The religious right or left?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by sultan: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: The bible has 25,000? (or another ridiculously high figure) manuscripts dating to only 50 years after the events.

fascinating. could you provide a source for this statement please? [/QUOTE]http://www.is-the-bible-true.com/

The Bible was completed in its entirety nearly 2,000 years ago and stands today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity with over 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts discovered thus far. Compare this with the second best-preserved literary work of antiquity, Homer's Iliad, with only 643 preserved manuscripts discovered to date.


http://www.ge-li.de/LingenbergEngl/bibel.htm

"There are to the 8000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgata and at least thousand other former versions. In addition come over 4000 Greek manuscripts, and therewith we have 13000 manuscript copies of parts of the new testaments. Besides can be reproduced a big part of the new testament from the quotations of the first christian authors."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html

The historical accuracy of the Scriptures is likewise in a class by itself, far superior to the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations. Archeological confirmations of the Biblical record have been almost innumerable in the last century. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said:


"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by sultan: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: The bible has 25,000? (or another ridiculously high figure) manuscripts dating to only 50 years after the events.

fascinating. could you provide a source for this statement please? [/QUOTE]http://www.is-the-bible-true.com/
...with over 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts discovered thus far. [/QUOTE]so the 24,000 manuscripts you referred to are new testament references, most of which date hundreds of years after the event.

interestingly, a link from one of your references goes on to say...

http://www.dead-sea-scrolls.net/Dead-Sea-Scrolls.htm

"The Dead Sea Scrolls have provided phenomenal evidence for the credibility of biblical scripture. Specifically, the nearly intact Great Isaiah Scroll is almost identical to the most recent manuscript version of the Masoretic text from the 900's AD."

surely we can all admit as to the logical error in assuming that, just because mankind was capable of accurately copying a work for a millenium, it somehow implies that the source material itself was true or accurate.

Originally posted by Yorick: http://www.ge-li.de/LingenbergEngl/bibel.htm "There are to the 8000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgata and at least thousand other former versions. In addition come over 4000 Greek manuscripts, and therewith we have 13000 manuscript copies of parts of the new testaments.

again, repeating the logical error cited above.

furthermore, a quick squiz at the site makes it clear that this site is little more than "the bible proves itself", via interpretation (in some cases) and prophecy confirmation (in others) where the confirmation comes from... the bible.

perhaps i'm being unfair. it's easy to trawl through the evidence and only pick out those pieces that support your cause, isnt it?

Originally posted by Yorick: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html "No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible."

oh. i should have read this first. i see that, by your own admission, the bible is little more than a history book. i suppose any book has lessons that can be learned from it. okay, nevermind. you're right.

since i'm now on your side, i'd like to ask you to respond to maelakin's concerns. then we can all have a group hug. [img]graemlins/bighug.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: Just once, I would like to see you realize that people are not attempting to sway your opinions, but they are looking for you to accept they are not fact. .

LOL! Here we go.. you don't see it do you?

Maelakin. What if my opnion is that my opinions are fact?

Is the only opinion allowed that which is uncertain?

I have pragmatic certainty. If you don't believe in pragmatic certainty, fine. I'm not attempting to sway you. Don't aks me to change my opinion merely because you can't accept it.

It's like tolerance.

True tolerance tolerates intolerance. People that are intolerant of intolerant people are not truly tolerant at all!!

The belief that you cannot know is just that. A belief. The belief that you can know - through divine revelation - is also a valid belief. A belief which you are attempting to devalidate and "sway" me from.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by sultan: interestingly, a link from one of your references goes on to say... http://www.dead-sea-scrolls.net/Dead-Sea-Scrolls.htm "The Dead Sea Scrolls have provided phenomenal evidence for the credibility of biblical scripture. Specifically, the nearly intact Great Isaiah Scroll is almost identical to the most recent manuscript version of the Masoretic text from the 900's AD." surely we can all admit as to the logical error in assuming that, just because mankind was capable of accurately copying a work for a millenium, it somehow implies that the source material itself was true or accurate.

You are speaking about the most validated work around. As mentioned, the Iliad is next with 600 odd copies. If you have a problem with the way we ascertain historical fact from fiction take it up with history professors, not me. If you call into question the validity and accuracy of the most validated work of humanity, you DEvalidate recorded history itself. You call into question Hammurabis existence, Cleopatras existence, Solon, Socrates, Plato.. all people who's life and actions are less validated.

