Very quick and easy way to refute their beliefs

by Sirona 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  aniron

  If you cannot trust the WORDS you cannot PROVE a doctrine by pointing to the words.

  I take it then that this could be applied to most other writings as well.

  Museums, libraries have manuscripts going back hundreds of years. They tell us what occured in certain year or what a certain person did etc. Very often being the only record of what happened or what someone did. Yet we have no trouble accepting them as being accurate. Should we not therefore based on the above. View such reports and records from the same viewpoint.
• 

  Terry

  I take it then that this could be applied to most other writings as well.

  Museums, libraries have manuscripts going back hundreds of years. They tell us what occured in certain year or what a certain person did etc. Very often being the only record of what happened or what someone did. Yet we have no trouble accepting them as being accurate. Should we not therefore based on the above. View such reports and records from the same viewpoint.

  Silly!

  Do you think all manuscripts, histories, memoirs, monographs, essays and the like have the exact same handling, provenance and doctoring the scriptures have had? Why would you think that.

  Let us take Euclid as an example.

  Cut and pasted from a website on Euclid's Elements:

  "Euclid's Elements form one of the most beautiful and influential works of science in the history of humankind. Its beauty lies in its logical development of geometry and other branches of mathematics. It has influenced all branches of science but none so much as mathematics and the exact sciences. The Elements have been studied 24 centuries in many languages starting, of course, in the original Greek, then in Arabic, Latin, and many modern languages."

  When did Euclid live? 325BC-265BC

  No matter what language Euclid is translated into his theorems work demonstrably. The logic, the rigor and the form are pristine. They are taught even today so transparent is his writing and thinking.

  What is different about Euclid's writing and the Scriptures? Nobody has bothered tampering with Euclid for religious or political purposes. Nobody has a competing math which tries to put Euclid's in a bad light.

  You see, religious writings are written down TO PROVE the other guy is wrong. Otherwise, they'd remain local stories, mythos, oral history and not require documentations.

  Religious writings are always ALWAYS for a political purpose; for an apology or to assert a position of doctrine.

  Can we trust, for example, JOSEPHUS? Historians have two histories from him. One is written about the Jews for Roman eyes. The other is the opposite. He often tells the same story twice. By comparing the two versions and lining it up with what is known by others (such as Tacitus) a certain view emerges of what his agenda was as a person.

  But, back to your original question.

  You are forcing a False Dichotomy. Either all history is like the Bible's and we can believe nothing for certain or we must take everything on faith is just a ridiculous way of characterizing the vast differences in how we approach ancient writings.

  Herodotus was once thought to be pretty inaccurate because he mentioned the sun's position being different when a boat sailed into the Southernmost hemisphere. He was laughed at for centuries until it was discovered his information was correct.

  It is mostly by balancing one writer against another and then matching it with contemporary accounts, archaeology and such that our ability to judge history is formed.

  The Bible is perhaps one of the very worst items in history to be trusted despite its handling simply to fulfill vested emotional interests, political interests and religious institutions which rely on its integrity to empower their agendas.

  T.
• 

  jaffacake

  Do you think all manuscripts, histories, memoirs, monographs, essays and the like have the exact same handling, provenance

  T.

  No, scriptures have been preserved far more reliably, whether or not you accept their relevance. The opposite of what you assert is true. Early writings spread in great numbers and with great speed, which is another reason we can track any errors, or deliberate alterations, with more and more manuscripts available. The Hebrew scriptures does contain myths, poetry and all sorts as well as some historical stuff, but these myths etc have been kept close to original writings.

  The large numbers of manuscripts from such dispersed regions is why we can rule out your conspiracy theories, which don't really hold water. Some major finds are relatively recent, and confirm rather than weaken the evidence for great accuracy, which could far easier be applied to stuff like histories, with one or very few, and specific, localised sources.
• 

  Terry

  No, scriptures have been preserved far more reliably, whether or not you accept their relevance. The opposite of what you assert is true

  Followed by:

  The Hebrew scriptures does contain myths, poetry and all sorts as well as some historical stuff, but these myths etc have been kept close to original writings.

  Seems to make MY point and not yours!

  The strenuous efforts to "preserve" have only served to preserve the hodge-podge of NON-INSPIRED nonsense that fundamentalists (like JW's) use as foundation on which to erect their house of cards theologies.

  I must be missing your point.

  Bear with me. What are you asserting, exactly? Help me to see your point, please.

  Thanks,

  T.
• 

  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.

  I went back and reread previous posts you made to see where I'd fallen into a hole of misunderstanding.

  It seems the above IS your point, after all.

  Okay.

  Who are these modern scholars?

  Where are their writings?

  Most mainstream scholars and Seminary professors resort to Eclecticism. What is it?

  Eclecticism (wikipedia definition: Eclecticism is an approach to thought that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set of assumptions or conclusions, but instead draws upon multiple theories to gain complementary insights into phenomena, or applies only certain theories in particular cases. This is sometimes inelegant, and eclectics are sometimes criticised for lack of consistency in their thinking, but it is common in many fields of study)

  Which methodology do you embrace for your basis?

  T.