Originally posted by FMFOk, but it was a point raised by Randy Andy, its 3:30 am, im done, sorry, ill try to dream up some evidence for you in my sleep.
The OP states that the Bible "was compiled by a group of men with their own agenda (choosing what goes in and what is left out) long after the events took place", so the question of veracity has been set rather more broadly than merely "scribal errors".
Originally posted by Proper KnobAs a man of science I must ask for evidence for I cannot feed my mind on unobserved phenomena.
I never claimed to be to offering anything. I asked what evidence would cause you to 'pause for thought' regarding the claims made about Jesus in the Bible?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMuch of the Bible is symbolic fabrication, as opposed to fact. The only way to refute that
As a man of science I must ask for evidence for I cannot feed my mind on unobserved phenomena.
is to prove that the text in question is factual, which has not been done. The fact that the
Book of Isaiah was unchanged is irrelevant. The editing and shaping of other passages in
other parts of the Bible undoubtedly had an effect on the version we read now.
Originally posted by HandyAndyJesus left an image of Himself (not made by man's hand) on the Shroud of Turin. Scientists can not explain how to make it or reproduce it.
I think we all agree that Jesus Christ was a real person, though he never wrote anything down
and left no records that we know of. What you choose to believe about him is based only on what
others wrote many years after his crucifixion.
Originally posted by checkbaiterActually the burden remains with the person making the claim. The problem is that your claims are unsupportable as they are nothing more than speculation on your part. You could not possibly know what documents people do or do not 'dream of questioning' or even what a classical scholar would listen to.
You have no idea what you are saying. The burden is on you to substantiate what is true or not...
The problem theists have is that many of them believe that the writing of Bible was inspired by God. In other words they themselves do not believe the writers were writing based on what they knew from personal experience or what had been passed down to them by others. So when they claim that the documents should be treated as historical records, and judged based on the likelihood that such information was correctly passed down and recorded, they are actually contradicting their own beliefs.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Well this thread certainly took off like the body of a decapitated hen. Maybe if we focus on the problems raised in the video we could all have an educational, interesting conversation?
1) The only original hebrew texts are the dead sea scrolls, which are fragmentary.
2) The greek manuscripts are from the fourth century and themselves copies and translations from now lost greek and hebrew originals.
3) The more complete hebrew texts are copies made in the tenth century, taken from various now lost copies of the original hebrew texts.
4) All the originals were from now dead cultures that used figure of speech and analogies that were not entirely easy to copy into figures of speech that would work equally well in the cultures of those making the copies and translations, so even if we did have the complete originals we couldn't verify that the copies have good equivalents for these original sayings.
5) The now lost hebrew originals, and the fragments from the dead sea scrolls, are not even in the language spoken by Jesus himself, which means that even the original hebrew (of which we have only fragments I remind you) were already translations from aramaic.
How reliable is a source, when it consists of selected parts of texts that are several copies and translations apart from now almost entirely lost originals written in hebrew and greek, the most important part of which is about a man that spoke aramaic? And why would you bet your eternal existence (assuming you believe in that sort of thing) on a text containing such wonderful blunders such as virgin instead of young woman and 666 in place of 616; on such a text not containing even more serious blunders that may in fact put you on a path straight away from the god these texts are supposed to help you find?
Don't you doubt the book just a little, knowing all this? I know I would. In fact, if I suspected for even a second that there is a personal god seeking a relationship with me, I'd do what the prophets of old is claimed to have done; I'd look inwards to see if I could receive the signal directly from the grand lady herself, rather than trying to make sense of the bible.
Who's with me on this? Aye? Aye? 🙂
Originally posted by C Hessthere are entire books of the Bible contained in the dead sea scrolls, in what universe is that fragmentary. I have seen them my very self when they came to Glasgow in an exhibition. I have also seen chicken being decapitated, twas rather unpleasant for both chicken and me.
Well this thread certainly took off like the body of a decapitated hen. Maybe if we focus on the problems raised in the video we could all have an educational, interesting conversation?
1) The only original hebrew texts are the dead sea scrolls, which are fragmentary.
2) The greek manuscripts are from the fourth century and themselves copies and translati ...[text shortened]... y herself, rather than trying to make sense of the bible.
Who's with me on this? Aye? Aye? 🙂
Sahidic coptic text is third century and was copied from earlier Greek manuscript second century and contains entire books of the Greek scriptures.
Originally posted by HandyAndymore conjecture, postulation, mere opinion masquerading as fact, make with the evidence Randolph, pronto rapid.
Much of the Bible is symbolic fabrication, as opposed to fact. The only way to refute that
is to prove that the text in question is factual, which has not been done. The fact that the
Book of Isaiah was unchanged is irrelevant. The editing and shaping of other passages in
other parts of the Bible undoubtedly had an effect on the version we read now.