The JEHOVAH game (a modern fetish)

by Terry 97 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Perry

  Terry,

  Yes I do ignore some of your questions that in my own estimation constitute a red-herring. You do the same, it's the way debates go. However, you cannot deny that your central argument that underlies most of your posts on JWD is capsulated in this selected quote of yours:

  Contrarily, there is considerable indication the Bible is a mess as a document.

  No amount of questioning can change this central tenet of yours.

  Similarily, the facts are that 99% of all ancient NT manuscripts agree with each. Furthermore, once the 1% Alexandrian manuscripts are eliminated, there is virtually 100% biblical agreement. These examples span thousands of years and several continents.

  These are facts easily verified. You cannot change these facts no matter how much you would like to. These are facts that disprove your claim. There is nothing that you can do to change the fact that your claim is disproven.

  You can continue to promote your demonstrateably false conclusions all you want to. And, in my spare time I will continue to point out their illogicallness and baselessness.

  I respect the fact that you were severly hurt by the WT, as we all were. I would just point out that the WT steadfastly holds to their views in spite of facts as well.

  Personally, I like to find out if I'm wrong about something. It is liberating.

  Again, I ask, where was I dishonest?

  Edited to add: a few examples easily researched do not constitute a "mess of a document"
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Perry, my response I hope will not be construed by you as "piling on." If it is, I apologize. But I wish to make a point here, as you and I have debated very passionately some topics in the past.

  Terry makes a great point, and the greatest point, one that I probably should have argued is this very simple statement.

  The proper ending to a debate is that somebody admist their premise or conclusion was faulty. Have you ever been wrong about anything? I have. It isn't pleasant to be wrong, but, it certainly brings an opportunity to grow wiser.

  As you continue to argue and debate for your theistic positions, this is the crux of the matter. Surely you realize that even among Christians and theists, there are those who disagree with you. And you can't be both right.

  To be wrong is an opportunity to go forward with greater knowledge, facts, as well as an opportunity to associate and learn from people who believe differently and disagree with you.

  Now, there is a big difference between what is right for you and what is factual and truthful. These are called personal beliefs.

  Personal beliefs naturally have a measure of right or wrong, fact and fiction, what can be proven and what can absolutely not be proven.

  Your insistence on arguing for what cannot be proven is one thing. Your persistence in maintaining things that aren't factual (example: Terry's questions on the bible that you didn't respond to) demonstratably show that you are not being intellectually honest.

  Now let me be clear, I respect and honor your right to hold and discuss your personal beliefs. That is not the issue.

  What is the issue is that in these discussions, you do not even allow for the possibility that you are wrong, and that other paths are correct. You won't even acknowledge that there are demonstratable weakness, logical and factual, with your personal beliefs.

  If you are going to argue for your beliefs, then you must be prepared to "bring it". Like evidence. Like reasonableness. Like intellectual honesty.

  It is your patent lack of evidence, reasonableness, and intellectual honesty that draw me to discussions that involve you arguing your position. I am not talking about your faith or personal beliefs. What I am talking about is how your faith and personal beliefs cause you to act so disrespectfully to others who believe (with excellent reasons) differently then you do.

  Perry, I don't mean this to be condescending, but I feel sorry for you that your faith divides you from people and that your faith causes you to be so willing to ignore clear facts regarding your arguments.

  To Terry's point, being wrong is not a bad thing, unless the certitude that comes from being a JW or other fundamentalist religions is something you can't live without. Certainty is dangerous though Perry, and for that reason, I fear for you.
• 

  Terry

  Similarily, the facts are that 99% of all ancient NT manuscripts agree with each. Furthermore, once the 1% Alexandrian manuscripts are eliminated, there is virtually 100% biblical agreement. These examples span thousands of years and several continents.

  These are facts easily verified. You cannot change these facts no matter how much you would like to. These are facts that disprove your claim. There is nothing that you can do to change the fact that your claim is disproven.

  Okay, Perry.

  Let's try to do it this way.

  I think this will be an honest and straight forward method to demonstrate what is correct and what is false.

  Perry--tell me what sort of facts or data you could be shown that would FALSIFY your claim that the Bible is not a mess with thousands of corruptions and errors.

  Tell me what that proof would have to look like. Let's agree on a MODEL of REFUTATION.

  If I can't produce it---I have to admit you are right and I am wrong.

  However, if I can produce it---then, will you be willing to admit I am right and YOU are wrong?

  Fair enough?
• 

  Terry

  definition from Wikipedia:

  Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.

  For example, "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood: that one or more men can live forever. "All men are immortal," by contrast, is falsifiable, by the presentation of just one dead man. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

  Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is falsifiable. Popper however stressed that unfalsifiable statements are still important in science, and are often implied by falsifiable theories. For example, while "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, it is a logical consequence of the falsifiable theory that "every man dies before he reaches the age of 150 years". Similarly, the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories.

