Originally posted by FreakyKBHPointing out that you do not know the meaning of a certain word is not a personal attack.
"Silly personal attacks?" I think you should look back at your own posts, especially wherein you accuse me of not knowing the definitions of fairly basic words.
The Bible is written in language of accomodation. Specifically, the understanding of a concept from one time period and/or culture is translated for the benefit of those from a different time ...[text shortened]... lves. We all have culpability for choosing the wrong system of thinking on a daily basis.
As for the last bit, it is not good enough to just assert that the concepts of 'forbidden' and 'death' were clear to the man and woman. You need to provide good reasons for thinking so. If you think that the original language referred to a modified, or different, idea of death, you need to be more specific on what changed, and why.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH…
Since your Google-themed education has so miserably failed you, I suggest you try an alternate cirriculum.
Since your Google-themed education…
..…
didn’t you read what I just said in my last post? Or is this just a [failed] attempt of a personal attack? Reminder of my comment:
“…It WASN’T me that made these “charges“ but RATHER devout Christian and historian (so he must have had ‘prior’ knowledge)
….”(my emphasis + “charges“ might be an inappropriate word for it for the reasons I just gave)
I simply pointing out the second-hand knowledge from somebody who knows a lot more about it than I do (and may have also been better “education&rdquo😉.
And you still haven't answered my questions:
Exactly how old are these “oldest manuscripts in our possession” you spoke of?
exactly how many centuries do they date from after Christ?
Should I interpret your non-answer to mean that these particular “oldest manuscripts in our possession” you spoke of were written many centuries after Christ?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat all depends on what you call 'significant'. I suspect you would simply massage the definition to fit the facts.
Moreoever, in each and every single instance of new discovery of ancient manuscript, there has not been one significant difference between what we held prior to said discoveries. Not once.
The truth is that the same account appears in four different gospels. If the differences are not 'significant' as you say, then why may I ask are the four Gospels all included in the Bible not just the one?
Originally posted by SwissGambitPointing out that you do not know the meaning of a certain word is not a personal attack.
Pointing out that you do not know the meaning of a certain word is not a personal attack.
As for the last bit, it is not good enough to just assert that the concepts of 'forbidden' and 'death' were clear to the man and woman. You need to provide good reasons for thinking so. If you think that the original language referred to a modified, or different, idea of death, you need to be more specific on what changed, and why.
Closer to one than anything I've said to you.
... it is not good enough to just assert that the concepts of 'forbidden' and 'death' were clear to the man and woman. You need to provide good reasons for thinking so.
The concepts absolutely were as clear to them as they are to us, otherwise the words and concepts we hear would be different. A rose is a rose is a rose, as the saying goes. The proof is everywhere in the Bible, but even in this account the issue is made crystal clear. If 'death' were anything but a negative, the serpent would not have said what he said.
His entire speel was based on the wrongful claim that they wouldn't die, but rather would become as smart as God. Next, you'll be saying that they weren't quite clear on what 'smart as God' meant. When does it stop, really?
Originally posted by twhiteheadFour angles.
That all depends on what you call 'significant'. I suspect you would simply massage the definition to fit the facts.
The truth is that the same account appears in four different gospels. If the differences are not 'significant' as you say, then why may I ask are the four Gospels all included in the Bible not just the one?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSee, I agree that death is presented in the story as a 'negative' - I just don't think 'negative' or 'something less than desirable' is good enough to meet the standard of clarity.
[b]Pointing out that you do not know the meaning of a certain word is not a personal attack.
Closer to one than anything I've said to you.
... it is not good enough to just assert that the concepts of 'forbidden' and 'death' were clear to the man and woman. You need to provide good reasons for thinking so.
The concepts absolutely were as cl t they weren't quite clear on what 'smart as God' meant. When does it stop, really?[/b]
Stepping outside the story for a bit - 'Something less than desirable' could be anything from a paper cut on the finger to the severing of a limb. It need not even involve bodily harm. It could be the loss of a chess game, for example. Within the story, it is clear to the man and woman that death is a bad thing, but it isn't necessary clear to them just how bad it can be.
Your last paragraph is a 'slippery slope' fallacy.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI just don't think 'negative' or 'something less than desirable' is good enough to meet the standard of clarity.
