A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2012, 01:03 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(11-08-2012 12:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-08-2012 08:38 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  If however we start to "compromise" to suit "the world", it becomes a problem. A fairly obvious example could be the position towards homosexuals. There are a large number of Christian churches that do no longer frown upon gay marriages etc. So they adapt to become "acceptable".

Every law in the human texts, that were written by humans, in known human contexts, for known human reasons, then changed multiple times, as every scholar knows, that eventually was VOTED in a non-unanimous vote into what became, eventually known as the Bible, and rearranged again, multiple times, and containing many many injunctions which today are considered barbaric, and/or irrelevant, for only cultural reasons, has as it's origin a known cultural context. The idea that any law in the Bible originates from a deity, and is immutable, is simply false.

The proof is as follows :

Gods are not the source of morality. The Platonic Conundrum, (Bucky's negative re-write of Euthyphro's Dilemma).

1. Something is wrong, because god says it's wrong.

2. Why did god say it's wrong ?
3. Did he have a good reason ?

4. If there is no good reason, then it could be right.
5. If there is a good reason, that reason exists, apart from god.

6. Could he have said it's right ?
7. If he could not say it's right, then truth and moral value exist apart from god.

8. Is it wrong because god says it's wrong, or is it wrong, because it's objectively wrong, and god had to say that ?
9. Would it be right if god says it's right ?

Conclusions:

If god could not have said it's right, and still be god, then the source of the moral law is not god.
If it would still be wrong even if god says it's right, then the source of morality is not god.

If the source of morality is not god, then we must look elsewhere for guidance

(BTW, this proof, is also valid for "causality", ie "First Cause", and is also proof of god's non-existence, and non-contingent nature.)
Fromgenesis Wrote: If however we start to "compromise" to suit "the world", it becomes a problem. A fairly obvious example could be the position towards homosexuals. There are a large number of Christian churches that do no longer frown upon gay marriages etc. So they adapt to become "acceptable".

Every law in the human texts, that were written by humans, in known human contexts, for known human reasons, then changed multiple times, as every scholar knows, that eventually was VOTED in a non-unanimous vote into what became, eventually known as the Bible, and rearranged again, multiple times, and containing many many injunctions which today are considered barbaric, and/or irrelevant, for only cultural reasons, has as it's origin a known cultural context. The idea that any law in the Bible originates from a deity, and is immutable, is simply false.

Hi, you are obviously a very intelligent person and appreciate the opportunity to evaluate some aspects of Christianity and atheism.
Your comment is not relevant to my position that Christians at times strike a “compromise” when (popular, humanistic, “scientific”) notions contradict the Bible instead of accepting the clear statements of the Bible. Do you agree with the point that Christians at times “contradict” the Bible to be in line with popular/”scientific” beliefs/evidence – for whatever reason?
You may provide me with some information supporting your claim that the texts were changed multiple times. (in any material way that makes a difference to the message, not apparent copying errors). Evidence suggests otherwise- as evidenced by the dead sea scrolls as an example.
The Bible is made up of books that is consistent with the teachings of the early Church. It was not arbitrary decisions, and combined in the “canon” to eliminate false teaching.
The question you pose is whether something is good because a deity says so, or whether the deity has to say so because of a principle “outside” of the deity.
As Christians we believe that “goodness” is inherent in God’s nature, and we use what He has commanded to make (sometimes difficult) decisions about what is right or wrong.
Is there a right/wrong? Why do you think so? What do you use as a standard? Why? Is that different from the next person? (in many cases it will be). Who is then right or wrong? If you suggest moral relativism, you may consider that that argument self-destructs as it cannot claim to be true by its own definition.
Not quite relevant, but nonetheless – the purpose of God’s laws has a number of aspects:
1. It reveals what is pleasing to God
2. The law shows us our sinfulness and make us all guilty before God.
3. The law makes provision for justice in the present world.
I would appreciate your views on the basis for moral decisions.

