2 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI would say that the more times a text is translated the more times errors will be found. As far as the original texts, I am unsure as to what degree errors may be present. For example, I have found "typos" that seem to have occured in the original text, however, the overall message does not seem to be effected by them. I suppose those who view the Bible to be innerrant would conclude that God made those who transcribed his word temporarily innerrant, however, I have not found evidence of this. In fact, Biblically Paul and Peter had differences yet I believe both to have been inspired by the same God.
[Why the superfluous quotes around the word errors? Are you suggesting they aren't errors?
Where's the original and untranslated inspired word then? Is it the greek? Do we have a copy of it anywhere?
Make no mistake about it, the only words that lay claim to God himself writing scripture are the ten commandments and the words of Christ himself. The rest is God's word inspired through fallible man.
Originally posted by whodeyFor example, the commandment to love God and man will ensure you of livng a sinless life and even if that means loving those who hate you. Using your objective lense is this not an inescapable truth?
What about principles laid out by Christ? Would you consider them objecitve knowledge? For example, the commandment to love God and man will ensure you of livng a sinless life and even if that means loving those who hate you. Using your objective lense is this not an inescapable truth? In addition, is love not what makes our lives worth while? Is it not ...[text shortened]... ng phenomenon that links the material with the immaterial world and, ironically, it rules both.
Love god and MAN will ensure you of living a sinless life? I don't even know what that means.
I don't think anyone lives a sinless life.
In addition, is love not what makes our lives worth while? Is it not the primary need above all else in our lives and without it, our lives become a meaningless unfulfilled dung heap?
Love is a big part of it, yes.
If so, what we have is an unmeasurable phenomenon that impacts every aspect of our existence even though, in and of itself, love does not really exist.
Love isn't completely unmeasurable. We know it exists. How much someone loves someone else is not really measurable. Love is an emotion like hate and others. I really don't know exactly what you're getting at here.
Don't get me wrong, science is interesting and I enjoy it very much but it is not a need in my life that is at all comparible to my need for love.
This is a poor comparison and argues against something I never even hinted at.
Who would suggest that one thing somehow rules over the other? I love a lot of things. I love science. I love my wife. I love great food. Those are all different types of love - I definitely don't love them all in the same way.
I'm not and didn't suggest that you or I need science to live, however science and scientific discoveries hold the key to prolonging our lives and the lives of our species in a way nothing else does.
It's not a replacement for the basic necessities of life.
Love is the connecting phenomenon that links the material with the immaterial world and, ironically, it rules both.
I don't see how this is true, but hey... believe what you want. Love is an emotion and a product of our minds and the minds of those that are alive.
I have no idea how it rules the material or immaterial world, whatever the immaterial world is.
2 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawnIt is my belief, as well as those of ancient rabbis, that man evolved up until the time of Adam and during the time of Adam and Eve God imparted "neshamah", or the soul life to them, that set him apart from the other animals. If so, what you then have is an accurate time table from the life of Adam until present.
The 6000 years old number comes from the complete supposed genealogy through jesus noting ages, etc... it isn't just from genesis. In fact, I think the person who originally came up with the number actually gave the exact time of creation, funnily enough.
Originally posted by whodeyI would say that the more times a text is translated the more times errors will be found.
I would say that the more times a text is translated the more times errors will be found. As far as the original texts, I am unsure as to what degree errors may be present. For example, I have found "typos" that seem to have occured in the original text, however, the overall message does not seem to be effected by them. I suppose those who view the Bible t ...[text shortened]... ments and the words of Christ himself. The rest is God's word inspired through fallible man.
I would say the more times a text is translated the more errors would be made potentially.
For example, I have found "typos" that seem to have occured in the original text, however, the overall message does not seem to be effected by them.
So you've seen this original text? Where is it? Is that the originally inspired word of god?
Make no mistake about it, the only words that lay claim to God himself writing scripture are the ten commandments and the words of Christ himself.
Yet the only evidence we have of the ten commandments is the bible. We have no evidence at all that Moses or his travels through the desert ever happened.
As for the words of christ, well... did he ever write them down himself?
The rest is God's word inspired through fallible man.
There are many who do and have claimed to be speaking those words.
Nothing scares me more than someone who thinks that god is talking to them and giving them instructions.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOf course I have not seen the original text. What I mean is the original langauge and assume it was the original text. We have evidence that the modern day Bible contains the original text through such finds as the Dead Sea Scrolls that say word for word what the modern Bible does today.
[So you've seen this original text? Where is it? Is that the originally inspired word of god?
As for the New Testament, my evidence comes mainly from reading the words of Christ and those words bearing witness to me spiritually as being "truth". If they are truly the words of God, then this should not be suprising.
Originally posted by whodeyWell, I have no idea who these ancient rabbis are.
It is my belief, as well as those of ancient rabbis, that man evolved up until the time of Adam and during the time of Adam and Eve God imparted "neshamah", or the soul life to them, that set him apart from the other animals. If so, what you then have is an accurate time table from the life of Adam until present.
What you're describing does sound like the way some modern theists try to accommodate evolution with their faith.
The problem is, genetic evidence and other evidence doesn't support there being an "adam and eve". I.e. there never were just two original humans from which all descended. Even so, accurate wouldn't be the proper term either since there were humans alive since .25 million years ago. Why did or would god wait until 6000 years ago to put the soul of live into them??
I would also wonder if they believe Adam and Eve lived in paradise and where this paradise was. Did the tree of knowledge just appear then?
So somehow god singled out two people 6000 years ago and gave them a soul (and didn't give the other humans the same soul??).
The problem is, there is no real separation between us and the animal kingdom. We are animals. We have found similar kind of moral conduct among other primates also.
We are the most intellectually advanced of the animal kingdom, but we're special in only those was that do make us unique. There are animals that are faster, stronger, more agile, have better sight, smell, hearing.
We are special only in our intelligence, our ability to stand upright all the time. Our ability to make and use tools primarily comes from our intelligence. Other creatures do use tools, they just don't make or use complex tools.
Originally posted by whodeyI wish I could believe it were that simple.
Ok, lets drop the theological terminology. Lets just say that what is wrong with the world is a lack or abscence of love within it.
Disease, famine, natural disasters, etc... these aren't cured by love nor caused by the lack thereof.
It warms the cockles of our hearts to just say "if we all love each other more then life will be great" and there is some truth to that. It's not an argument for the existence of god though and it doesn't take divine inspiration to think of it.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI think what is lacking here is a respect for the historical accuracy of the Bible. For example, Biblical archaeology come to mind. Much of the history of the Bible has been confirmed through such digs. For example, I was watching a documentary on history international as they were conducting digs in Egypt looking for evidence of the Israelite exodus or even their existence there. What they found was shocking. They not only found evidence for the Isrealite Jews who wrote in caves the name of their God "El" asking him for deliverance from the toil but they also found evidence for the Biblical story of Joseph that placed them in Egypt to begin with. They found the words "Joseph" inscribed on the royal rings in one of the palaces found in Egypt. iIt is the ONLY Egyptian artifact that contains a Hebrew name within it and it reads "Joseph". Sadly, the area was closely gaurded due to the fact that Muslims in the area do not want evidence that Jews once lived their because of political reasons. As a result, the achaeologists had to mislead them somewhat in terms of what they were trying to find.
Yet the only evidence we have of the ten commandments is the bible. We have no evidence at all that Moses or his travels through the desert ever happened.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnSo if man loved one another as he should we would let people starve? If man loved one another like he should we would not give people proper medical treatment they need?
I wish I could believe it were that simple.
Disease, famine, natural disasters, etc... these aren't cured by love nor caused by the lack thereof.
It warms the cockles of our hearts to just say "if we all love each other more then life will be great" and there is some truth to that. It's not an argument for the existence of god though and it doesn't take divine inspiration to think of it.
I do see what your saying in that natural disasters will not go away if man simply loved one another, however, it is my belief that once man fell the world likewise fell and paradise was lost.
As far as divine inspiration to love, I would conceed that love comes naturally to mankind. That is, we love those who love us because it is an innate need we were wired to have. However, to love those who hate us and despitefully use us is another matter. That kind of love is supernatural in origin.
Originally posted by whodeyI think there is a lot of reason to not respect the supposed historical accuracy of the bible.
I think what is lacking here is a respect for the historical accuracy of the Bible. For example, Biblical archaeology come to mind. Much of the history of the Bible has been confirmed through such digs. For example, I was watching a documentary on history international as they were conducting digs in Egypt looking for evidence of the Israelite exodus or ev ...[text shortened]... the achaeologists had to mislead them somewhat in terms of what they were trying to find.
I've watched documentaries claiming a lot of things too, including that the exodus story was not at all about jews at all, but was taken from a different group that they actually have evidence for leaving Egypt.
No one is claiming that the bible isn't based somewhat on actual events. I just think that the bible can't be just taken as being a complete and accurate history without corroborating evidence. It's very likely there are exaggerations and untruths in the bible that coincide with the things that might be right.
Originally posted by whodeySo if man loved one another as he should we would let people starve?
So if man loved one another as he should we would let people starve? If man loved one another like he should we would not give people proper medical treatment they need?
I do see what your saying in that natural disasters will not go away if man simply loved one another, however, it is my belief that once man fell the world likewise fell and paradise was ...[text shortened]... hate us and despitefully use us is another matter. That kind of love is supernatural in origin.
I didn't say that.
Starvation doesn't just happen because we let it happen.
If man loved one another like he should we would not give people proper medical treatment they need?
I didn't say that either.
However, to love those who hate us and despitefully use us is another matter. That kind of love is supernatural in origin.
I don't think it is supernatural in origin, but it's not provable to be supernatural in origin so I can't really say anything about it other than I disagree.
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOk, I guess we can only agree that it is accurate enough to base a scienctific discipline such as Biblical archaeology and leave it at that.
I think there is a lot of reason to not respect the supposed historical accuracy of the bible.
I've watched documentaries claiming a lot of things too, including that the exodus story was not at all about jews at all, but was taken from a different group that they actually have evidence for leaving Egypt.
No one is claiming that the bible isn't ba e exaggerations and untruths in the bible that coincide with the things that might be right.
Originally posted by whodeyFrankly, I was thinking a little more ancient actually. I honestly don't read a lot of theology, nor do I have much interest to.
Onkelos (150 CE), Rashi (1040-1105 CE), Maimondes (1135-1204 CE), and Nahmanides (1194-1270) to name a few.
I'm pretty sure they also didn't think Jesus was the son of god too though.