See, I agree that death is presented in the story as a 'negative' - I just don't think 'negative' or 'something less than desirable' is good enough to meet the standard of clarity.
Stepping outside the story for a bit - 'Something less than desirable' could be anything from a paper cut on the finger to the severing of a limb. It need not even involve ...[text shortened]... o them just how bad it can be.
Your last paragraph is a 'slippery slope' fallacy.
This is where you err. You have absolutely nothing upon which to base this assumption--- without even considering there is no objective standard by which you base the standard. There is nothing in the account to suggest anything other than the fact that both understood what was at stake.
In fact, there is much to suggest that their understanding superseded that of nearly every contemporary person. When God put the issue to them, He warned them: dying, you will die. Ask 100 people today what the warning was, and--- even if they get the physical death-threat correct--- an overwhelming amount of those 100 people will entirely miss the double nature of the death.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour original claim said nothing about 'conflicts'. You were attempting to demonstrate that current copies of Biblical manuscripts can be considered reliable.
Absolutely... in so far as "significant differences" is not meant to be taken as "significant conflicts."
You said:
Moreoever, in each and every single instance of new discovery of ancient manuscript, there has not been one significant difference between what we held prior to said discoveries. Not once.
Yet you now admit that significant differences do occur going back to the oldest known manuscripts (the oldest copies of the gospels).
Or do you honestly believe that all four Gospels have totally independent sources?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadGive it a rest.
Your original claim said nothing about 'conflicts'. You were attempting to demonstrate that current copies of Biblical manuscripts can be considered reliable.
You said:
Moreoever, in each and every single instance of new discovery of ancient manuscript, there has not been one significant difference between what we held prior to said discoveries. No gospels).
Or do you honestly believe that all four Gospels have totally independent sources?
You asked if the four angles contained significant differences. Fully aware of the semantics folks such as yourself are fond of playing, I pre-empted your eventual 'a-ha!' moment by clarifying what is meant by 'differences.' Specifically, the differences in each of the accounts can be seen as complimentary narratives of the same (or similar) incidents.
Or do you honestly believe that all four Gospels have totally independent sources?
Do you dishonestly believe anything else?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere is nothing in the account to suggest anything other than the fact that both understood what was at stake.
[b]I just don't think 'negative' or 'something less than desirable' is good enough to meet the standard of clarity.
This is where you err. You have absolutely nothing upon which to base this assumption--- without even considering there is no objective standard by which you base the standard. There is nothing in the account to suggest anything other ...[text shortened]... overwhelming amount of those 100 people will entirely miss the double nature of the death.[/b]
The story is clear that no human had ever died on earth. We tend to look at the story through our own eyes. We know of the history of human violence and death. We know the pain of losing those close to us. Adam and Eve knew neither. To us, death is more than just an abstract concept. To them, it couldn't be.
In fact, there is much to suggest that their understanding superseded that of nearly every contemporary person.
Where? I just read the story again. I'm not seeing it. [I assume you mean 'surpassed' instead of 'superseded'.]
Originally posted by SwissGambitWe tend to look at the story through our own eyes.
There is nothing in the account to suggest anything other than the fact that both understood what was at stake.
The story is clear that no human had ever died on earth. We tend to look at the story through our own eyes. We know of the history of human violence and death. We know the pain of losing those close to us. Adam and Eve knew neither. To u ...[text shortened]... e story again. I'm not seeing it. [I assume you mean 'surpassed' instead of 'superseded'.][/b]
Agreed, and invariably to our own discredit. This leads to all types of assumptions/presumptions which have an end-result of error. Nonetheless, this particular story was written for people who understood the terms and concepts used; there was nothing foreign about the same. As with every piece of literature, it is a given that the person relaying the information can be trusted to convey the account as it occured--- including any impactful nuance.
What Moses wrote down is what he heard from God, and there is no reason to believe that the words God used to Moses had any other meaning--- nor could the concepts have been misconstrued--- for any person hearing the same. Thus far, you've offered nothing other than their lack of previous exposure to support anything less than their complete understanding of the concepts.