In the final instance, you would admit that upon an honest evaluation of all arguments on both "sides", no one can claim insurmountable proof for the existence/non existence of a deity/god/God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 01:17 AM
A Bunch of Smart Southern
(09-08-2012 08:32 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Hey Genesisdude,
Given your assertion that you believe the Bible hasn't been proven wrong, how do you deal with this sort of statement?

No one can prove Leprechauns and Unicorns don't exist. Therefore they must be real creatures.
Hi there. If there is any evidence that I can verify, and it checks out, and the source has proven itself to be a reliable "witness" , I will tend to belief the source. There is no insurmountable proof for/against the existence of God. Real Christians will however confirm a change in their lives (not by deliberate action to obey certain "rules", but initiated by divine intervention and a change in heart.)
That does not make a Christian "better" than anybody else. It should make him/her humble for :"There by the grace of God, go I". Serious questions may be asked about the "rebirth" of a Christian if his/her life does not reflect the nature of Christ. As James says Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fromgenesis's post
23-08-2012, 06:49 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(23-08-2012 01:03 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  You may provide me with some information supporting your claim that the texts were changed multiple times. (in any material way that makes a difference to the message, not apparent copying errors). Evidence suggests otherwise- as evidenced by the dead sea scrolls as an example.

No, the evidence is clear that the text of the Bible was changed in substantive ways that changed its meaning. Read Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, for instance.

Quote:The Bible is made up of books that is consistent with the teachings of the early Church. It was not arbitrary decisions, and combined in the “canon” to eliminate false teaching.

These were human decisions about what was and what was not 'false'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 02:40 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(23-08-2012 06:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 01:03 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  You may provide me with some information supporting your claim that the texts were changed multiple times. (in any material way that makes a difference to the message, not apparent copying errors). Evidence suggests otherwise- as evidenced by the dead sea scrolls as an example.

No, the evidence is clear that the text of the Bible was changed in substantive ways that changed its meaning. Read Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, for instance.

Quote:The Bible is made up of books that is consistent with the teachings of the early Church. It was not arbitrary decisions, and combined in the “canon” to eliminate false teaching.

These were human decisions about what was and what was not 'false'.

Thanks for this questions.
The textual correctness of the Bible NT has been established at close to 99 percent (1400 out of 138000 not sure whether in the original manuscripts)- which Dr Ehrmann supposedly knows. That there are a number of passages included in the Bible (as we have it now in most of the translations) that does not appear in the original text, is not disputed and any informed person will know that. Yet, even these do not introduce any new concepts or doctrine.
Bart Ehrmann however misrepresents information to lay audiences to make them believe that the NT is incredibly corrupted. The claimed large number of errors consists of things like misspellings and other irrelevant differences between thousands of documents used to establish the original texts – none that question the central doctrines of the Christian faith. You are welcome to indicate if you have evidence to the contrary. I have always found that proper research does no harm at all.
What Dr. William Craig however points out (and I paraphrase) is that even if we have an original document, it does not by implication make the Christian faith true.

Yes, it was human decisions but based on what the early church taught, to counter false teaching. You get the same today – an increasing number of false teaching (as that addressed in the present thread) which “reconciles” what the Bible clearly teaches with “human wisdom” and “science”.
Teachings that for instance played a major part in revivals in the past are exactly those that are shunned today - such as the doctrine of hell, God’s judgment and coming wrath – it is not popular and “drive people away”. One of the most famous sermons ever delivered was that by Jonathan Edwards called “ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 06:20 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 02:40 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 06:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, the evidence is clear that the text of the Bible was changed in substantive ways that changed its meaning. Read Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, for instance.


These were human decisions about what was and what was not 'false'.

Thanks for this questions.
The textual correctness of the Bible NT has been established at close to 99 percent (1400 out of 138000 not sure whether in the original manuscripts)- which Dr Ehrmann supposedly knows. That there are a number of passages included in the Bible (as we have it now in most of the translations) that does not appear in the original text, is not disputed and any informed person will know that. Yet, even these do not introduce any new concepts or doctrine.
Bart Ehrmann however misrepresents information to lay audiences to make them believe that the NT is incredibly corrupted. The claimed large number of errors consists of things like misspellings and other irrelevant differences between thousands of documents used to establish the original texts – none that question the central doctrines of the Christian faith. You are welcome to indicate if you have evidence to the contrary. I have always found that proper research does no harm at all.
What Dr. William Craig however points out (and I paraphrase) is that even if we have an original document, it does not by implication make the Christian faith true.

Yes, it was human decisions but based on what the early church taught, to counter false teaching. You get the same today – an increasing number of false teaching (as that addressed in the present thread) which “reconciles” what the Bible clearly teaches with “human wisdom” and “science”.
Teachings that for instance played a major part in revivals in the past are exactly those that are shunned today - such as the doctrine of hell, God’s judgment and coming wrath – it is not popular and “drive people away”. One of the most famous sermons ever delivered was that by Jonathan Edwards called “ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

There are no original texts, only copies, so we can't know what percentage is correct. There are well-documented insertions of text that clearly change the meanings of some passages and even books.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 07:25 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 06:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 02:40 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  Thanks for this questions.
The textual correctness of the Bible NT has been established at close to 99 percent (1400 out of 138000 not sure whether in the original manuscripts)- which Dr Ehrmann supposedly knows. That there are a number of passages included in the Bible (as we have it now in most of the translations) that does not appear in the original text, is not disputed and any informed person will know that. Yet, even these do not introduce any new concepts or doctrine.
Bart Ehrmann however misrepresents information to lay audiences to make them believe that the NT is incredibly corrupted. The claimed large number of errors consists of things like misspellings and other irrelevant differences between thousands of documents used to establish the original texts – none that question the central doctrines of the Christian faith. You are welcome to indicate if you have evidence to the contrary. I have always found that proper research does no harm at all.
What Dr. William Craig however points out (and I paraphrase) is that even if we have an original document, it does not by implication make the Christian faith true.

Yes, it was human decisions but based on what the early church taught, to counter false teaching. You get the same today – an increasing number of false teaching (as that addressed in the present thread) which “reconciles” what the Bible clearly teaches with “human wisdom” and “science”.
Teachings that for instance played a major part in revivals in the past are exactly those that are shunned today - such as the doctrine of hell, God’s judgment and coming wrath – it is not popular and “drive people away”. One of the most famous sermons ever delivered was that by Jonathan Edwards called “ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

There are no original texts, only copies, so we can't know what percentage is correct. There are well-documented insertions of text that clearly change the meanings of some passages and even books.
I do not claim to be a scholar of texts, but real scholars accept that 99% is an accurate reflection of the original - not based on one or two documents, but considering 1000's of documents and on the basis of careful analysis come to conclusions, apparently based on various criteria.
To establish the accuracy, you may consider the following:
Manuscript , Date of oldest manuscript, Copies
Plato , 1200 years later , 7
Ceasar , 900 years later , 10
Aristotle , 1400 years later , 5
New Testament , 35 - 100 years later , 4000 - 5000

So from this it is evident that there is a wealth of information to verify the accuracy of the various manuscripts.
But the questions that have as yet not been answered is (1) what doctrine of the Christian faith is disputed based on so-called "gross inaccuracies" of the Bible and (2) What do you use as a yardstick to decide right from wrong and if so why?
It seems to me that these questions beg an answer if we honestly want to deal with the issues at the core. It seems that there is no solid ground as basis for your decisions on right or wrong, and this fact is demonstrated by the rather absurd notions on "legal after-birth abortion" - murder. (This happens in any case with live babies left to die after birth as a result of botched abortions.) Is that the type of society we are creating?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 07:41 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 07:25 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  I do not claim to be a scholar of texts, but real scholars accept that 99% is an accurate reflection of the original - not based on one or two documents, but considering 1000's of documents and on the basis of careful analysis come to conclusions, apparently based on various criteria.
To establish the accuracy, you may consider the following:
Manuscript , Date of oldest manuscript, Copies
Plato , 1200 years later , 7
Ceasar , 900 years later , 10
Aristotle , 1400 years later , 5
New Testament , 35 - 100 years later , 4000 - 5000

