14 Feb 14
Originally posted by josephwI've also read the Bible for 30 years. I'm talking about reading about the Bible. How it was copied, compiled, and edited over the centuries. That was what was never talked about in churches during my religious years.
Please sir! I've been a reading the Bible for over 30 years. I am well acquainted with its history. The thing that you and others don't seem to understand is that [b]any historical evidence concerning the veracity of the Holy scriptures that in any way suggests that the Word of God contains errors or contradictions, is a lie.
You are unaware of the tr ...[text shortened]... hing is lost, nor will it ever be. It's too bad you don't know that, or even how it is possible.[/b]
Your blanket statement dismissing any contradictions before you've even heard what they might be indicates a closed mind - perhaps even fear of hearing any evidence against that which you wish to believe. Intellectually, that's a sad state of affairs - the equivalent of a child putting his fingers in his ears and yelling "La la la, I'm not listening" to drown out what they don't want to hear.
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI was careful not to use the word 'contradiction' for that very reason. At best, the details are a bit vague. But again, accepting that people are working from copy to copy over decades, that's not surprising.
So the procession was both out of the palace and out of the city, eh?
That seems like QUITE the contradiction to me.
How is it even possible to leave the palace AND the city?
Hmm...
This one's a real head-scratcher, huh!
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadDid I call it authoritative?
Yes, I know what Wikipedia is.
[b]The underlying point, of course, is citing Wikipedia as authoritative lends no support to your claim.
Did I call it authoritative? Do you dispute any of the contents therein? I didn't see you do so. Did you dispute the claim I made when I cited it? (that there are a significant number of people (scholars) who disp ...[text shortened]... 't mention a single specific criticism of the Bible. It seems you are arguing with someone else.[/b]
Did you cite it as a source in support of your claim?
Did you hope to sway opinion on the basis of its content?
Were you relying on it to provide credence to your position?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then the answer to your question is yes.
Do you dispute any of the contents therein?
I already have.
And if you claimed that freedom has withstood all attacks against it, you'd be wrong.
Really?
Does freedom exist on the planet?
Checkmate.
There are temporary battle victories by despots, but the grip is eventually lost and freedom wins in the long run, as it has throughout history.
OK, so the bible has withstood all criticism because you say so.
Sorry, not good enough.
Bring it on!
Give me that one thing that so sticks in your caw that you just can't get past it, the one thing that convinces you the Bible isn't accurate.
Don't cop out with 'all of it,' or some claptrap like that.
What is one deal-breaker?
You seem to have not realised that I didn't mention a single specific criticism of the Bible. It seems you are arguing with someone else.
I wasn't referencing you specifically with that last part, but rather the current topic of the thread related to the laundry list of supposed errors.
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe details aren't at all vague.
I was careful not to use the word 'contradiction' for that very reason. At best, the details are a bit vague. But again, accepting that people are working from copy to copy over decades, that's not surprising.
In fact, they're very specific.
Three accounts mention the weariness of the Lord Jesus Christ in carrying the cross and the subsequent move to press Simon into service for the remaining procession.
John's account omitted Simon carrying the cross.
That doesn't mean it didn't happen; maybe he didn't see it.
Originally posted by black beetleAccording to your reasoning that is! The thing you don't understand is that the Word of God is not open to your criticisms, nor is it subject to your vain imaginings. If it were, it wouldn't be the Word of God would it.
No, SwissGambit said it all perfectly well: "If you admit that these tales were passed by word-of-mouth and after that jotted down by hand and copied laboriously and imperfectly by hand thereafter, and our earliest known copies are dated at decades after the events supposedly occurred, then it is not at all surprising that some small details are not consistent."
😵
You THINK you can employ reason and logic, but your imagination is not as great as you imagine it to be.
If the Word of God is in fact just that, then your musings are of no avail, and your constructs to undermine it will fail. But the Word of God will never fail.
You see, bb, you are debating the wrong issue with the wrong person. If the Word of God is the Word of God, then take it up with God, which is essentially what you must do to resolve the issue for yourself. Debating with me about it is pointless. I ain't God.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by josephw"Debating with me about it is pointless."
According to your reasoning that is! The thing you don't understand is that the Word of God is not open to your criticisms, nor is it subject to your vain imaginings. If it were, it wouldn't be the Word of God would it.
You THINK you can employ reason and logic, but your imagination is not as great as you imagine it to be.
If the Word of God is in fac ...[text shortened]... must do to resolve the issue for yourself. Debating with me about it is pointless. I ain't God.
Amen.
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by SwissGambit"That was what was never talked about in churches during my religious years."
I've also read the Bible for 30 years. I'm talking about reading about the Bible. How it was copied, compiled, and edited over the centuries. That was what was never talked about in churches during my religious years.
Your blanket statement dismissing any contradictions before you've even heard what they might be indicates a closed mind - perha ...[text shortened]... in his ears and yelling "La la la, I'm not listening" to drown out what they don't want to hear.
I'm sure it wasn't. But the Bible is full of the information you need to know to prove its own veracity. Most Christians are uninformed.
"Your blanket statement dismissing any contradictions before you've even heard what they might be indicates a closed mind "
I've heard the contradictions. I've debated the issue. It is your mind that is closed as evidenced by your accusations.
True though that my statements are blanket and dismissing!
No one has ever proven to me that the Word of God, which is contained in a book we call the Bible, has errors or contradictions in it. It is mindlessly irrational and void of logic and reason to make such a claim against the Word of God!
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, I just thought you were horribly ignorant and might want to brush up a bit so I was giving you some pointers as a starting point.
Did you cite it as a source in support of your claim?
Did you hope to sway opinion on the basis of its content?
No.
Were you relying on it to provide credence to your position?
No.
I already have.
But not the contents I was pointing to.
Really?
Does freedom exist on the planet?
Checkmate.
Yes, you loose.
There are temporary battle victories by despots, but the grip is eventually lost and freedom wins in the long run, as it has throughout history.
Once again, may I direct you to Wikipedia for a basic education.
Bring it on!
Give me that one thing that so sticks in your caw that you just can't get past it, the one thing that convinces you the Bible isn't accurate.
You still haven't figured out what the discussion is have you? I suggest you go back and read through my posts, it'll come to you eventually.
I wasn't referencing you specifically with that last part, but rather the current topic of the thread related to the laundry list of supposed errors.
OK. Thats fine, so long as you realise that I am not making any laundry lists, nor interested in making any.
All I am saying is that the Bible is well known to be highly inaccurate as a historical document and you claiming otherwise is just hot air. Your initial post that I criticised seem to imply that your claim was a forgone conclusion when in reality it is little more than the opinion of an anonymous poster on the internet.
Originally posted by josephwThe second sentence tells us why the first sentence is true.
No one has ever proven to me that the Word of God, which is contained in a book we call the Bible, has errors or contradictions in it. It is mindlessly irrational and void of logic and reason to make such a claim against the Word of God!
What you should have said, to be a bit more honest is:
"Nobody could ever prove to me ....."
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by josephwI have no issue to resolve;
According to your reasoning that is! The thing you don't understand is that the Word of God is not open to your criticisms, nor is it subject to your vain imaginings. If it were, it wouldn't be the Word of God would it.
You THINK you can employ reason and logic, but your imagination is not as great as you imagine it to be.
If the Word of God is in fac ...[text shortened]... must do to resolve the issue for yourself. Debating with me about it is pointless. I ain't God.
The contradictions, the problematic verses, the available translations and the differ linguistic and doctrinal interpretations of the Bible are so many, that they caused a huge number of denominations. And any single one of all of these denominations is nothing but a product of a purely human criticism according to "reason" and "logic" as it is understood by the religious personages which offered their interpretations (and mind you, if we are to accept your opinion, it follows that "the Word of G-d" is open to the criticism of the theist community and not open to the criticism of the atheist community, but that's another story). Methinks this is the issue; and this is what all the Christians have to resolve as regards the so called "Word of G-d"
😵
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHmm, I count only one account that says Jesus carried his own cross.
The details aren't at all vague.
In fact, they're very specific.
Three accounts mention the weariness of the Lord Jesus Christ in carrying the cross and the subsequent move to press Simon into service for the remaining procession.
John's account omitted Simon carrying the cross.
That doesn't mean it didn't happen; maybe he didn't see it.
And there's the small matter of who carried the cross for that final leg of the trip that ended at Golgotha. 3 say it was Simon, the other says it was Jesus. You have not addressed this. One of the accounts must be wrong on this detail.
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by black beetleI would have thought that "laboriously coping" something would be more inclined to name the copy accurate.
No, SwissGambit said it all perfectly well: "If you admit that these tales were passed by word-of-mouth and after that jotted down by hand and copied laboriously and imperfectly by hand thereafter, and our earliest known copies are dated at decades after the events supposedly occurred, then it is not at all surprising that some small details are not consistent."
😵
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by divegeesterI've been reading Ehrman's book on this. Apparently, the scribes felt empowered to take liberties to correct things they did not understand, or felt were not consistent. There were places when the writing was messy and hard to read, places where the writer had missed a few characters while listening to someone dictate the text, and so on.
I would have thought that "laboriously coping" something would be more inclined to name the copy accurate.