A Christian Prespective...

Stakhanov · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 26 2004, 08:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Sep 26 2004, 07:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> How in the nine hells is this thread still alive? Seriously, is there a rule we <i>havent</i> violated? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Actually yes there is, b1atch

oh wait, now there isnt <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I think the mods let this thread live for venting purposes.

And it's not <i>that</i> ugly (yet ?)

Snidely · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Sep 26 2004, 03:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Look for the truth and you will find it. Never stop until there is no doubt in your mind that the other prospectives can not be right. God will show himself to you. If you can prove that God does not exist, then why not try? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
But you'll never find concrete proof, just the most likely. That means there'll still be doubt in your mind. Since you go to Hell if you don't truely believe in God (according to Christian beliefs), it's not the ideal solution.

DarkATi · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Sep 26 2004, 06:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Sep 26 2004, 03:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Look for the truth and you will find it. Never stop until there is no doubt in your mind that the other prospectives can not be right. God will show himself to you. If you can prove that God does not exist, then why not try? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
But you'll never find concrete proof, just the most likely. That means there'll still be doubt in your mind. Since you go to Hell if you don't truely believe in God (according to Christian beliefs), it's not the ideal solution.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
When God works with you personally in your life, then you know.

That's what Swift and I are saying.

As he so eloquently put it; "If you can disprove God, then why not try?"

But the most important thing is that you're really wanting to find truth and not just more knowledge Above all, God is a just God. If you're out there searching, he won't leave ya hangin'. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

~ DarkATi

Marine0I · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Sep 26 2004, 08:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <a href='http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/thoughts.html' target='_blank'>CHECK ME OUT</a>

very interesting read <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Good lord, I hate to think of all the donkeys that went without food packing this collosal strawman - newsflash for Ebon, this is not the Middle Ages. There is no "omg learning are teh evil", and there hasnt been for the past 300 odd years.

My father always said that he didnt think it was right to doubt the Bible, but felt that if it honestly was the word of God, then any claims it makes that can be verified should be checked and found consistent. "Its not doubt, its seeking confirmation of Biblical claims" is what he said. Of course its far easier to demonise people, make it seem like they are suppressing rational thought, and its VERY easy to do so when you are convinced you are 100% right. They examined the evidence, they came to a different conclusion, but you're the skeptic, you're 100% right, so clearly the religious people are mind numbing idiots. Its like me claiming that cam0 is stupid because he disagrees with me, its the very act of disagreeing that makes him stupid - which is of course garbage, strawman garbage.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Nevertheless, religion violates this rule. When a theist picks up their Bible, they suspend their disbelief and switch to the "religion compartment" of their brain. Suddenly, all rules of logic and evidence are set aside, and anything goes. Snakes and burning bushes that talk? People who walk on water? Prophets who receive revelation from angels? Loving, merciful deities who order the brutal, bloody massacre of thousands or millions? No problem! It's religion. Everything is allowed. It doesn't have to make sense.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You can not start of from the premise God does not exist, then point to miracles and their unfeasable nature and expect to have even the slightest bit of impact on a theist. This man is preaching to the choir.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is yet another reason why religion is a mechanism of mind control, and it also explains why people who are intelligent and rational in every other respect often completely lose it when the topic of God comes up. They have switched to the "religion" compartment of their brains. In this mode of thought, no arguments can convince them, no evidence can sway them, because in this mode of thought things are not required to make sense. Maybe it's God testing my faith; maybe it's Satan tempting me. Who knows? Who cares? All bets are off. But when dealing with anything else - including the holy books of other faiths - they are in "logical" mode and can rationally examine them and describe the faults therein. It is only dealing with their own religion that prompts the suspension of disbelief and logic.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And this demonstrates exactly what I was saying before - has this guy never heard of apologetics? Rational defence of higher criticism? Oh he's heard of it, but he's convinced that they have it all wrong, so clearly they are irrational.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If the point is not yet proven, one final example may help drive it home. Consider the initial response of many fundamentalists to an atheist - the one that comes even before the typical straw-man mischaracterizations of their opponent's position, even before the arguments from authority, circular reasoning and other logical fallacies. Can anyone doubt that it often takes the response of an angry, incredulous denunciation - knee-jerk outrage that, in essence, reduces to, "You're not allowed to say things like that!"