You've been on an alpha course haven't you? Please find a reference for the facts that you quote. Just saying "real scholars" cuts no ice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 07:41 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 07:25 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 06:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  There are no original texts, only copies, so we can't know what percentage is correct. There are well-documented insertions of text that clearly change the meanings of some passages and even books.
I do not claim to be a scholar of texts, but real scholars accept that 99% is an accurate reflection of the original - not based on one or two documents, but considering 1000's of documents and on the basis of careful analysis come to conclusions, apparently based on various criteria.
To establish the accuracy, you may consider the following:
Manuscript , Date of oldest manuscript, Copies
Plato , 1200 years later , 7
Ceasar , 900 years later , 10
Aristotle , 1400 years later , 5
New Testament , 35 - 100 years later , 4000 - 5000

So from this it is evident that there is a wealth of information to verify the accuracy of the various manuscripts.
But the questions that have as yet not been answered is (1) what doctrine of the Christian faith is disputed based on so-called "gross inaccuracies" of the Bible and (2) What do you use as a yardstick to decide right from wrong and if so why?

You've got apples and oranges there. There is nothing but the non-original Biblical manuscripts, all of which post-date the alleged events, and no outside sources.

We have many outside sources regarding Roman emperors' lives.

Quote:
It seems to me that these questions beg an answer if we honestly want to deal with the issues at the core. It seems that there is no solid ground as basis for your decisions on right or wrong, and this fact is demonstrated by the rather absurd notions on "legal after-birth abortion" - murder. (This happens in any case with live babies left to die after birth as a result of botched abortions.) Is that the type of society we are creating?

What a bizarre argument. Very few people would take this seriously.

Moral philosophy can be grounded on reason and law grounded in consensus. To base morals on the Bible is very tricky since there are horrible morals, including infanticide, promoted in it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
24-08-2012, 10:12 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 07:25 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 06:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  There are no original texts, only copies, so we can't know what percentage is correct. There are well-documented insertions of text that clearly change the meanings of some passages and even books.
I do not claim to be a scholar of texts, but real scholars accept that 99% is an accurate reflection of the original - not based on one or two documents, but considering 1000's of documents and on the basis of careful analysis come to conclusions, apparently based on various criteria.
To establish the accuracy, you may consider the following:
Manuscript , Date of oldest manuscript, Copies
Plato , 1200 years later , 7
Ceasar , 900 years later , 10
Aristotle , 1400 years later , 5
New Testament , 35 - 100 years later , 4000 - 5000

So from this it is evident that there is a wealth of information to verify the accuracy of the various manuscripts.
But the questions that have as yet not been answered is (1) what doctrine of the Christian faith is disputed based on so-called "gross inaccuracies" of the Bible and (2) What do you use as a yardstick to decide right from wrong and if so why?
It seems to me that these questions beg an answer if we honestly want to deal with the issues at the core. It seems that there is no solid ground as basis for your decisions on right or wrong, and this fact is demonstrated by the rather absurd notions on "legal after-birth abortion" - murder. (This happens in any case with live babies left to die after birth as a result of botched abortions.) Is that the type of society we are creating?

Having spent 3 years in seminary and 15 years as an expositor of the Bible, I've never heard of the stat: "real scholars accept that 99% is an accurate reflection of the original". Can you please give us some references to back up this statement? Even one reliable one?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
24-08-2012, 10:55 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 10:12 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Having spent 3 years in seminary and 15 years as an expositor of the Bible, I've never heard of the stat: "real scholars accept that 99% is an accurate reflection of the original". Can you please give us some references to back up this statement? Even one reliable one?

That real scholars quote along with the ages for the various texts such as Caesar's writings is more or less straight from the Alpha Course book by Nicky Gumbel, I remember it well, as it was responsible for some assisted muddled thinking on my part when I was a teenager. I heard it a lot in Zim, so I was interested to see that FG also quoted it, I assume he got it from going on an Alpha course but possibly he got it second hand from someone else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: