Posts by sunstarr

116

I know the Bible is True

by SwedishChef in

i know the bible is true because.... * it is infallible.

there is not one contradiction with these pages.

humans are fallible; the bible is not.. * the word of god is the source of true wisdom.

You are correct. The fact is, I cannot offer proof that the original texts were not altered. However, it is not mine to offer proof. We (as in renowned historians as well as the average Joe) accept plenty of ancient documents as historically accurate with no corroborating evidence to back them. The "burden of proof" is not on those accepting the texts as accurate. The burden is on those who would claim it to be inaccurate. Otherwise we would have very little evidence of anything in ancient history. Now, if you ask whether or not I believe the bible deserves scrutiny, I would answer yes. Further, I cannot say that the bible is the exact representation of the original texts. The point is that it's no less historically accurate.

rem,

I don't believe the "special pleading logical fallacy" applies to me in this case. In my opinion, quite the opposite is true. I believe the bible deserves the same credit as any other ancient document that we, as a civilization, accept as accurate. As I said in the preceding paragraph, I believe the bible should be scrutinized. Yet, it should not be immediately discounted as a "fairy tale" simply because the earliest documents date back to within one generation of when Christ walked the earth. This is certainly much closer of a time from original writing to existing copies than is the case with many other documents held as accurate.

116

I know the Bible is True

by SwedishChef in

i know the bible is true because.... * it is infallible.

there is not one contradiction with these pages.

humans are fallible; the bible is not.. * the word of god is the source of true wisdom.

sunstarr

rem,

I'm not familiar with what "special pleading logical fallacy" means. Can you elaborate?

116

I know the Bible is True

by SwedishChef in

i know the bible is true because.... * it is infallible.

there is not one contradiction with these pages.

humans are fallible; the bible is not.. * the word of god is the source of true wisdom.

sunstarr

I think their qualifications speak for themselves and I don't have to defend what they say.

If you intend to quote the Jesus Seminar as a reliable source, then you most certainly do have to defend what they say. If you are not prepared to defend your quotes, then you shouldn't use them. Further, the Jesus Seminar represents a very small percentage of the belief's of theologians. Hardly notable in the realm of scholars. Finally, prerequisites of a Ph.D. and linguistic skill do not constitute authority on a subject. Anyone can tape a list of requirements to their door.

Personally I would prefer to take an objective look at something than basing my beliefs strictly on faith.

The Jesus Seminar is far from objective. They begin their "research" with the premise that the bible is flawed due to containing such things as supernatural occurrences (miracles). They then build on this presumption to conclude that the bible cannot be trusted because no two copies are exactly alike, or simply because the earliest copies of the scriptures supposedly date back to the 2nd or 3rd century. That's certainly not objective and doesn't even border on conclusive (primarily by the standards of renowned historians).

The fact is, neither you nor the Jesus Seminar can offer any proof that the original texts were altered to suit ideology. No thanks. Take your 200 "scholars" and go back to the left (I mean west) coast.

116

I know the Bible is True

by SwedishChef in

i know the bible is true because.... * it is infallible.

there is not one contradiction with these pages.

humans are fallible; the bible is not.. * the word of god is the source of true wisdom.

sunstarr

William,

Could you provide a reference to where the Jesus Seminar offers proof that edits or additions were made to the original texts?

How confident can we believe these were they exact words of the New Testament writers when no manuscripts have survived since before about 160 C.E. ?

We are not discussing the Qur'an here. Christians do not base their theology on whether or not scripture was passed verbatim.

Also it is known that the early church fathers edited out or added to the scriptures that would support their ideaoligies.

Known by whom?

We do not know how often that same approach was used prior to the fixing of the text in the fourth and fifth centuries.

You cannot assume that changes were made based on this statement. Being unaware of revision does not qualify that it has been made.

116

I know the Bible is True

by SwedishChef in

i know the bible is true because.... * it is infallible.

there is not one contradiction with these pages.

humans are fallible; the bible is not.. * the word of god is the source of true wisdom.

sunstarr

We are fairly confident, for example that the scribes who made copies of the New Testament (the gospels in particular) tended to modify the Greek text to match the orthodox views that were emerging.

"We are fairly confident..." That's evidence? Um...ok. How confident can we be in the accuracy of these opinions?

116

I know the Bible is True

by SwedishChef in

i know the bible is true because.... * it is infallible.

there is not one contradiction with these pages.

humans are fallible; the bible is not.. * the word of god is the source of true wisdom.

sunstarr

Im not sure how finding fault with Darwins work, is going to prove the Bible is true. Disbelief in the Bible does not require belief in evolution. Point out as many absurdities as you want, Darwin's work is not considered inspired.

Pseudo,

Again, my point was directed at those who ascribe to the theories of Darwin and who also claim to be Atheists. I never suggested that disbelief in the bible necessitates belief in evolution. Many hold Darwin's theories to be true. Simply put, the idea of primordial life that spawned all organic creatures is as ridiculous to me as a talking snake is to you. Further, it's not about inspiration. It's about a belief system. That was really my entire line of reasoning. Since you have stated that you respect those who are happy with their religion, then I have no argument with you. I appreciate that respect, and I will most certainly return it. I merely get tired of those who immediately jump on believers and feel the need to point out supposed "ignorance" among those of us that have faith. I just think the road goes both ways, and we'd be better off not being so critical. You appear not to be so critical, and so I commend you for your acceptance and open-mindedness.