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. The closer to the primary source, the more accurate the work.

I am a lay-historian. I studied at university for a time, and have kept self teaching myself during my life. I enjoy history. Not all is fact. One has to allow for the bias of every writer.

The interesting thing, is that the bias of the gospel writers actually support what they were recording. Someone with a vested interest in Jesus life, had a greater motivation for recording the truth of his life, no matter how bizzarre it may have seemed.

I repeat: Assessing the truth of something based on whether or not it co-aligns with a preconceived knowledge of truth is not an open minded approach, nor one which is condusive to increased understanding. If an extremly trustworthy friend who has never lied to you,and only ever given you words of benefit tells you something that seems implausible (that your wife slept with the postman) based on preconceived knowledge, you could in fact remain ignorant of the truth.

again, repeating the logical error cited above. furthermore, a quick squiz at the site makes it clear that this site is little more than "the bible proves itself", via interpretation (in some cases) and prophecy confirmation (in others) where the confirmation comes from... the bible. perhaps i'm being unfair. it's easy to trawl through the evidence and only pick out those pieces that support your cause, isnt it?

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.

oh. i should have read this first. i see that, by your own admission, the bible is little more than a history book. i suppose any book has lessons that can be learned from it. okay, nevermind. you're right. since i'm now on your side, i'd like to ask you to respond to maelakin's concerns. then we can all have a group hug. [img]graemlins/bighug.gif[/img] [/QB]

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.

It's wierd that you contested a point. Ie. the number of manuscripts found. When it turns out to be "on the money" give or take a thousand, you decide to challenge other points.

[ 10-27-2003, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Timber Loftis]

I have pragmatic certainty. If you don't believe in pragmatic certainty, fine. I'm not attempting to sway you. Don't aks me to change my opinion merely because you can't accept it.

I think you are merely being asked to recognize it is opinion not irrefutable fact. And, it would seem you have.

Else I'm allowed to deem the nonexistence of God a fact and all this talk of imaginative tales and writings about an entity created out of our sheer ego, inability to comprehend the enterinity of the universe, and terror of death to be no more than drivel. See? That doesn't work too well, now, does it?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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:

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

Originally posted by sultan: fascinating. could you provide a source for this statement please?

was to help me understand the veracity of your claim.

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

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:

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 ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: [4. You comment on my person practice of my faith all the time. 5. What place is it of mine? The same place it is of yours to comment on my faith on a forum. Which as I've said, you have done repeatedly.

When I have commented on *your* personal religious practice? When have I made negative comments like these about you?

"The other thing you seem to miss is the concept that Christians seek greater understanding of the Bible, and gather together to find the truth of it. You've mentioned numerous times "I can't speak for Christians because I only have my interpretation" etc." "You may believe truth cannot be known," "We have a solid frame of reference. The Bible. Unlike the consistency of your neo-pagan amalgams these writings provide a measure of constancy and measurability." "but to point out, that your belief in individualised incorporation of theologies to make your own religion up, is not shared by other faiths." "You avoid being pinned down by the nature of your amalgamational beliefs, (and then extend that perspective into your assesment of others faith)." "Your faith is only as old as you are."

You have taken some breif superficial statements I have previously made about myself and formulated some of your oh so certain "factpinions", which really seem like veiled insults and putdowns at worst, at best, it is like judging an iceberg merely by the part visible above water.

Unless you own the three bibles in my home and the many versions online I have links to, I have merely commented on something that belongs to everyone or no one at all. I haven't seen your name anywhere in or on my bibles so that settles that.

I have avoided making generalizations about entire faiths and making derisive and disrespectful comments about personal expressions of faith by forum members. I do discuss ideas. I don't make this discussion personal towards anyone. If someone beleives in "something" I critisize or opine about and are upset about it, this I cannot help. It is the "colateral damage" of honest, critical discussion about ideas.

On several occassions I have clarified my opinions and/or apologized when it was politely pointed out to me that my wording didn't qualify a respectful impersonal intellectual intent.

