My sincerest apologies, Smuckers. I didn't realize you have already learned all there is to learn and have the authority to crack anyone's skull who doesn't agree with you. Tell me young grasshopper, what other pearls of wisdom can you impart on us unintelligent, brain-dead masses of fascist pigs?
Very quick and easy way to refute their beliefs
by Sirona 24 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
John Doe
My my, I didn't know Harvard students were so short-fused, narrow-sighted, pompous, arrogant, condescending, not to mention suffering from such severe rectal/cranial inversions. Tell me, which professor taught you this behavior?
-
John Doe
Your words only prove what I said in my first post to you. As much as you're interested in my penis size, you'll have to try harder than that to find out. That's one of the most lame attempts at justifcation I've seen. Maybe you should try reading Ben Franklin's autobiography sometime. I think you could learn much from it.
-
John Doe
Ok, I'm out of this thread. I have better things to do than try to help folks with the mentality of a 3 year old. Have a nice day Smuckers, you sound like you need something good to happen to you.
-
jaffacake
Sirona, Excellent post - I used this line of logic on my JW friend. He was completely stumped and kept trying to change the subject. By the next day he claimed he couldn't remember any such conversation.
Terry, Once again, a smashing post, except...their own history is much more effective than rubishing the Bible in order to expose them.
I accept that the Bible contains errors, but not many and not serious ones in the underlying messages. There were many errors in copying by hand, but modern scholars have reliable methods to establish almost 100% what the earliest copies said in their original languages.
There were also frauds (one verse in a source used for the KJV) (the NWT) are just two examples. Your point about flooding the market sounds plausible, but is in fact wrong.
Millions of Christians reject the idea that the Bible is infallible or verbally inerrant, so proving inaccuracies in some copies or versions is no big deal. There are more definitions of inspired or God-breathed than the JW/fundy definition.
-
jaffacake
This reminds me of another problem with Arian (JW) doctrine about the nature of Christ. If they believe Jesus is God's son, then that would make him at least 50% God by nature, would it not?
If he was 100% man by nature, then his father must have been Joseph, not Jehovah!?
-
LittleToe
Sirona / Terry: Excellent posts
-
Terry
I accept that the Bible contains errors, but not many and not serious ones in the underlying messages. There were many errors in copying by hand, but modern scholars have reliable methods to establish almost 100% what the earliest copies said in their original languages.
Awake! September 8,1957 "..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible."
If most are eliminated by "modern methods" (of the ones known) how many remain? Which are they? How serious are they to establishing the certainty of proof texts?
Bible scholars can account for:
2,100 lectionaries (Church reading books containing select portions of Scripture to be read on set days.)
2,700 miniscules (About the 9th century the cursive script style changed to smaller letters. These are tiny, but, later than Uncials.)
260 Uncials (Capital letters only texts in formal handwriting.)
80 Papyri (Early form of reed paper more fragile than animal skin vellum.)
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE 5,000 extant manuscripts are little more than fragments. Some are even less. Most contain a few verses of a line or paragraph.
Only ten percent contain the entire New Testament and only one is an Uncial.
THERE ARE NO AUTOGRAPH TEXTS.
Contrary to your statement above; modern methods are merely educated guesses.
Hardly what you could base a strong certainty on for purposes of proof of Divine messege being intact.
T.
-
trevor
Sirona
I Commented on Terry’s post but in all the excitement failed to comment on yours. As you started this excellent thread, that was remiss of me. I found your post very helpful.
It is unlikely that I will to talk with a Jehovah’s Witnesses, at my door again, as I am blacklisted and shunned.
Should this desirable situation change and they risk contaminating me, by calling to talk with me, I will ask them the questions you have raised, relating to how many true gods there are.
trevor
-
jaffacake
Terry, Thanks again. I agree with the general point you make in discrediting the WTS argument about inspired scripture. We must however avoid becoming as biased as they are in how we present evidence, which is sometimes out of date and out of context. JWs are masters of such cleverness. I do not wish to fight cleverness with cleverness.
Awake! September 8,1957 "..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible."
I would not wish to rely on any WTS source. Moreover, that article was 1957 when relatively few ancient manuscripts had been studied and published. In the last 50 years there has been progess in textual, historical & scholarly understanding. Most errors were due to copying by hand, but some were deliberate alterations. It has been established which are which. I'll provide lists if you really want - have you a few months to spare?
If most are eliminated by "modern methods" (of the ones known) how many remain? Which are they? How serious are they to establishing the certainty of proof texts?
Firstly, I have no interest in the whole notion of 'proof texts' - (the letter kills but the spirit gives life) in any case nothing can be proved by scriptures! I am merely supporting the success of modern textual criticism. Many steps are involved: compare large number of copies; establish date of each copy; identify oldest manuscripts; apply detailed guidelines to determine reliability of each; compare old copies to reconstruct original. Normally oldest is more reliable (there are known exceptions) etc etc.
Assemble chronologically, say each has 10 copying errors, but these would be dissimilar & appear randomly - easy to eliminate the vast majority in this way. On the other hand, if several manuscripts repeated the same errors, you can identify a common source. Then tabulate the highest frequency of agreement for a given sentence. This is oversimplifying methods actually used, there are many many steps taken over many years,but a high degree of certainty IS possible and has been attained.
Because of the number & quality of manuscripts now available, we can prove for example that the KJV of 1 John 5:7 was and is spurious with 5 words added. The spurious passage was actually found in Greek manuscript, so seemed authentic. The methods used subsequently revealed that older manuscripts excluded these 5 words. We now know the error was introduced around 1520CE by someone writing out a complete Greek text just to convincingly plant these words. Erasmus, the scholar who produced the Greek text later used for the KJV included these planted words unknowingly. After research however, he removed the words from later texts, and the error is now clearly traceable to a particular family of latin versions.
Only ten percent contain the entire New Testament
Only 10%?........ 10% of >5,000 is >500. This is a truly phenomenal number in terms of ancient documents. And some of the other portions are several books. There does not exist such riches of any other ancient documentation of any kind on such a scale, so lets have this in perspective please. Most of your points have much merit and don't need additional WTS style spin. Its okay to acknowledge that it is possible to obtain a pretty accurate text these days (Westcott & Hort text in Greek Interlinear is excellent) without you having to believe it is from God or inspired.Contrary to your statement above; modern methods are merely educated guesses.
Yeah, just like scientific theories are merely educated guesses!
Hardly what you could base a strong certainty on for purposes of proof of Divine messege being intact.
You seem to be referring to the JW concept of a Divine Message - where the exact wording or 'proof texts' would be so important. It may come as a surprise but most Christians don't think of the Bible in that way at all.