Gumby,

How about the story of the guy who put all those animals on a boat then populated the earth with them for the next 4000 years?

That's it? That's your grand proof of scientific error in the bible? Well, I'm convinced.

116

I know the Bible is True

by SwedishChef in

i know the bible is true because.... * it is infallible.

there is not one contradiction with these pages.

humans are fallible; the bible is not.. * the word of god is the source of true wisdom.

sunstarr

Rem,

I appreciate that you have done much research, and mine is not to discredit the work you have done. Having said that:

There is much evidence that all life is related.

I would agree with that statement. On the other hand:

The logical conclusion is that all life has a single common ancestor... whether that be "ooze" or self-replicating molecules or whatever.

I would not agree with that statement. That is hypothesizing. Can you really show me proof of the existence of premordial life? No one was there to witness this life. No one was there to record it. It is no more factual than saying life is related because God created nature to be in harmony with itself. It is no more factual than saying God blew the breath of life into man's nostrils. Again, I recognize that not all evolutionists are atheists. In your case, though, it does apply. Further, I'm not trying to prove that a Creator is the ONLY possible cause. However, I get very tired of seeing many on this board attack the notion, despite the possibility of a Creator being the cause. As far as biblical scientific errors, I have seen none. Perhaps you believe there are some. However, I have never found them.

116

I know the Bible is True

by SwedishChef in

i know the bible is true because.... * it is infallible.

there is not one contradiction with these pages.

humans are fallible; the bible is not.. * the word of god is the source of true wisdom.

sunstarr

Rem,

What I said is that Darwin's beliefs concerning creation are irrelevant. We aren't talking about Darwin's beliefs in a Creator. What we are talking about is your beliefs concerning a Creator. I use Darwin's words because many here accept his theories. I don't care if he believed that the "ooze" came from God or not. You, however, clearly believe that it did not come from a Creator. It is to you that I direct my argument. It is not to Darwin. If Charles Darwin made the statement, "I believe in the God of the Bible," would you accept it as fact? Certainly you would not. Therefore, you take his theories and apply them to your already existing disbelief in God. Again, the bottom line is that you will accept his theory about a "primordial form" (whether or not he believed in God) yet laugh at those who believe in angels and demons. It's hypocrisy and it makes me sick.

116

I know the Bible is True

by SwedishChef in

i know the bible is true because.... * it is infallible.

there is not one contradiction with these pages.

humans are fallible; the bible is not.. * the word of god is the source of true wisdom.

sunstarr

Where did Darwin indicate that it was impossible that a Creator made the "primordial form"?

What part of "I don't care if Darwin believed in creation or not" don't you understand? I made no assumptions in that direction, and you have shown your inability to read plain language. As usual, this argument has been made into twelve others, which is completely unnecessary. It really boils down to this: You and others will accept that all life grew from some ancient ooze, yet you scoff at the idea of a snake possessed by a spirit.

If you can't understand that Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism (or Abiogenesis), then there is no help for you.

What you cannot understand is that I made no connection between the two. My point centered around accepting something for which there is no solid evidence.

I suppose the fact that many Christians accept Evolution is lost on you. Do you believe they are Atheists as well?

I don't claim that all atheists are evolutionists. Nor do I claim that all evolutionists are atheists. Many here, however, are both. Those are the ones to whom I direct my point. You needn't make this issue any larger than it actually is.

Atheists do not disbelieve in gods because of Evolution.

I never said they did. However, atheists who ascribe to the idea that all life is a victim of circumstance are no less "ignorant" than theists who believe life came from a Creator.

Continue reading your fairy tales about talking snakes and believing they are true.

I'll do that. And you continue reading your science fiction about "primordial forms." I'll watch Planet of the Apes. Much more entertaining.

116

I know the Bible is True

by SwedishChef in

i know the bible is true because.... * it is infallible.

there is not one contradiction with these pages.

humans are fallible; the bible is not.. * the word of god is the source of true wisdom.

sunstarr

Rem,

Apparently you are too in love with reading your own words to clearly see what I have written. I don't care if Darwin believed in creation or not. What I do care about is you and the many others like you on this board constantly attacking the validity of the believers' claim that there is a Creator. The fact is, Darwin was suggesting that all organic beings descended from one "primordial form." That was simply stated. Another fact: Many here buy into Darwin's theories. Another fact: Many here who accept Darwin's theories also believe there is no Creator. Ready for the conclusion? It is no less insane to accept the existence of a "primordial form" than it is to accept the existence of God. The issue isn't Darwin's beliefs in creation. The issue is the beliefs of you and others atheists here. Whether Darwin is describing evolution or abiogenesis is irrelevant, as my point has little to do with Darwin, and much to do with you.

The fact that I and others have studied both theology and science does, in fact, qualify us as "more informed" over those who have only studied the former.

Well, I'm certainly convinced. Thank you for that enlightening piece of evidence. Yes, you're right because you say so. Ok. Who said the people I was referring to have not also studied science? You have again assumed too much.