Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The closer to the primary source, the more accurate the work.
|
well that's really the crux of it, isnt it?
in your own words:
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The measurement of a later copy with an earlier copy assures us that tampering, word changes, intent changes and other evidences of truth-stretching were not apparent.
|
but this does nothing to verify the original source material. thankyou for making my point.
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The bible crossreferences itself, proves itself daily and is supported by scientific discovery and archaeology. You asked for references, I provided references. If this is not enough go do your own research. 24,000 manuscripts have been found to date. That was the information I gave you didn't believe.
|
gee, yorrick, we hardly know each other. it's bad enough you assume i disagree with you, but to then jump to the conclusion i didnt believe the information tells me that you are looking for a fight, not seeking an exchange of ideas.
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The bible contains books that are historical yes. It is not limited to historical books. The statement I quoted is not preclusive. That as much should have been obvious.
|
i can see you are frustrated by your own quibbling tactics being used against you. i withdraw my aforementioned support for your conclusion that the bible is just a work of history.
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It's wierd that you contested a point.
|
first of all, i never contested the point. in truth (can i use that word here?), my ignorance precluded me from having an opinion. if you look at my original question...
Quote:
Originally posted by sultan:
fascinating. could you provide a source for this statement please?
|
you'll note no value judgement for or against your claim. clearly you assume i am against you, much as you did above. this tells me that you are more interested in picking a fight than having serious discourse.
.
.
.
back to the salient point, your claim on the figure was used to directly refute this question
Quote:
Originally posted by Maelakin:
2. Put aside your personal beliefs in the Bible for a minute, and try to understand that most of the world believes the Bible to be nothing more than a collection of short stories. In addition, those stories are so vague as to leave immense room for interpretation. As such, when you use the Bible as a form of documentation, many people immediately invalidate your comments. Using a collection of works that many believe to be fiction (and there is no dispute to this claim unless you rely upon a blind faith) does not substantiate your claim either. Documentation implies that the work contains fact, so you cannot in all seriousness use the Bible, in a multi-religious discussion, as a source for that documentation.
|
your response to which began:
Quote:
Originally posted by Maelakin:
2. Actually you are incorrect. The bible is a collection of works and is the most validated work in existence. To claim the bible is fiction is to ignore the entire process of collating and evaluating historical writing. The works of Tacitus and Herodutus have far less copies dating further away from the time of writing. Some "generally accepted works" are based on one or two manuscripts dating hundreds of years after the events.
The bible has 25,000? (or another ridiculously high figure) manuscripts dating to only 50 years after the events
|
To my modest understanding of the english language, it appears that you claim that a) the number of works and b) their time of writing, is, in part, evidence of their veracity.
My question
Quote:
Originally posted by sultan:
fascinating. could you provide a source for this statement please?
|
was to help me understand the veracity of your claim.
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
When it [the number of manuscripts found] turns out to be "on the money" give or take a thousand, you decide to challenge other points.
|
As the prior discussion has shown, yes the number of figures you quoted was "on the money", or near enough to it. But the rest of your claim, a) that this figure represents the bible as a whole, and b) that they were written near the time of events, turns out to be unsubstantiated by the sources you cited.
So, no, I am not challenging "other" points, I am challenging your original claim, with particular attention to the larger point it was used to support. Hey, you brought it up!
But, all of this aside, let's get to the heart of the matter
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What if my opnion is that my opinions are fact?
|
Well, that would mean that it's your opinion. an OPINION, just like mine or maelakin's or chewbacca's or faceman's or timber loftis's or anyone else's.
again, i think you said it best:
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Don't aks me to change my opinion merely because you can't accept it.
|
hmmm, it seems we're all in agreement here. must be time for that group hug!
[img]graemlins/bighug.gif[/img]
[ 10-27-2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: sultan ]