We know of the history of human violence and death. We know the pain of losing those close to us. Adam and Eve knew neither. To us, death is more than just an abstract concept. To them, it couldn't be.
"We know, we know, we know... " According to your thinking, knowledge only comes through experience. According to God, the best way to know anything is through learning--- emphatically not experience. True to His standards, God taught the two about Himself, about each other, about life, and even about death. I'd dare say that the man and the woman knew more about death than all but those who have experienced it, given the quality of their Teacher.
Where? I just read the story again. I'm not seeing it.
See? Even you missed it! The original Hebrew (which conveyed the story first) has God telling the man that the day he eats of the fruit, "dying, you will die." With that full understanding, the man and the woman knew more about the type of death they were facing than even you, reading the poorly-translated Bible of today.
[I assume you mean 'surpassed' instead of 'superseded'.]
You are right: I meant the former instead of the latter.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNonetheless, this particular story was written for people who understood the terms and concepts used; there was nothing foreign about the same.
[b]We tend to look at the story through our own eyes.
Agreed, and invariably to our own discredit. This leads to all types of assumptions/presumptions which have an end-result of error. Nonetheless, this particular story was written for people who understood the terms and concepts used; there was nothing foreign about the same. As with every piece ...[text shortened]... tead of 'superseded'.][/b]
You are right: I meant the former instead of the latter.[/b]
OK, so again we have the argument that the story was perhaps modified to make it clear to the readership, but there are two objections: 1) How do we know the original terms were communicated and understood clearly? 2) The argument does not address the problem of their lack of experience of death. Again, it's much like telling a child not to touch a hot stove; the parent may make it very clear that it's a bad thing to do, but the child does not truly understand how bad it is until he does it.
As with every piece of literature, it is a given that the person relaying the information can be trusted to convey the account as it occured--- including any impactful nuance.
No, it's not. Writers are capable of forgetting to include details, failing to remember events perfectly, and even outright lying about what happened to deceive or further an agenda.
What Moses wrote down is what he heard from God, and there is no reason to believe that the words God used to Moses had any other meaning--- nor could the concepts have been misconstrued--- for any person hearing the same.
Again, there is no guarantee of this. Moses was human. He could have made any of the errors listed above. Further, are we so sure God directly told Moses the story? Perhaps it passed down from Adam to subsequent generations.
Thus far, you've offered nothing other than their lack of previous exposure to support anything less than their complete understanding of the concepts.
Not quite; I also pointed out that the story is not specific with respect to the degree of their understanding of the concept. Given the lack of that evidence, the last thing we should do is assume their understanding was perfect.
According to your thinking, knowledge only comes through experience.
No - according to my thinking, experience is a component of knowledge.
According to God, the best way to know anything is through learning--- emphatically not experience.
Well, yes, it would be better if the kid never touched the hot stove, but still they do. Only then does the real learning take place.
The original Hebrew (which conveyed the story first) has God telling the man that the day he eats of the fruit, "dying, you will die." With that full understanding, the man and the woman knew more about the type of death they were facing than even you, reading the poorly-translated Bible of today.
Sorry, I still don't get your point. The word 'die' is used twice instead of once. How does this change anything?
Originally posted by SwissGambitThis reminds me of Borges' story 'Averroes's Search".
Thus far, you've offered nothing other than their lack of previous exposure to support anything less than their complete understanding of the concepts.
Not quite; I also pointed out that the story is not specific with respect to the degree of their understanding of the concept. Given the lack of that evidence, the last thing we should do is assume their understanding was perfect.[/b]
'The story imagines the difficulty of Averroës, the famed Arabic commentator and translator of Aristotle, in explaining the concepts of tragedy and comedy. Averroës's difficulty lies in the fact that these concepts could not be expressed in Arabic; no appropriate words existed in Averroës's culture.
The process of writing the story is meant to parallel the events in the story itself; Borges writes in an afterword to the story that his attempt to understand Averroës was as doomed as Averroës's attempt to understand drama. "I felt that the work mocked me, foiled me, thwarted me. I felt that Averroës, trying to imagine what a play is without ever having suspected what a theater is, was no more absurd than I, trying to imagine Averroës yet with no more material than a few snatches from Renan, Lane, and Asín Palacios."' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes's_Search