  Popper invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to name such ideas. In contrast to positivism, which held that statements are senseless if they cannot be verified or falsified, Popper claimed that falsifiability is merely a special case of the more general notion of criticizability, even though he admitted that refutation is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticize

  Perry--what is YOUR model of Falsifiability?
• 

  Perry

  Perry--tell me what sort of facts or data you could be shown that would FALSIFY your claim that the Bible is not a mess with thousands of corruptions and errors.

  Terry,

  The claim that "the bible is a mess of a document" is your claim ....not mine. The burden of proof is on you to back up that claim. I'm the guy who put together an entire website illustrating the cohesiveness and near 100% agreement of NT texts in the Antioch tradition(which constitute 99% of all ancient NT nmanuscripts). You can view my compilation of facts here: www.wordfamine.com That website constitutes my opinion on the matter.

  These are established irefutable proofs.... bedrock orthodoxy for centuries.

  No scholar that I'm aware of would support your claim of "thousands of corruptions and errors" in the 99% Antioch-type texts. Virtually all scholars and others including myself would agree that there are thousands of errors in the Alexandrian texts, which constitute less that 1% of all ancient texts. If you have a scholar that would disprove this accepted orthodoxy.... produce him and what he has to say.

  I am not picking on you Terry, I really am interested in this subject. I just think you haven't researched this subject.

  Edited to Add:

  Falsifiability = 99% NT manuscripts (Antioch texts) are not in near 100% agreement.

  Now, would you please show me the same consideration and provide your own accepted falsifiability to your claim that the bible is a mess of a document?
• 

  Terry

  These are established irefutable proofs.... bedrock orthodoxy for centuries.

  No scholar that I'm aware of would support your claim of "thousands of corruptions and errors" in the 99% Antioch-type texts.

  Irrefutable proofs would mean there is no way to falsify them, then? You can imagine no model of refutation?

  What are you going to be able to accept as a way of Testing that irrefutability, then, Perry?

  Are you ruling out any effort on the part of myself or others before we even start?

  How are you defining 99% Antioch-type texts ?

  Are you a King James Only fellow?
• 

  Terry

  Before I go through all the trouble to present my case to you, Perry, would you mind clarifying your position on the following?

  1.Did the translators of the King James Bible base that translation (or version) on the Textus Receptus? Or, was it the text of Stephanus?

  2. Do the 287 differences between the text of Stephanus and the Textus Receptus indicate anything to you by way of "error"?

  3. Were the scholars who prepared the King James convinced their text was "without error"?

  4.How many manuscripts exactly agree with Erasmus? 3 1/2 centuries passed since the King James Version was made and dozens of manuscripts have been found that were copied many centuries earlier than any manuscript used by Erasmus. The manuscripts he used were copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. Does this matter to you?

  5. The King James Version does not exactly follow the majority of Greek NT manuscripts. For instance, 1 John 5:7, found in the KJV and TR, occurs in only four (out of nearly 5000) Greek NT manuscripts. The reading "book of life" in Rev. 22:19 is found in no Greek manuscript. Is this significant to you at all?

  6. Is the agreement among Greek NT manuscripts proof of purity considering that 95% of the known Greek NT manuscripts were copied after A.D. 700, more than six centuries after the NT was written? Agreement among CORRUPT texts would only prove ALL TEXTS were corrupt, would it not?

  7. What exactly is the ANTIOCH TRADITION of which you speak? Is it connected with the Antiochian School of Bible exegesis?

  Thanks Perry

  7.
• 

  agonus

  "Can a virgin be a virgin if she only has sex 1% of the time?

  Can a rocket be sent to the moon with a flight trajectory error of 1%

  Can a submarine with a hole in 1% of its hull structure be considered safe and reliable?"

  Uh-oh Terry... By this reasoning, Darwinism... well, let's not go there...

  ;)
• 

  agonus

  Just to clarify:

  By "Darwinism" I mean a dogmatic view of evolutionary theory.

  Just like "Fundamentalism" is a dogmatic view of Christianity (or theology in general).
• 

  Terry

  Can a rocket be sent to the moon with a flight trajectory error of 1%

  Can a submarine with a hole in 1% of its hull structure be considered safe and reliable?"

  Uh-oh Terry... By this reasoning, Darwinism... well, let's not go there...

  I must be really dense because I can't figure out what you're talking about.

  Oh--and the term "Darwinism" is only really used by people who don't want to talk about Evolution and prefer to limit the discussion

  to 19th century thinking rather than contemporary scholarship.