isaiah 37, 2 kings 19.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: isaiah 37, 2 kings 19.
I understand your point of view. I'm sure you can likewise understand that 1) the Bible itself says "Accept evidence on the basis of two or more witnesses" and 2) our style of recounting information does not relate 100% to the way stories and histories were passed down in the Ancient Near East.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: isaiah 37, 2 kings 19.
(19-11-2014 01:20 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I understand your point of view. I'm sure you can likewise understand that 1) the Bible itself says "Accept evidence on the basis of two or more witnesses" and 2) our style of recounting information does not relate 100% to the way stories and histories were passed down in the Ancient Near East.

Can you please elaborate further? I fail to see how this is relevant or furthers the case for Christianity.

Remember, just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true. Yes, even if you have faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: isaiah 37, 2 kings 19.
(13-11-2014 07:42 AM)microterf Wrote:  I could understand if it were any different, but I believe that they are word for word identical unless I am missing something at least in the King James version. It is obvious that one had access to the other. I have yet to find anyone be able to give me a reason why (other than the obvious).

It presents a huge problem in the argument that I heard my pastor use many times over 5 years as proof the bible is the true word of god. "The bible is 66 books written by 40 authors over 1500 years and every book is consistent with the others."

He then proceeded to show us the math of 40 people in separate rooms writing stories and then putting the stories together, and how astronomically low the percentage would be that they were congruent at all. Obviously this is an apples to spacecraft comparison, but everyone seemed to buy it every time.

I can write an idea that I got from your writings and deny that I knew you wrote it down first, but if I copy and paste 1200 words of your book, then I don't have much of a case Smile

I've heard similar arguments, but if you really wanted to mimic how the bible was written, you'd put 40 people in separate rooms, have the first one write a story, then take that to the second room and have that person write the story based of the first one, then take both stories to the next room and have that person write a story from both of the previous stories, and so forth until you get to the last person. The authors were NOT working totally independently of each other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like dogerdog's post
21-11-2014, 10:19 AM
RE: isaiah 37, 2 kings 19.
(19-11-2014 02:16 PM)dogerdog Wrote:  
(13-11-2014 07:42 AM)microterf Wrote:  I could understand if it were any different, but I believe that they are word for word identical unless I am missing something at least in the King James version. It is obvious that one had access to the other. I have yet to find anyone be able to give me a reason why (other than the obvious).

It presents a huge problem in the argument that I heard my pastor use many times over 5 years as proof the bible is the true word of god. "The bible is 66 books written by 40 authors over 1500 years and every book is consistent with the others."

He then proceeded to show us the math of 40 people in separate rooms writing stories and then putting the stories together, and how astronomically low the percentage would be that they were congruent at all. Obviously this is an apples to spacecraft comparison, but everyone seemed to buy it every time.

I can write an idea that I got from your writings and deny that I knew you wrote it down first, but if I copy and paste 1200 words of your book, then I don't have much of a case Smile

I've heard similar arguments, but if you really wanted to mimic how the bible was written, you'd put 40 people in separate rooms, have the first one write a story, then take that to the second room and have that person write the story based of the first one, then take both stories to the next room and have that person write a story from both of the previous stories, and so forth until you get to the last person. The authors were NOT working totally independently of each other.

Ah, but people have done similar things to AGREE with you that either there was collusion--or inspiration!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2014, 12:22 PM
RE: isaiah 37, 2 kings 19.
(13-11-2014 02:39 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Are you all familiar with the argument that real eyewitness and/or faithful chroniclers of history should have mostly similar accounts recorded, neither widely diverging nor word-for-word identical? Wouldn't that be the logical output of eyewitnesses or scribes? Aren't cops and prosecutors made suspicious when witnesses don't merely corroborate evidence but give identical testimonies?

Yes, but cops are even more suspicious when the stories don't match in the details.

Look, here's an example I've talked about elsewhere. I assume you are familiar with the story of the raising of Jairus' daughter from the dead by Jesus in Matthew 9:18–26, Mark 5:22–43, and Luke 8:41–56.

Mark had the story second-hand from Peter but nevertheless provides the longest account, taking twelve verses to describe the event. Luke had the story third-hand (at least) from Paul who may in turn have had it from Peter, and takes nine verses to describe the miracle, coming in second behind Mark. Interestingly, Matthew was recruited as a disciple immediately before this miracle, which one would think would have created a most indelible impression of the events of the day in his mind. Yet we find that Matthew provides the shortest and least detailed version of the event, condensing the whole episode into six verses (ignoring verses 20–22, which describe the healing of the bleeding woman). How is it that two non-witnesses should trump a witness in both the length and detail of a narrative?

The details of the narrative are different among the three writers. Mark specifically states that Jairus met Jesus at the seashore as soon as he got out of the boat, and Luke implies the same. Matthew, however, has Jesus performing the miracle of the healing of the paralytic inside a house, recruiting Matthew as a disciple from the tax collector’s booth (which could hardly have been at the seashore), having dinner at Matthew’s house, and having a discussion with John’s disciples all before he even meets Jairus.

In another example, Matthew says that when Jairus approaches Jesus, his daughter has already died and that Jairus is aware of that fact. Mark and Luke both say that the young girl is dying when Jairus approaches Jesus and that Jairus only finds out about his daughter’s death when someone comes from his house while he is headed back there with Jesus and tells him that they need bother Jesus no longer since his daughter is dead.

To complicate matters, in Matthew’s version, when Jesus approaches the house, he comes across flute players and professional mourners who were already creating a commotion, indicating that the girl had already been dead long enough for these arrangements to have been made.

Identical? No. Similar? Not even close. Such a testimony today would have Matthew, Mark and Luke convicted of perjury.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: isaiah 37, 2 kings 19.
There are two problems here, and I'm as guilty as you of forcing them on the text:

1) As Tom Short recently said (see his exciting thread elsewhere!) so many want to dissect and analyze the Bible and so few want to do what it says and honor and love the Father's commandments (which are not burdensome)

2) In the Ancient Near East, people did not tell stories in 1-2-3 linear fashion as we are used to hearing, reading and receiving. Such a testimony TODAY would have Matthew, Mark and Luke convicted of perjury but not in THAT DAY. Example:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JClZfc1...le&f=false

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2014, 01:37 PM
RE: isaiah 37, 2 kings 19.
(21-11-2014 12:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There are two problems here, and I'm as guilty as you of forcing them on the text:

1) As Tom Short recently said (see his exciting thread elsewhere!) so many want to dissect and analyze the Bible and so few want to do what it says and honor and love the Father's commandments (which are not burdensome)

2) In the Ancient Near East, people did not tell stories in 1-2-3 linear fashion as we are used to hearing, reading and receiving. Such a testimony TODAY would have Matthew, Mark and Luke convicted of perjury but not in THAT DAY. Example:

The simplest that I can make it is if you have a story that makes sense, if you have 90% of a story that is great, and congruent with everything else, you look at the other 10% and try to figure out the anomaly.

In Christianity, you do the opposite. You take a bunch of stories that do not line up with what we know about the physical earth at all. (Noah's flood, Creationism, Tower of Babel, Exodus etc.) on top of that, you have a book that has ALL of these errors and is obviously copied, break down each argument one by one while acting like all of the rest make perfect sense.

Remember, just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true. Yes, even if you have faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2014, 01:42 PM
RE: isaiah 37, 2 kings 19.
(21-11-2014 12:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There are two problems here, and I'm as guilty as you of forcing them on the text:

1) As Tom Short recently said (see his exciting thread elsewhere!) so many want to dissect and analyze the Bible and so few want to do what it says and honor and love the Father's commandments (which are not burdensome)

2) In the Ancient Near East, people did not tell stories in 1-2-3 linear fashion as we are used to hearing, reading and receiving. Such a testimony TODAY would have Matthew, Mark and Luke convicted of perjury but not in THAT DAY.

Glad to hear you say that. Since I live TODAY, I hereby pronounce the synoptists guilty of perjury and banish them from my life forever.

You know, Allah's commandments are not burdensome either. There's just the five pillars of Islam to follow as opposed to Judaism's and Christianity's hundreds. But I don't choose to follow that either since nonsense is nonsense, burdensome or not.

Regards,
Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
21-11-2014, 02:09 PM
RE: isaiah 37, 2 kings 19.
(21-11-2014 01:37 PM)microterf Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 12:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There are two problems here, and I'm as guilty as you of forcing them on the text:

1) As Tom Short recently said (see his exciting thread elsewhere!) so many want to dissect and analyze the Bible and so few want to do what it says and honor and love the Father's commandments (which are not burdensome)

2) In the Ancient Near East, people did not tell stories in 1-2-3 linear fashion as we are used to hearing, reading and receiving. Such a testimony TODAY would have Matthew, Mark and Luke convicted of perjury but not in THAT DAY. Example:

The simplest that I can make it is if you have a story that makes sense, if you have 90% of a story that is great, and congruent with everything else, you look at the other 10% and try to figure out the anomaly.

In Christianity, you do the opposite. You take a bunch of stories that do not line up with what we know about the physical earth at all. (Noah's flood, Creationism, Tower of Babel, Exodus etc.) on top of that, you have a book that has ALL of these errors and is obviously copied, break down each argument one by one while acting like all of the rest make perfect sense.

Ah, but my faith disallows me from building a syllogism on a shaky premise. While I find the Exodus and etc. reasonable, I wouldn't mind challenging you that the reason you disbelieve isn't evidence or illogic but lack of a desire to be holy. Not moral--holy.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: isaiah 37, 2 kings 19.
(21-11-2014 01:42 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(21-11-2014 12:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There are two problems here, and I'm as guilty as you of forcing them on the text:

1) As Tom Short recently said (see his exciting thread elsewhere!) so many want to dissect and analyze the Bible and so few want to do what it says and honor and love the Father's commandments (which are not burdensome)

2) In the Ancient Near East, people did not tell stories in 1-2-3 linear fashion as we are used to hearing, reading and receiving. Such a testimony TODAY would have Matthew, Mark and Luke convicted of perjury but not in THAT DAY.

Glad to hear you say that. Since I live TODAY, I hereby pronounce the synoptists guilty of perjury and banish them from my life forever.

You know, Allah's commandments are not burdensome either. There's just the five pillars of Islam to follow as opposed to Judaism's and Christianity's hundreds. But I don't choose to follow that either since nonsense is nonsense, burdensome or not.

Regards,
Doc

Sorry, just two here--all the Law hangs on neighborly-ness, all the rest of the scriptures on honoring God.

The first part of your statement, unfortunately, is "presentist":

pres·ent·ism
/ˈprezenˌtizəm/

noun: presentism

uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: