong?
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g200711/bible-scientific-accuracy/
May not seem like a big deal, but think about it.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
209d
'Six day creation - The idea that the Earth and the Universe were created in six days a few thousand years ago is completely unscientific. The age of the universe is calculated as being around 13.8 billion years while Earth is calculated to have formed 4.5 billion years ago. The difference between these two dates is significantly greater than six days. For those biblical literalists who argue for a 7,000 year old earth, there are multiple lines of evidence against a recent creation and—by extension—against a six day creation.
Human evolution - The claim that humans were the result of a special creation event at the end of this six day period is wrong. In fact, the evidence that humans and other animals evolved gradually over a period of some three to four billion years is overwhelming.'
etc etc etc
Rational Wiki
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4279
209d
@galveston75 saidThe counter question is this. Has the Bible ever been proved to be right?
@PettyTalk How about the question: Has the bible ever proved to be wrong?
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g200711/bible-scientific-accuracy/
May not seem like a big deal, but think about it.
How does anyone go about proving the Bible wrong, or right? What is the universal standard which can be, impartially, utilized to equally establish the right or the wrong?
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4279
209d
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidRealistically, what is the value of 6 days, or even 14 billion years, to an eternal Being? Those two time values are both insignificant when it comes to eternity. In fact, any numerical value we care to assign to the age of the physical universe is irrelevant, when comparing it to eternity.
'Six day creation - The idea that the Earth and the Universe were created in six days a few thousand years ago is completely unscientific. The age of the universe is calculated as being around 13.8 billion years while Earth is calculated to have formed 4.5 billion years ago. The difference between these two dates is significantly greater than six days. For those bibli ...[text shortened]... ver a period of some three to four billion years is overwhelming.'
etc etc etc
Rational Wiki
Back then, in the infancy of scientific knowledge, when man was just learning to crawl, should God have detailed how he created the physical universe out of nothing, giving the particulars of quantum mechanics to Moses?
209d
@moonbus saidHow did you know it was an error that came in, again?
I will give you an example of an error, which crept into the gospels at an early stage and was copied over and over again: the Virgin Mary. This is based on a mistranslation. The error occurred when Hebrew was translated into Greek. The Hebrew word for what Mary was was almah. What this meant in Hebrew society that time was a legal and social status, not a physiological statu ...[text shortened]... he copies agree does not mean that it’s correct, it simply means that the error has been reproduced.
209d
@PettyTalk saidGood grief you’re a whiny pussy.
When I first made the error of becoming a regular poster, I recall that divegeester and FMF were your steady dates, and over and over again they nagged you into steady exchanges of 'complementary' words.
209d
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidBelieve it or not, something can be true and completely unscientific. It's reality, not what conforms to your idea of what is and isn't scientific that matters.
'Six day creation - The idea that the Earth and the Universe were created in six days a few thousand years ago is completely unscientific. The age of the universe is calculated as being around 13.8 billion years while Earth is calculated to have formed 4.5 billion years ago. The difference between these two dates is significantly greater than six days. For those bibli ...[text shortened]... ver a period of some three to four billion years is overwhelming.'
etc etc etc
Rational Wiki
209d
@KellyJay saidReferences to back your claims up please?
You are correct and seeing that they continually agree with the earliest copies shows you that these were carefully controlled not by a small number of priests at any single point in time, but by people from all over time and continents. The documents that make up the New Testament were originally written in the lifetime of the events given internal evidence within scriptur ...[text shortened]... ccounts and what is in scripture, you do not get that with any other old writing as we do the Bible.
208d
@divegeester saidYou're over complicating this by asking the same question a different way by rearranging the words. Please go back and read what I wrote to you in this thread.
My question is: HOW do you know the Bible is what people (contemporary men and women) say it is?
@mchill saidI’m sorry if my over complicated question is confusing you by my “rearranging of the words”. Maybe you’ve been focusing on your OTB too much and would be better off taking an English comprehension course.
You're over complicating this by asking the same question a different way by rearranging the words.