Could it be that the fundamentalists are so deeply brainwashed that they are no longer able even to conceive of the possibility of people who think differently than they do?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

OH. THE. IRONY. IT. BURNS.

Summation of his work: Assuming God doesnt exist, then clearly religion is a lot of garbage - nice work sherlok, but I figured that one out on my own, and it only took me 2 lines to write it. If you are a Christian and you refuse to argue, you are a closed minded idiot. If you choose to argue, then you are clearly so brainwashed that any attempt to reason with you is futile. The only people with any credibility in this world are the guys who believe what he believes in - I wonder if he recognises the extreme parallel....

Some things he said seemed coherent to me, my Mother is a textbook example of an irrational Christian without the slightest regard for science or logic, she has the Bible and that's all she needs. That doesnt cut it for me.

Snidely · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Sep 26 2004, 08:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> When God works with you personally in your life, then you know.

That's what Swift and I are saying.

As he so eloquently put it; "If you can disprove God, then why not try?"

But the most important thing is that you're really wanting to find truth and not just more knowledge Above all, God is a just God. If you're out there searching, he won't leave ya hangin'. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

~ DarkATi </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Just because some people (such as yourself) are lucky enough to "find" God doesn't mean everyone does, or can. Not everyone can believe so blindly as you. That last statement's not meant to be an insult, I just mean that deep down you will believe in God despite anything. It's not just a concious decision to believe in God, but also faith that He does exist.

I used to "be" a Christian, until I realised that I was just telling myself that I believed in God. On a subconcious level, I don't, not <i>really</i>, and that's not going to change. Since I don't really believe in God, I'll be going to hell, if it exists, so there's not much point in me wasting my time with the church. Ah, well. It could be worse.

amarc · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 25 2004, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You were talking about secularity as though it was the harbringer of peace and happiness, I was pointing out that to date, it hasnt been. I listed the only examples of completely secular states, neglecting to mention North Korea, but hey. Why should we believe that pure secularity = a good thing? Oh oh oh, you say, but I mean in a Western state - all the Western states I know have their backgrounds and beginnings in Christianity, it never occured to you that this might be more than a coincidence? Probably not, you were too busy slanging people (another disturbing trend on this board) to be that perceptive. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You're missing the point - secularisation in a liberal, Westernised state has been proven to be beneficial to society. How exactly am I calling the concept of secularisation the "harbringer of peace and happiness"? (it's actually spelt harbinger -very <i>perceptive</i> of you) Stop trying to put words in my mouth please.

Many would consider Japan a Western state, did it have it's beginnings in Christianity? Very <i>perceptive</i> of you to miss that out. My point is that religion provided social structure and control for hundreds of years but is no longer needed to perform those roles now, which you conveniently skip past and try to retort with an out of context slur towards my "perception". Your point seems to be Westernised nations should retain Christianity because they followed it in the past, yet most of the European nations had many religions before Christianity was adopted - Roman Gods, pagan Gods etc... Should these religions still be followed simply because they provided benefits in the past? No, and neither should they be facilitated by the state.

P.S. If you're going to accuse others of "Slanging other people", it's probably not best to do it yourself as you end up sounding like a hypocritical, self-righteous ****.

Marine0I · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You're missing the point - secularisation in a liberal, Westernised state has been proven to be beneficial to society. How exactly am I calling the concept of secularisation the "harbringer of peace and happiness"? (it's actually spelt harbinger -very <i>perceptive</i> of you) Stop trying to put words in my mouth please.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ah, spelling criticism, the true decider in any debate......

Saying "The sooner society gets completely secular the better" implies that good things will follow from increased secularity. That is completely in line with secularity bringing peace and happiness.- I dont think I'm putting words in anyones mouth.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Many would consider Japan a Western state, did it have it's beginnings in Christianity? Very <i>perceptive</i> of you to miss that out.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Actually yes, it became a Western state under the Americans, specifically General MacArthur, who himself was heavily religious, after World War 2. There was no mass Japanese shift towards democracy and peace, it was practically forced on them by those dirty Judeo-Christian Americans. *insert crack about perception here*

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My point is that religion provided social structure and control for hundreds of years but is no longer needed to perform those roles now, which you conveniently skip past and try to retort with an out of context slur towards my "perception". Your point seems to be Westernised nations should retain Christianity because they followed it in the past, yet most of the European nations had many religions before Christianity was adopted - Roman Gods, pagan Gods etc... Should these religions still be followed simply because they provided benefits in the past? No, and neither should they be facilitated by the state.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Since the 1950's onward, as religion has gradually lost its grip on the general population, social structure and control has been rapidly improving. Oh wait, that's not true, social problems are on the rise, divorce is skyrocketing, drug use is prevalent etc etc Who do you blame for this sort of stuff - is this the last thrashings of dying religions? Notice that all those Old Gods of the Europeans died out (replaced by Christianity) well before Westernisation took hold?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>P.S. If you're going to accuse others of "Slanging other people", it's probably not best to do it yourself as you end up sounding like a hypocritical, self-righteous ****.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The absence of any attempt to explain away your insults is noted. I dont see it quite on par with suggesting your perception took second place to your desire to ridicule me.

amarc · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Saying "The sooner society gets completely secular the better" implies that good things will follow from increased secularity. That is completely in line with secularity bringing peace and happiness</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No, perhaps it's a similar point or a logical progression but it's not what I am saying, so yes you were trying to put words into my mouth.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually yes, it became a Western state under the Americans, specifically General MacArthur, who himself was heavily religious, after World War 2. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

From texts I've read Japan was widely considered to be Westernised before WWI.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Since the 1950's onward, as religion has gradually lost its grip on the general population, social structure and control has been rapidly improving. Oh wait, that's not true, social problems are on the rise, divorce is skyrocketing, drug use is prevalent etc etc</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

There are all sorts of reasons for the social problems you mention. I doubt the decline in religious practice can be blamed, such problems existed in religious societies too. On the increase? Back the claim up with reliable statistics.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Notice that all those Old Gods of the Europeans died out (replaced by Christianity) well before Westernisation took hold?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yeah but you miss my point again. It was simply an example, making the point just because something worked in the past we shouldn't retain it nowadays.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I dont see it quite on par with suggesting your perception took second place to your desire to ridicule me.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Pot, this is kettle. What's that, you say he's black? You initially responded to me with an out of context, patronising insult towards my perception, totally bypassing my main point.

Wheeee · September 2004

wow. this thread got awesome while i slept.

go marine! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />

Snidely · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (amarc @ Sep 26 2004, 11:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually yes, it became a Western state under the Americans, specifically General MacArthur, who himself was heavily religious, after World War 2. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

From texts I've read Japan was widely considered to be Westernised before WWI. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It's been a long time since I was at school, I'll admit, but IIRC, Japan had caught up with the rest of the world technology-wise around 1905, when they won a naval battle against Russia (seen as a major power back then). It depends what you mean by a western state. If you mean that it had a totalitarian government, then Italy before the second world war wasn't a western government, either.

Snidely · September 2004

Crapoodle. Double post.

While it's here, though, I may as well put the edit into this one. Maybe a passing mod would be kind enough to merge the two posts? (:

What exactly do you mean when you talk about secularism? I know what it means, but what measures are you talking about when you say you want a secular state? Here in the UK, the state church (the Church of England) is pretty limp nowadays, so the topic doesn't get brought up much.

DarkATi · September 2004

Clearing up some things Nadagast wrote.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Look seriously, explain to me how the world is flat. Explain to me how Noah fit every single species of animal on his small ark. Explain how the world was created in 7 days. Explain how the Earth is the center of the universe and the Sun rotates around it. Please, I'm all ears. It's BS. How could you believe that it's the word of god?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The church answer is; Because God is all-powerful and can do whatever he wishes.

The fact is, don't count anything out, if a Big Bang that came from nothing is a possability then shouldn't a Deity like God be just as valid a theory? (Personally I think God made a Big Bang to create the universe, bit of a shock for Christians and Non-Believers alike that we should both be right, eh? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>2 Sam.21:12
"the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa"
1 Sam.31:4-6
"so Saul took his own sword and fell on it."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It's a literary term, it simply means that the Philistines conquered <b>Saul's Army</b>, not Saul himself. (Although he killed himself so even though he didn't die by their hands he was still in a way defeated by them, defeated mentally to the point of Suicide. He knew he was going to lose and he said that they would defile his body so he killed himself before they could.)

I see no inconsistency there.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Gen 46:21
The sons of Benjamin:
Bela, Beker, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim and Ard.
1 Chron 7:6
Three sons of Benjamin:
Bela, Beker and Jediael. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'll get back to you when I figure this one out. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /> For now it does <b>appear</b> inconsistent, can't deny that.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Acts 7:14
After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all. (Egypt)
Exodus 1:5
The descendants of Jacob numbered seventy in all; Joseph was already in Egypt.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Once again, you're hung up on literary terms, here. It should have read more clearly I suppose, " After this, Joseph sent for his father, Jacob, as well as his whole family, who were seventy-five in all."

It's referring to the family being 75 in all, not EVERYONE involved.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Mark 10:27
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."
Judges 1:19
The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It says that the people couldn't drive these men out (the Jebusites with the iron chariots) it doesn't say God couldn't because that's just ridiculous. God works how he wishes.

Just a few months ago, my car got totalled. I was away on a mission trip in Miami and for the first time in 10 years my father decided to park my car on the street while I was gone.

Well, someone comes down the road and hits it going aroung 50 mph. Totals it, instantly. With the car in park it goes 4 houses down, up a hill under someones tree in their yard.

I was pretty upset, it didn't make any sense, why I was without a car.

So the police and some Paramedics, Fire Dept. etc. came. Why? I'm not sure, that's just what they do when someone hits something I guess. No one was hurt or anything. (Not even the guy driving the car surprisingly.)

So I was really down for a couple of weeks because this guy didn't have insurance and I didn't want to waste my time taking it to court.

Then early one morning, my father has a heartattack. He was healthy as far as everyone knew, he just collapsed. Well that morning, the same paramedics that came to our house when my car was hit, came to my house that day. The second my dad stopped breathing they knocked on the door.

They told me afterwards that I was "lucky" that they had been there before, they knew exactly who we were. We were, "the house with the wrecked Eclipse."

If those paramedics hadn't gotten there right when they did I can guarantee you that (unless God had other plans <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /> ) my father wouldn't be alive today.

And I can supply <b>you</b> with plenty more examples like that one.

Luck? Fate? Concepts designed by the devil himself to confuse and befuddle mankind is all they are.

~ DarkATi

camO_o · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Sep 26 2004, 01:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>blah blah</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
For every miracle that happens, another two million don't. It's called coincedence, and it's not a very convincing argument. Also, the concept of believing in both creationism and big bang/evolutionary theory has been explored (I believe it was kida who brought it up). The emotional benefit of religion can be explained away by the placebo effect. Believe in something strong enough, and it'll become true.

Swiftspear · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Once again, you're hung up on literary terms, here. It should have read more clearly I suppose, " After this, Joseph sent for his father, Jacob, as well as his whole family, who were seventy-five in all."

It's referring to the family being 75 in all, not EVERYONE involved.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Just to add to this, the best servants would have been considered part of the family, but they wouldn't have been considered decendents... Which accounts for the other 3 people at least... Acctually I'm suprized the difference isn't more pronounced.

Wheeee · September 2004

nice, another genealogical "attack" on the Bible, from a non-scholar. woot. Biblical genealogies are very dynamic. Back then, you quoted genealogies for a purpose, you didn't just spew every descendant of everyone who ever existed, you wrote the names down for the purpose which you desired. Firstly, Genesis lists 10 sons, as the number of sons that went to Egypt with Jacob. Numbers 26 lists 5 (or possibly 7, depending on the Greek, which I haven't looked at), from a census after 400 years in Egypt. 1 Chronicles 7 lists 3 sons (although it mentions 2 other clans) <b>based on their military strength</b> of course you're not going to list clans with like 6 fighting men, or clans that didn't produce any offspring or were cut off, in a genealogy that <b>listed the army of Israel during the restoration of it</b>.

DarkATi · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 26 2004, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> nice, another genealogical "attack" on the Bible, from a non-scholar. woot. Biblical genealogies are very dynamic. Back then, you quoted genealogies for a purpose, you didn't just spew every descendant of everyone who ever existed, you wrote the names down for the purpose which you desired. Firstly, Genesis lists 10 sons, as the number of sons that went to Egypt with Jacob. Numbers 26 lists 5 (or possibly 7, depending on the Greek, which I haven't looked at), from a census after 400 years in Egypt. 1 Chronicles 7 lists 3 sons (although it mentions 2 other clans) <b>based on their military strength</b> of course you're not going to list clans with like 6 fighting men, or clans that didn't produce any offspring or were cut off, in a genealogy that <b>listed the army of Israel during the restoration of it</b>.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I would also like to add to this that spelling variations exist for most Biblical characters which can make reading and piecing together geneaologies alot tougher.

~ DarkATi

Swiftspear · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Sep 26 2004, 03:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 26 2004, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> nice, another genealogical "attack" on the Bible, from a non-scholar. woot. Biblical genealogies are very dynamic. Back then, you quoted genealogies for a purpose, you didn't just spew every descendant of everyone who ever existed, you wrote the names down for the purpose which you desired. Firstly, Genesis lists 10 sons, as the number of sons that went to Egypt with Jacob. Numbers 26 lists 5 (or possibly 7, depending on the Greek, which I haven't looked at), from a census after 400 years in Egypt. 1 Chronicles 7 lists 3 sons (although it mentions 2 other clans) <b>based on their military strength</b> of course you're not going to list clans with like 6 fighting men, or clans that didn't produce any offspring or were cut off, in a genealogy that <b>listed the army of Israel during the restoration of it</b>. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I would also like to add to this that spelling variations exist for most Biblical characters which can make reading and piecing together geneaologies alot tougher.

~ DarkATi  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Not to mention name changes and nicknames which you see fairly often in biblical writing...

Nadagast · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Sep 26 2004, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Clearing up some things Nadagast wrote.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Look seriously, explain to me how the world is flat. Explain to me how Noah fit every single species of animal on his small ark. Explain how the world was created in 7 days. Explain how the Earth is the center of the universe and the Sun rotates around it. Please, I'm all ears. It's BS. How could you believe that it's the word of god?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The church answer is; Because God is all-powerful and can do whatever he wishes.

The fact is, don't count anything out, if a Big Bang that came from nothing is a possability then shouldn't a Deity like God be just as valid a theory? (Personally I think God made a Big Bang to create the universe, bit of a shock for Christians and Non-Believers alike that we should both be right, eh? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Please, saying that God is all powerful doesn't matter... those are physical impossibilities. It's impossible to create a boat out of wood that is big enough to hold all species of animals, let alone the food/water required.
And the Earth is the center of the universe because God is all powerful? What? We KNOW for a FACT that the Earth ISN'T the center of the universe, and the Sun doesn't rotate around the Earth. You're saying we're wrong? The Earth is flat because God says so? Are you kidding?
The only one of those that could <b>possibly</b> be God is creating the universe in 7 days. But that requires you to believe that the universe is less than a million/billion years old, when we clearly know it to be around 15 billion years old. I'm sorry, but saying 'God is all-powerful' is not a convincing argument. You have to prove that these FACTS are wrong... which you obviously cannot.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>2 Sam.21:12
"the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa"
1 Sam.31:4-6
"so Saul took his own sword and fell on it."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It's a literary term, it simply means that the Philistines conquered <b>Saul's Army</b>, not Saul himself. (Although he killed himself so even though he didn't die by their hands he was still in a way defeated by them, defeated mentally to the point of Suicide. He knew he was going to lose and he said that they would defile his body so he killed himself before they could.)

I see no inconsistency there.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I see an inconsistency... "they struck Saul down" and "Saul took his own sword and fell on it". If they talked about defeating Saul, I could see your explanation as a possibility, but specifically saying that they "struck Saul" really doesn't improve your excuse.

More fun stuff!

Genesis 22
2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." (talking to Abraham)
Galatians 4
22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.
In Genesis 25:1-2 it says he has 6 sons.

2 Samuel 18
18 During his lifetime Absalom had taken a pillar and erected it in the King's Valley as a monument to himself, for he thought, "I have no son to carry on the memory of my name." He named the pillar after himself, and it is called Absalom's Monument to this day.
2 Samuel 14
27 Three sons and a daughter were born to Absalom. The daughter's name was Tamar, and she became a beautiful woman.

1 Chronicles 19
18 But they fled before Israel, and David killed seven thousand of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers. He also killed Shophach the commander of their army.
2 Samuel 10
18 But they fled before Israel, and David killed seven hundred of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers. [1] He also struck down Shobach the commander of their army, and he died there.

