Now where did you pull those statistics from? Of course modern day translators are going to claim that the bible is accurate. They follow it for Christ's sake!Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Now where did you pull those statistics from? Of course modern day translators are going to claim that the bible is accurate. They follow it for Christ's sake!
I do not have the source handy - but I will respond thusly: textual reliability studies deal with the languages the texts were written in (hence the statement of 5300 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE copies). So, your point just evaporated into air. Textual studies can be read by believers and non-believers alike. If they were deemed invalid, that's one thing. But textual agreement can be verified - there's the words and they're the same.
Edit: Here, my friend - in the meantime you can consider this:
"'In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.'{8}
"To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.
B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament."{9} In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God."
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html
Last edited by Redzeppelin; 03-20-2007 at 03:37 PM.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Redzeppelin: "B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament."{9} In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God.""
The last sentence is something of a non sequitur.
Voices mysterious far and near,
Sound of the wind and sound of the sea,
Are calling and whispering in my ear,
Whifflingpin! Why stayest thou here?
OK - but I just cut and pasted that.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
I'm not claiming that God is helpless. I'm merely stating that God gave us free will to do as we wish, as individuals or as a collective.
so this is suggesting that the Bible has been distorted and has been corrected.
How can we assume what is considered a correction today will not be viewed as a distortion in years to come? Those who are inspired by God to spot/stop/revise the errors in the Bible may not have even been born yet.
This is also suggesting that the free will given to us by God is not really our free will at all. This is suggesting that we all do as God wishes through his inspiration/influence.
I am your knee
Thank you PXR5.
But the suggestion that humanity has altered the Bible so that it doesn't reflect truth does suggest that God had no power to stop such distortions.
It suggests a speculation that intentional or accidental errors of serious consequence did not succeed in making it into scripture - whether or not such things were ever documented. The Bible was beyond altering hundreds of years ago because the canon in its original languages was "fixed" during the early dark ages.
No it does not; God allows individual free will - meaning that people have the free will to alter the Bible if they wish - He doesn't stop that choice or action; what it does mean is that He instigates some sort of action to stop or correct such behavior via the free choice of another human being. I don't get why people are so confused as to what free choice is: free choice means you can choose to do as you wish; if what you do creates an obstacle in the path of God's divine plan, then He will take action to respond to the consequences of your choice - but you were still able to freely make the choice; whether or not the results of the choice work out your way is a whole different story.
If I am "inspired" by a TV commercial to give money to a good cause, I've not been denied my freedom of choice. We are free to reject God's conviction/inspiration in our lives.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
My view is very existential so "one is "responsible" for all the consequences of one's action, whether it is possible to know about them or not". How can one be responsible for divine intervention?
You've been influenced by an outside force. That's not true free will.
Based on these comments, nobody has freewill at any time. How can that be? That points us back to Naturalism. "Freewill" in theology does not mean "free from outside influence" but "free to choose."
Either way, freewill still exists. That God may interfere with the results of our intended actions by using other individuals to counter us does not change the fact that we were free to choose as we wish - just as the counter-agents employed against us also freely choose to accept God's inspiration.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
yes, yes, yes...but are we free to choose? choice only exist in the realm of conventions. when you make a choice, in actuality there are so many things leading up to that "choice" that the arbitrary line of when the "choice" was made and before it was made is so blurry that the only thing saying it was "your" choice lies in liguistic artificial categorizations (note, artificial--not real). so throw language aside for a skosh and let me know if "choice" really exist or if its just a made up term to make us feel like we should have to be punished for not acting in accordance with conventions...
Would you like to ravel out all the things that your line of argumentation indicates had to lead up to this inevitable post of yours? I contend that your post was not inevitable and that you freely chose your thoughts, your opinions, and your words.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
We all act and live our predestinated lives as if we had free will.
i wasnt saying that we have no choice. what i was saying was that the line between "choice" and "not choice" is a slippery one. a little off point, but i'll get back on i a bit: i presume you find man as an animal to be one that is understandable--you must, since you attribute him with the power of choice and knowing what was chosen.
but how can we distinguish neccessary events from chance ones? how can we know what is our goal and what are the means to it? how can this become calculable? in order for us to know this, man must be understandable. yet, we are not understandable (look at psychology and physiology today, we have only skimmed the surface of man). so all that is understandable is our "idea" of man, man himself is not. so, to get back on point, your "idea" of man has made choices. but your "idea" and actual man are as seperate as a mile on a map is from a mile driven on the road.
so did i make the choice to write this? well, so many things happened to put me in this computer chair that its really tough to say. of course, as you've gathered, what i consider to be "me" is the entire universe (i think you'd say i'm in hell because of this) so in a sense, i did make a choice. but not "i" as we normally consider it as simply something that lies soley within a bag of skin.
I really hope you don't believe that's true. Predestination...
sounds like the book timequake by kurt vonnegut. read it?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote