Christian Bashing Mutual Admiration Society

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hmm, plausibly. I assume you have personally done a literal translation of the dead sea scrolls then?

Amazing the rigors some demand of others, while accepting as Gospel whiffs of smoke.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hmm, plausibly. I assume you have personally done a literal translation of the dead sea scrolls then?

I could gladly point you to scholars who have; I base my opinions on their findings.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Amazing the rigors some demand of others, while accepting as Gospel whiffs of smoke.

My PhD thesis has 200 references. The paper I just published in New phytologist had 43. All that information that I read had to be formulated into one, whole, coherent story. I've had to compare probably 400 - 500 publications to date.

I'm asking you to compare two.

Oh, and yes, I do take 'whiffs of smoke' as Gospel. They cannot lie. If I combust a sample to gas and analyse the gas I can easily determine what was in the sample. I can write a lie very easily, and so can anyone else.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So you are saying that there has never been a typo in the bible, or that it has been copied? If that is correct, then God's grasp of english is horrible!

I want to see your evidence for the bible being copied perfectly, and I want to see your evidence (other than the bible) that any of the events reported in the bible actually occurred in the manner ...[text shortened]... r all, most of the testaments where not written until 30 - 100 years AFTER Jesus was crucified.

I will answer all questions up to this point hopefully and eventually, however, if I don't have time, even if I do, take a look at Dr. Norman Geislers defense of the Bible. He's written many books on that point.
as far as typo's, it's pretty hard for a few to remain when compared with all of the almost 5,700 ancient copy's of the Bible. I always used to imagine a solitary document being copied by hand through the generation, but really someone would have had to collect every single document and put the error into every one of them. The Bible is 99.9% accurate, and all mistakes or typo's don't change any doctrinal messages. Umm, by the way, God didn't cause it to be written originally in English, He caused it to be written in Greek and Hebrew. the closest any ancient book has come is 95% accurate, and the time gap between actual events of the Bible and the writings about them is well within eyewitness span. If the New Testament were false, there would have been hundreds of people happily rising to contradict it at the time. I'd rather people message me than post continually.

Nlig

Ps. actually, many scholard date them 55-70. Even if they were 70-100 which is the latest they could be (only 40-70 years later) contemporary research has shown that this is wayyy too short a time for a myth to develope. In what we know to be written before ad 62 there is a claim that 500 eyewitnesses are still alive and among them. this couldn't be claimed unless he could point to some of them!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
My PhD thesis has 200 references. The paper I just published in New phytologist had 43. All that information that I read had to be formulated into one, whole, coherent story. I've had to compare probably 400 - 500 publications to date.

I'm asking you to compare two.

Oh, and yes, I do take 'whiffs of smoke' as Gospel. They cannot lie. If I com ...[text shortened]... ly determine what was in the sample. I can write a lie very easily, and so can anyone else.

And, pray tell, what do plants have to do with the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
BTW, I can squat in excess of 1000 pounds. Relevance?

Originally posted by Halitose
For the presumptuous folk, who have nothing better to do than to make jeering, ridiculing, snide and sarcastic remarks about something they have no intention of understanding (except perhaps for the purpose of getting more ammunition to help with the bashing).

Xtian bashing and moronic scripture twisting are the two surest methods for accumulating those recs that are the heart and soul of this chat forum that masquerades as a serious chess site.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
My PhD thesis has 200 references.

That's pretty impressive for a science thesis. In the Humanities, we generally have a lot more. One page in my dissertation, for example, had 45 lines of footnote to support three lines of text, although in general my work was a bit light on the references, as my bibliography ran a mere 22 pages. 😀

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And, pray tell, what do plants have to do with the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Hmmm. I wonder, did they buy the ink at the local stationary store (perhaps Office Depot) or did they make it out of something in nature (maybe a plant of some sort).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And, pray tell, what do plants have to do with the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
BTW, I can squat in excess of 1000 pounds. Relevance?

All I'm doing is asking you to compare two documents. I've already shown that I'm willing to compare hundreds of references, I'm not asking you to do anything I would not, and have not, done myself. It's not like I'm asking you to do anything I haven't done myself. So, you can forget the 'martyr image' you are trying to portray because I ask you to compare two documents.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
That's pretty impressive for a science thesis. In the Humanities, we generally have a lot more. One page in my dissertation, for example, had 45 lines of footnote to support three lines of text, although in general my work was a bit light on the references, as my bibliography ran a mere 22 pages. 😀

Humanities theses are typically more book-based research normally though? I guess us having to do 2-3 years of experimental work limits the length of time we spend doing all the book research. Scientific papers are written to be fairly complete too, so if you select the right ones you should get quite a bit of info from each one. My supervisor reckoned that your thesis was really underpinned by only about 20 reference. 200 is quite alot in science; most have probably a total of 120 - 150.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
All I'm doing is asking you to compare two documents. I've already shown that I'm willing to compare hundreds of references, I'm not asking you to do anything I would not, and have not, done myself. It's not like I'm asking you to do anything I haven't done myself. So, you can forget the 'martyr image' you are trying to portray because I ask you to compare two documents.

Your slight of hand is not unnoticed. The 'scholarly work' has been completed by those far more qualified than anyone here, including you and me. This is not a one-side-of-the-aisle proposition, either. What is your response to the assertion, namely, the Dead Sea scrolls reveal no signficant changes within the text covered?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your slight of hand is not unnoticed. The 'scholarly work' has been completed by those far more qualified than anyone here, including you and me. This is not a one-side-of-the-aisle proposition, either. What is your response to the assertion, namely, the Dead Sea scrolls reveal no signficant changes within the text covered?

I'm sure people have, many times, went back to the originals and done retranslations. That's what I'd have done. Doesn't mean the originals, before they were written, had not evolved over time. Speaking is way older than writing, and in those days more widespread.

Have you ever read any of those texts where you change the punctuation, the position of full stops (periods) and capital letters and it completely changes the tone and meaning of a piece of text. Well, the dead sea scrolls were written before English... well, before ENGLISH!! I don't know for sure, but I'd say they probably didn't have grammar back then...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm sure people have, many times, went back to the originals and done retranslations. That's what I'd have done. Doesn't mean the originals, before they were written, had not evolved over time. Speaking is way older than writing, and in those days more widespread.

Have you ever read any of those texts where you change the punctuation, the position ...[text shortened]... ![/i]! I don't know for sure, but I'd say they probably didn't have grammar back then...

I'm trying to make sense out of what you posted, so bear with me. You referrence changing punctuation to languages where none exists? Please clarify your post with reference to the specific meaning and/or examples of tone/meaning alterations.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm trying to make sense out of what you posted, so bear with me. You referrence changing punctuation to languages where none exists? Please clarify your post with reference to the specific meaning and/or examples of tone/meaning alterations.

I'm saying that the present translation CANNOT be a literal translation of the Dead sea scrolls, although I'm sure that they will be similar since people translated the original biblical passages from them. My point is that the Bible has undoubltably got errors in it, and that's since it's actually been written down! What about before it was written, when it was passed on orally?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm saying that the present translation CANNOT be a literal translation of the Dead sea scrolls, although I'm sure that they will be similar since people translated the original biblical passages from them. My point is that the Bible has undoubltably got errors in it, and that's since it's actually been written down! What about before it was written, when it was passed on orally?

Then you are no longer discussing the DSS, as they prove beyond debate, that the passages included had been translated without significant deviation, for several hundred years.
If you wish to discuss the alterations between oral and written, your discussion will be based upon speculation, unless Shirley Maclaine joins the forum.