[ 10-28-2003, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: I have pragmatic certainty. If you don't believe in pragmatic certainty, fine. I'm not attempting to sway you. Don't aks me to change my opinion merely because you can't accept it.

I think you are merely being asked to recognize it is opinion not irrefutable fact. And, it would seem you have.

Else I'm allowed to deem the nonexistence of God a fact and all this talk of imaginative tales and writings about an entity created out of our sheer ego, inability to comprehend the enterinity of the universe, and terror of death to be no more than drivel. See? That doesn't work too well, now, does it? [/QUOTE]I think this is a lot of hoohar over nothing. If there was no doubt it would not be FAITH now would it. Sheesh. Pragmatic certainty is what I have given that I can only prove I am self aware. It's no suprise. No shock horrors there.

Sultan, nothing in your posts have changed the FACT that to date, no other work in history is as validated and verified as the Bible. The historical books in the bible are supported by archaeology and the histories of other nations. The scientific proclaimations made before the knowledge was verifiable, have found to be correct each time. Countless prophecies have come to pass, including roughly 100 that Jesus fulfilled, plus a few that Jesus himself predicted.

The bibles life-coaching and cause/effect is proven to work in the lives of the people that follow it, from the Jews keeping the law of Moses, to Christians who decide to follow it's recommendations. It is constantly being assessed by those who follow it's words. Further proof is the continued growth of the Christian faith.

Even Islam, another growing faith, agrees with much of the bibles truth.

Whether you dispute it's theological conclusions or not, the fact remains it is a work that is both historical and impacts people daily.

The reason for bringing all this up, was because Chewbacca chose to elevate his own religion, saying it contains roots far older and possessing illuminative clarity far beyond the bible.

Yet, I am yet to hear what that work is.

Of course it must be a work he is comparing to the bible, for the bible is not a religion. Otherwise, how can you compare a religion to a work? Faith is a result of the Bible.

Chewbacca, I fail to see any insult. You have mentioned your beliefs around paganism, shamanism, Christ-conciousness et al. From your words here it seems you have amalgamated a number of belief systems. Your hostility is unbecoming. I fail to see any insult, because no insult was intended. I'm simply calling it how I see it. Honest appraisal. If I'm incorrect, please show me. I do wish to have dialogue with you. If you'll remember, I did try and have a coffee with you in Boston (where we would NOT have discussed religion.. ) So do fill me in. If there is a text you follow, I would honestly like to know it.

I have read most religious works, or at least about them. From Greek, Norse and Celtic mythology (containing their religious beliefs) to the Qu'ran, parts of the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita, to Buddhas sayings and life story, to the Tao, and some of Confucious proverbs.

I don't incorporate their theology into mine however, because of the complete nature of the worldviews.

Only last week I had a three hour conversation with a guy in our church, who has accepted Jesus, even been baptised recently, yet holds to a pantheistic worldview. We covered this exact subject.

My entire theory from reason for existence, reason for pain, relationship, love, everything... is dependent on the belief that there is a Creator Awareness, a God sperate from this creation.

I reason, that if God is truly omnipotent, and CAN create even one other awareness, one other soul that is not him, so that he can give and receive love - through free will - why would he NOT do that? Why would he only create parts of himself to love himself?

Pantheism theory to me makes it all seem the universal everything is having a wank, when it/we could be making love to a partner. What is more satisfying? Exploring yourself or you exploring them, and them you?

Therefore, I reject reincarnation, because that theory originated in and is heavily dependent on a pantheistic theory. I reject theories about Jesus simply being the first human to realise his godhood for the same reason. Additionally, I've gone over his words with a fine tooth comb to see if he meant that, and I have not found any indication that is the case.

As unhip or uncool as it may be, I honestly agree with the assertions of the Christian Church about who Jesus is and was. It is a complete belief system, centred on him being God, being the only "son of God", and as a sinless being, taking on human sin and dying for me, you, everyone.

It enables relationship with God, but offers a way out if you choose to reject him. It gives reason to sin and imperfection. Through forgiveness God is able to show even more love.

All the parts of the theology are connected to the other parts. None exist in isolation.

[ 10-28-2003, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Well this topic has certainly swayed far from the original concept...and has taken on a renewed life in the age-old debate of the validity and accuracy of the Bible. Having read all the posts, comments, and opinions expressed so far, I've found a couple of points I'd like to address myself (wow, what a surprise, huh? ).

As for the common assertion made by many mon-believers that the Bible is just a work of fiction/collection of short stories/myths/etc., I have to say that I do understand where your coming from and why you make this claim. Before I was Saved, I often didn't understand the true depth of the stories in the Bible. Noah's Ark, David & Goliath, and other popular stories were just that - really cool stories found in the Bible. But when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior, I also recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit entering and endwelling in me. The Holy Spirit is the 3rd part of the Holy Trinity we Christians believe in. It is the spiritual aspect of God that allows us to see things from God's perspective rather than our human one. And it is through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that Christian's come to recognize the deeper meaning and lessons of Biblical passages.

Before I was Saved, I just thought the account of Noah's Ark was just a story about God gathering the animals on a boat. After I was Saved, I now see it as a self-contained metaphorical illustration of the Bible's central message of Salvation being found only through faith in God. Not that I don't believe the Ark is a literal story, I most certainly DO believe it happened just as it is written. But I also see a metaphor in the story now that I didn't before I was Saved.

Likewise, I see the stories of David vs Goliath and Job as examples of Christians being rewarded for being steadfast and unswerving in their faith to God despite facing overwhelming odds or tragic conditions. Again, there is a deeper lesson underneath the surface story - but that deeper lesson is often only found through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Without that Divine Interpreter, these accounts would be nothing more than interesting (and somewhat unbelievable) stories.

Also, Yorick gave an account of a girl he knew being miraculously(sp?) cured simply by someone laying hands on them. There is a lady that lives in my own community who has the gift of being able to remove the pain from burns in a similar fashion. I've never met her myself, nor have I witnessed her healing powers firsthand, but my mom has. A former coworker of hers came to work one day with a nasty burn on her arm. She had been making breakfast for her kids and splashed bacon grease on her arm. Anyone who has experienced that knows just how painful a bacon grease burn is. After about an hour at work, her coworker said she simply couldn't stand the pain anymore and she called this lady with the healing powers. Mom said she left work and was gone for about 45 minutes. When she came back, the pain from the burn was gone. The burn itself was not healed, but the it didn't hurt her anymore. There is also a more prominent testimony to faith-healing some of you may be familiar with.

Naomi Judd (mother to actress Ashley Judd), retired from performing country music with her other daughter (Wynona) in the early 90's because she had been diagnosed with Hepatitis B...a very dangerous illness. She had apparantly contracted the disease from a needlestick years before when she worked as a nurse. About 2 years after her retirement, she came back on TV and announced that she had been cured. Doctors could find NO TRACE of the disease whatsoever. Naomi claimed that her cure had been a direct result of prayer and faith.

And finally, I've recounted many times the fact that I was not suppose to survive an emergency surgery I had 6 years ago. I suffered massive internal injuries and poisoning and the surgeon told my wife and mother that nothing short of a miracle would keep me alive past the next 72 hours (his words, not mine). We later learned that there were several hundred people in my hometown and county that were praying on my behalf while I was in surgery.

So I am a firm believer in faith healing and intervention through prayer.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: Unlike the consistency of your neo-pagan amalgams these writings provide a measure of constancy and measurability.

By Chewy The consistency of my "neo-pagan amalgams" has roots older than the bible and contains guidance for enlightenment and spiritual illumination with certain clarity that one could only hope the bible had.

By Chewy Oh, and I have read the Bible, a few times to be exact. In my opinion, it is a very contrary & inconsistent book with regards to ethical lessons and the guidance it contains for spiritual illumination is veiled by it's sheer volume and heavy interpretive restrictions.

I have no need to prove or clarify my statements. I own them. They are mine. How and why I stated these beliefs, in relation to the words I was responding too, is worth mentioning. Considering the insulting nature of refering to my supposed beleifs as lacking consistency, constancy, and measurability when compared to certain writings, I felt I had no other choice than to use strong exact language to dispel the negative connotation.

Normaly I dont stoop so low as to cast an overly negative opinion on a set of ideas just to make mine seem better or more superior, but it seemed fitting IMO, considering the post I was responding to. Sometimes one's own medicine is the hardest to swallow.