Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] FYI: Editing=editing to some degree, heavy editing=editing to the degree that it has impact on the actual context of the contents. And if you, as a Christian, don't even know how your holy book has come to be in the state you find it in your hands, then you have homework to do.
Your last bit is incohesive and incorrect.
But rest assured, I won't spend my time arguing to a self-blind brick wall, so you'll get the last word.
Good day to you.
Sir, you just won the conversation. I don't care how much further it goes on, and I'll put my two cents in edge wise simply because I'm not here to win an argument, I'm here to make points which I see as valid, and hopefully learn from points I thought were valid but might not be. But you sir, have managed to single handedly step in, sucker punch, and walk out with pride.
Shame on me for not holding up to my decision to leave this derailing topic, but I would like to clarify something.
The common rule for providing a source is if the statement made is not selfevident or common knowledge.
The Bible, in it's entirety (meaning I include every text ever to be associated to what is commonly known as "The Holy Bible"), as ALL documention preceding the computer(and even those fault at times!), is in varying degrees edited(i.e more or less edited, meaning different states of being true to the original - if such a thing ever existed in the same composition - in letter, word and meaning. Do you understand or shall I continue?).
This is common knowledge.
Even with the Torah and the scribes meticulous copying rituals there is a room for error, however slight.
And since you so badly need a source to understand this I'd recommend The Secular Bible by Jacques Berlinerblau, you can check him out here--> http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/jdb75/
I recommend you read the entirety but with special attention to the term "supplementation". If you need specific pagenumbers then I suggest p.62, 67 and 75-77 to name a few.
The fact that I use a self-proclaimed non-believer as source should add some creditability to the source since my major inclination in religious studies have been the criticism of atheism.
So why do I use Berlinerblau as source?
Simply because he puts aside every aspect of belief(in any inclination, be it faith or non-belief) and scientifically approaches the subject. He wants to straighten it out for real, partly due to the fact that atheists commonly aren't that well-versed on the different aspects of the Bible. Read it, you would benefit.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Shame on me for not holding up to my decision to leave this derailing topic, but I would like to clarify something.
The common rule for providing a source is if the statement made is not selfevident or common knowledge.
The Bible, in it's entirety (meaning I include every text ever to be associated to what is commonly known as "The Holy Bible"), as ALL documention preceding the computer(and even those fault at times!), is in varying degrees edited(i.e more or less edited, meaning different states of being true to the original - if such a thing ever existed in the same composition - in letter, word and meaning. Do you understand or shall I continue?).
I think what the big misunderstanding here between SiLVERFIRE and I is his definition of edited.
Technically the books of the Bible in the New Testament (is that exact enough for you?) are still in their original form as they were originally written.
However since they had multiple authors (Peter, James, John, Mark, Matthew all wrote their own experiences with Jesus from *their* point of view) most people take that as meaning that the New Testament was modified to have a different meaning, which isn't so.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE "Tell him to read about King James and how he just decided to edit out what he didnt like and put in what made it look better. Some say all he did was translate it, but im sure he did more than that. Plus, if you translate something enough times, information will be lost anyway." Another friend of mine, also religious, who disagrees with you.
Your friend is wrong, and him being religious doesn't make him any more of a source of information than you.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Your last bit is incohesive and incorrect.
That's what someone says when they can't stand up to a solid argument.
Since you know I'm right you have no other choice than to simply resort to insults.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonkTechnically the books of the Bible in the New Testament (is that exact enough for you?) are still in their original form as they were originally written.
What about the ending to the gospel of Mark?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
The gospel of Mark was originally made to be oral, however since it matches the stories in the other gospels it's perfectly reliable.
There are a couple of differences between the gospels in the way that they are worded and their descriptions, but as SiLVERFIRE has said those are all separate perspectives of the same events (or in this case the same God).
EDIT: The upside to these fun little debates is that I've earned some dc points!
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk The gospel of Mark was originally made to be oral, however since it matches the stories in the other gospels it's perfectly reliable.
1. I was referring to the oldest copies of Mark lacking the last 12 verses.
2. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are generally considered to be based on Mark (and a second lost source)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Phredreeke 1. I was referring to the oldest copies of Mark lacking the last 12 verses.
2. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are generally considered to be based on Mark (and a second lost source)
That because as I said the book of Mark was oral, and so many scholars listening to it being preached by Mark simply copied it as *they* heard it.
There are hundreds of Greek manuscripts with slight changes in wording of the story contained in Mark.
This is something that was taught in my Bible lit class at my University.
For your 2nd point I just don't believe it. There are far too many differences, and there are no inconsistencies in prospective.
At least in the original Greek translations, which you can read word for word (using cross references) in PC Study Bible.
There are 5600+ copies of the New Testament in existence.
They are 99.5% accurate to one another, and only have a 100 year span from when the originals were written to when the copies were made.
And from those manuscripts the translation to English to the Geneva Bible was made.
And then the 51 years later King James commissioned the King James Bible to be written, 54 men were chosen to translate it and to follow a strict set of rules for translation. Many of them were proficient in ancient Hebrew and Greek.
Do you ever read any information that isn't affiliated with your religion? Better yet, have you ever considered the possible accuracy of skeptics or do you just try to find something wrong in everything they're telling you. Do you ask your church every question you have or do you consider asking a real scholar or scientist? I know a lot of Christians and absolutely none of them are as close minded as you are. You swear by a book that's NOT that's been changed, tweaked, adjusted, translated, you name it, it's been done. It's like saving a JPEG over and over and over again, it's going to lose quality and accuracy every single time.
Look, with your dismissal of The History Channel, a very reputable source of information, you've proven how bias you are against skeptical information that might prove your religion wrong. You're just being ignorant and close minded.
Yes I read all about all different types of religious, and of course science. Although I wouldn't look to a scientist as a source of moral insight.
The facts about the origins of the Bible come from many sources, and to be quite honest is something I've picked up on my own and didn't learn from my church.
Basing your argument on whether I agree with *some* of the History Channel's programming is hardly any kind of solid proof aginst my argument.
Tell me, what makes you think so high and mighty of your religion that you believe you're the only one right. Especially when many Christian churches can all look at the same bible and perceive it differently. Who are you? I mean really, who are you to say that you're RIGHT about all of this? At any point in your life, do you ever sit back and suggest to yourself that maybe these could just be your individual beliefs, that they you don't truly know (because you don't) the truth, and this is just what you believe?
Because I'll tell you right now, one of the biggest differences between you and me is that my beliefs can't be debunked. Why? Because I don't try to claim facts. I don't wave a book around swearing by my perception of it. I tell you what I believe, why I believe it, and I'm willing to admit when I might be wrong about something, but you dig up information from your bible, or from sources that are biased toward you bible, and ignore sources that tell you that your bible might not be entirely as accurate as you think it is.
You claim you've heard all the arguments. Have you? Have you actually heard a word and invested a moment of your time to think about it? Or spend all your time thinking about comebacks or information that all connects, hoping that whoever argues with you doesn't care enough to invest time in researching and debunking you. You remind me of Ray Comfort right now.
And the reason I've stopped facing your arguments head on is because like I said, the very instant you turned down a good reliable source of information that's not biased toward your religion as being biased against it, you lost my respect in this particular discussion. People whose ideas are conceived through irrational thought processes are impossible to convince with rational means. Until you start accepting information that you don't particularly like to hear, you will always be close minded. And that my friend, is my last word of this discussion.
Take your last word and let someone else argue you on it, because I cannot continue frustrating myself by arguing with, as EE so well put it, a self-blind brick wall.
Please don't leave just yet, I want to hear all your arguments.
You can quote the History channel if you want, but please use their sources and not just them as a source.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Especially when many Christian churches can all look at the same bible and perceive it differently.
It's funny you should say this, fact is most "Christian" churches don't read the Bible at all. They just simply listen to their priest or pastor and take his word for it.
This is a sad state when people can't think for themselves. If someone tells me something I want them to show me why they believe that way.
I've already explained why I put so much faith in the Bible, and so I see it as a credible source for moral insight as should you. Even EE agrees that the Bible deserves some respect.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Urban: I hold the bible in very, very, high regards.
Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE Because I'll tell you right now, one of the biggest differences between you and me is that my beliefs can't be debunked. Because I don't try to claim facts. I don't wave a book around swearing by my perception of it.
It's funny that you say that your beliefs can't be debunked, and then turn around and say that you can't be sure that what you believe is true. Of course if don't have any kind of solid stand then no one can disagree since you aren't sure yourself.
Now as soon as someone actually believes in something it makes you upset, but yet you claim to be open-minded towards anyone's beleifs.
I know exactly why you're getting so mad, because unlike most people who claim to be a particular religion I actually believe what I say.
I don't just say I believe in it but go off and do what I want. I actually follow the Bible as close as I can, and pray to God to give me wisdom to do what's right.
So please don't take what I say the wrong way, I don't feel like I'm better than anyone else, and I certainly don't think I'm perfect, but what I am doing is striving to do what's right.
You can quote the History channel if you want, but please use their sources and not just them as a source.
I actually agree with that.
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
It's funny you should say this, fact is most "Christian" churches don't read the Bible at all. They just simply listen to their priest or pastor and take his word for it.
This is a sad state when people can't think for themselves. If someone tells me something I want them to show me why they believe that way.
And I really agree with that. It made sense hundreds of years ago when hardly anyone could read. Nowadays it just speaks of laziness and apathy.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
To stand your ground and claim to be absolutely sure about something you have zero proof for, is stupid. However I do have beliefs and ideas about the world, about divinity, that can't be debunked because for as much as we discover, there will always be a chance the divinity is just outside of our lines of discovery or just around the corner, always alluding science.
And you telling me to quote the sources on The History channel is exactly like me telling you to quote the sources of the bible, and you seemed pretty reluctant, so forgive me if I do too. I haven't seen the show that I gathered all this information from, nor do I even know the particular name or even the particular show it was from, so for me to gather my sources - though possible, would be way too much effort for someone who's not going to return the effort but instead just run his finger down the bible and quote it.
And no, I'm not getting upset the second someone else expresses a different believe. I'm getting upset that in the face of an argument, you're using irrational points to debate rational idea's. Not all the time, but half the time and it's frustrating.
The bible deserves as much respect as any other book, it's a good book when it comes to describing the histories of people, the troubles they faced, etc. It's basically an autobiography of the people, by the people, at their present time of living. That much I am not disagreeing with. What I'm disagreeing with is the stories they claim are absolutely true. At no point has a hard core Christian ever admitted to me that the stories they live their moral lives by, could be symbolism for how they should live their lives, and that while they can believe in a heaven and hell as their after life or an almighty God, that's fine... you cannot let this book derail your grasp on the reality. It may be accurate, but the people who wrote it were ignorant of anything beyond what they knew at the time, so you need to admit that their ideas on reality could be skewed and that anything they couldn't explain and claimed to be God, could have actually been something completely natural and rational. From what I gather, you've not admitted any of this.
You still seem to claim that these are all works of God. Funny God's name being placed as the cause for things happening, decreased as fast as science and understanding grew. I'm sure you've heard this argument before but do you understand what it means? I mean truly understand. It does not mean science is leading more people away from religion. It means that people are more inclined to believe something that can be proven to them, because to prove it's existence, shows us that it actually existed beyond speculation. If we still based our lives entirely on speculation and incorrect coloration between two things which really weren't connected at all, we'd still be drilling into peoples heads to release pressure on their brain, in an attempt to cure depression - instead of a much more proven sound method of anti-depressants.
Do you really think the whole world flooded? Do you really think that God had anything to do with any flooding at all that might have caused, particularly in area's where in which the stories actually derive?
And you'll have to excuse me, but my discussion with you started, probably a lot earlier than you realized. It started back when you first dismissed a need to believe in more than one God. Much earlier in the discussion. So if it seems as though I've been blindly swatting debate toward you, it's really been quite consistent and focused on you in particular. I've said a few things here and there, but I don't typically go out and start disagreeing with people with faith - anymore, I used to when I was an atheist. So I've not really been necessarily close minded or sensitive in this topic, I've just been discussing the topic of faith with you for longer than you probably knew, especially since in the beginning, my voice was just one of many people who were talking and replying to you.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by UrbanMonk
