|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 12/11/2003 : 09:02:55 [Permalink]
|
These arguments of which bible best reflects what the original authors were trying to say seems to miss the point. It is kind of fun to try and figure out the chronology and who the authors were, but the point is it is like trying to decide which book best describes how to do telekinesis or which theory on the exsistence of Bigfoot is the most accurate....
I am reasonably confident that all of the versions of the bible and all forms of christianity are equally valid. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2003 : 11:17:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I am reasonably confident that all of the versions of the bible and all forms of christianity are equally valid.
Or invalid, as the case may be!  |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Maglev
Skeptic Friend
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2003 : 13:01:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Recieved Texts(RT) are about 20,000 manuscripts in Greek, written a few centuries after Christ, that combined make many copies of the New Testament. These texts are in almost complete agreement. The Alexandrian texts are three copies of the New Testament, written at about 300 to 600 AD, each of them copies of the 27-book New Testament, I think they were in Latin.
A question: As an atheist (and being utterly clueless about the bible, so please excuse the inaccuracies), the bold lines in this quote gave me pause (sp?)... Is there any texts at all that actually comes from the time of Jesus (religious texts that is)?
quote:
They were written and approved by the Church, which I belive was already corrupted, I'll explain later.
Let me try to get this straight...
Since there seems to be as many interpretation of the holy scriptures (whichever you choose) as there are christians, how can you KNOW which texts (or revision, or whatever) are "good", and which ones are not? What's worse, some of those versions of the bible were written/approved by a corrupt church...
Ok. So there are many many texts, translations, adaptations and what not, all/some/most of which have been interpreted and re-interpreted (as is evident by the number of Christian-inspired groups; Adventists, Witnesses, Pentacostals and what not) over centuries...
My (loaded) question: How can you "receive the word of God" of you cant tell what it is?
|
Maglev
"The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
--Douglas Adams, on evolutionary biology. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2003 : 13:14:27 [Permalink]
|
C.A.
Are you saying that the Western and Caesarean texts are valid and that they differ from the Recieved Texts? All I'm saying is that since I'd never heard of them before I read that book, I'm inclined to believe him when he says that they're unimportant. And who isn't biased? All people want to believe that they're correct, so everyone's biased to some degree. But do you really have a point in bringing up these other texts, or are you just looking for an excuse to poo-poo me? If you're just pointing out that I didn't mention them, then fine, I didn't mention them. I think the burden of proof is on you if you want to say that they're valid. And if you say they are, I'm all ears.
Furshur: The reason why original text bases are important is that different texts say different things. That's not complimentary, it's contradictory. And I'm not here to discuss whether or not Christianity is valid in the first place, I'm here discussing what the Bible says. To do that you first have to come up with a Bible. Since the Received Texts are the most commonly known text base that have almost no contradictions among themselves, I use them.
Now, we've kind of drifted off of the original subject, unless C.A. wishes to bring forth documentation of the validity of the other two text bases.
All: Any doctrines you find abhorrent? Any contradictions you wish to discuss? Any prophecies you need explained? I'm right here.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2003 : 13:17:37 [Permalink]
|
One has simply to ask the Lord, our Walt. 
quote:
My (loaded) question: How can you "receive the word of God" of you cant tell what it is?
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2003 : 19:06:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
But do you really have a point in bringing up these other texts, or are you just looking for an excuse to poo-poo me?
Yes, I really had a point: pedants should do their homework.
Parenthetically, some may find This interesting. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2003 : 20:48:31 [Permalink]
|
ConsequentAtheist wrote:quote:
Yes, I really had a point: pedants should do their homework.
Nice ad hominem you've got there. It is quite "remarkable." Was it really necessary?
Personally (and as an SFN member only) I think you've been quite rude. While Hippy uses more polite language, do you really feel the need to take a giant shit on his thread like this?
He might appear to be a pedant to you, but I certainly didn't take his OP as saying "I speak for all of Christendom." I think this thread could be a worthwhile exercise in getting one particular Young-Earth Creationist's views on his understanding of his faith, but it's going to require constructive questions from us. Insulting him, failing to answer his questions (when he's answered yours), and furshur's and walt's implications that this his beliefs may all be crap (they're obviously not crap to Hippy): none of these things are of benefit to anyone, except those wishing to bash another Christian (a quite old and boring exercise).
I think this is an opportunity to learn something. But pissing all over the thread is just going to make Hippy decide to pack up and leave, like so many before him. But different from them, he didn't use this thread to attack anyone, he's not telling us he'll pray for our souls, and he doesn't appear to be proselytizing outright. He's simply saying, "if you ask me a question, I'll tell you what I believe and why."
Considering the hostile nature of the people confronting him, and the fact that Hippy has fairly minimal resources at his command, it's surprising to me that he's stayed as long as he has already. Surely he's got better things to do than take this sort of unbearably terse abuse, and ask you a dozen questions to try to figure out what you're getting at.
Hippy appears to have been honest and up-front about his reasons for participating here (which are non-confrontational), and he appears to have started this thread in good faith. I think the guy deserves at least a modicum of respect. I think he's earned it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2003 : 05:26:42 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for sharing. In my opinion ...
One who makes a show of knowledge should do his homework. One who presumes "to put an end to many of the fabled doctrines that are attributed to the Bible." and then deigns to instruct on issues of Textual Criticism based on his reading of one apologist (who, best I can tell, has no expertise in the area), and on gehenna while knowing nothing of its Judaic roots, should do his homework, particularly if he wishes to have any credibility. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2003 : 10:08:19 [Permalink]
|
ConsequentAtheist wrote:quote:
In my opinion ...
One who makes a show of knowledge should do his homework. One who presumes "to put an end to many of the fabled doctrines that are attributed to the Bible." and then deigns to instruct on issues of Textual Criticism based on his reading of one apologist (who, best I can tell, has no expertise in the area), and on gehenna while knowing nothing of its Judaic roots, should do his homework, particularly if he wishes to have any credibility.
In my opinion, your opinion is literalist garbage. Hippy is 17, living in small-town Alaska, and accessing the Internet through a public-library computer. It's obvious that he's not a doctorate-level Biblical scholar, and for you to interpret his OP as if he were claiming to be something more than who he is, is disingenuous, no? He may have worded that first post badly, but his intent was crystal-clear.
Even more of a problem is how you've chosen to make your displeasure known. It took five posts before you deigned to state your opinions in a straight-up, no-nonsense kind of way. Good grief! We could have had these issues hashed out on page one, had you been more forth-coming. Instead, you made others drag your opinions out of you. Remarkably, you also did so to Les, in another thread.
Hippy may not be the be-all end-all of apologists, but he's all we've got right now. I'd much rather learn his opinions about his faith - no matter how well or how poorly "supported" they are - than to not get a freely-offered first-hand account at all. If we're at least pleasant to him, maybe we'll get someone more to your liking later. If he's treated like crap, however, it's unlikely that Hippy or anyone like him will make such an offer ever again.
And it's an offer that at least one person here (me) finds interesting, and worth the time and effort to pursue despite the fact that Hippy may not be the optimal candidate for leading the rest of us to inerrancy in Biblical interpretation. By taking a dump on either Hippy or the thread in general, you're also taking a dump on me and anyone else who might be interested. Was that your intent? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2003 : 13:19:23 [Permalink]
|
Thank you for your support Dave, I appreciate it.
C.A., I would like to add that one difference between me and licensed apologetists is that I'm not going to walk away from a debate if I'm proved wrong. I'll admit when I'm wrong. C.A., I didn't mention the other two text bases. Now, I'm planning to study the link you gave me, but first would you like to summarize the info you have obtained about the other two texts? As to Ge-Hinnom, is there anything about it you would like to mention that modifies the doctrine of hell?
Gorgo: I believe that while the Textus Receptus is not 100% accurate (I have a list of important text differences, and it is small), their agreement is sufficient that I believe they can be used as the Word. Admittedly, there is an amount of faith involved. Also, when Yahweh speaks to people, that is also the Word, although usually it's a message to that person who had recieved it. |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 12/12/2003 17:52:56 |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2003 : 16:23:03 [Permalink]
|
Hey Hippy,
What are your plans after high school? I was just imagining you as a theology major (hopefully at a fully accredited university).  You'd be a better student than I was, I can already tell. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2003 : 18:00:53 [Permalink]
|
Hi Les,
Where do you think that so many pastors get so dogmatic and unchangable in their thinking? Accredited universities require students taking their senior year to sign a faith statement that they believe all of their churche's doctrines. No, I'm more of a personal study kind of guy. As to plans for the future, I have general ideas, but the Bible encourages disciples not to make up long range plans. I'll probably be starting a farm with my family, communicating via letters, and only occasionaly coming into town and using the internet. That's why I want to have these online discussions now. |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2003 : 18:10:51 [Permalink]
|
Oh, sorry maglev, I didn't see your question. After some further research, I think (still not quite sure) that the earliest copies of scripture are from about 100-150 AD. As I said to Gorgo (who, I just realized, quoted your question) the fact that some parts of the Textus Receptus come from only about 100 years after Christ, and because they are so much in agreement, I take them to be the most likely ones closest to the Word. As to the Church being corrupted, it was recorded even in some of the later epistles that the church was already being corrupted. I can have verses tommorrow.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2003 : 18:59:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Hi Les,
Where do you think that so many pastors get so dogmatic and unchangable in their thinking? Accredited universities require students taking their senior year to sign a faith statement that they believe all of their churche's doctrines. No, I'm more of a personal study kind of guy. As to plans for the future, I have general ideas, but the Bible encourages disciples not to make up long range plans. I'll probably be starting a farm with my family, communicating via letters, and only occasionaly coming into town and using the internet. That's why I want to have these online discussions now.
Actually, I was thinking of the more mainstream accredited universities, but it must have come out wrong. No, I would never want a young person to attend a "university" devoted to literal Biblical interpretation. But most mainstream universities have theology programs that study all religions.
Your plans to start a farm are brave, indeed. Best of luck to you.
Les |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2003 : 15:52:32 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Les.
Maglev: Furthermore, there are books left out of the Bible that I think belong in the Bible. I have a book containing the Epistle of Barnabas which says that the Epistle is definitely from either right before the end of the first century or right after the beginning of the second century. As to the church being corrupted, the Third Epistle of John is a good example: "I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church." v. 9-10. It also doesn't name very many people: "The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius," "Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name." By this time the church was already under persecution as well.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