COME ON BABY I can spew these out all day

Swiftspear · September 2004

Hmmm... I guess a book of stories by hundereds of different authors many of which were passed down through several generations before they were written, and then compiled in a differnent laungauge and translated twice, contains minor statistical and scientific inaccuracies. Really makes you wonder if you are acctually supposed to read the story genre as historical fact...

[edit] realisticly, I should be able to quote the fact that there are any consitansies at all in the bible as proof positive that God exists.

Nadagast · September 2004

IT'S THE BOOK OF GOD.

By the way, being off by a factor of 10 (700 vs 7000) isn't exactly a minor statistical inaccuracy.
What about:
How did David kill Goliath?
With a sling: 1 Samuel 17:49-50
"And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David."
With a sword: 1 Samuel 17:51
"Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith."

That is a quote from the King James translation. Amazingly, the bible.gospelcom.net site has editted the passage so that there is no inconsistency. This alone should make you <b>at the very least</b> cautious about calling this the word of God.

The two contradictory creation accounts
Genesis chapter 1: First plants, then animals, then Adam and Eve
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.... And the evening and the morning were the third day.... And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.... And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.... And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Genesis chapter 2: First Adam, then plants, then animals, then Eve
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.... And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.... And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

Nadagast · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Sep 26 2004, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [edit] realisticly, I should be able to quote the fact that there are any consitansies at all in the bible as proof positive that God exists.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Ummmm, WHAT?

So if I write a book that says I am the all-knowing all-powerful God and you must pay me 90% of your income, then I can justify it by saying that 1+ 1 = 2?

1 consistency in a book does not prove the entire thing. It's the opposite. 1 inconsistency or error DISPROVES the entire theory/book. For something to be true, ALL of it needs to be true. Not just one sentence... you need to go back to Logic 101 <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' />

Swiftspear · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Sep 26 2004, 06:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> IT'S THE BOOK OF GOD.

By the way, being off by a factor of 10 (700 vs 7000) isn't exactly a minor statistical inaccuracy.
What about:
How did David kill Goliath?
With a sling: 1 Samuel 17:49-50
"And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David."
With a sword: 1 Samuel 17:51
"Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith."

That is a quote from the King James translation. Amazingly, the bible.gospelcom.net site has editted the passage so that there is no inconsistency. This alone should make you <b>at the very least</b> cautious about calling this the word of God.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
So he beat goliath with no sword, which was amazing because goliath was a big scary dude with alot of equipment, and then he ran up and chopped his head off to seal the deal. Those versus are right together, they aren't meant to be read apart as seperate points its like me going to one of your posts and doing this
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (you)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>IT'S/... GOD/... And/... he/.. prevailed/... at the very least.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Nadagast · September 2004

it says that he didn't have a sword... then not 5 words later it says that he draws his sword. If you don't see the inconsistency there... there isn't much I can tell you.

Swiftspear · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Sep 26 2004, 06:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Sep 26 2004, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [edit] realisticly, I should be able to quote the fact that there are any consitansies at all in the bible as proof positive that God exists. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ummmm, WHAT?

So if I write a book that says I am the all-knowing all-powerful God and you must pay me 90% of your income, then I can justify it by saying that 1+ 1 = 2?

1 consistency in a book does not prove the entire thing. It's the opposite. 1 inconsistency or error DISPROVES the entire theory/book. For something to be true, ALL of it needs to be true. Not just one sentence... you need to go back to Logic 101 <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
If you can maifest several hundred people in several hundered different generations to do that, and have nearly no philosophical inconsistancies, then I would be alot more convinced.

Consistancies between authors, expecially on the scale of the bible, which has nearly a hundered different authors can generally be considered quite unusual. It's not like I belive that God manifested some guy one day and said to himself "I'm going to write the bible now" there are hundereds of primary sourses the book is drawing from, and in its compilation it is really quite remarkable that there are as few errors as there are. Most christians aren't so nieve as to belive that there are no inconsitancies or translation issues in the bible, to me if you can find 100 errors in 100 verses, I look at it and say "100 out of several hundred thousand? wow, that's not to bad"

Swiftspear · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Sep 26 2004, 06:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> it says that he didn't have a sword... then not 5 words later it says that he draws his sword. If you don't see the inconsistency there... there isn't much I can tell you. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It's refering to goliaths sword.

[edit] note he stood apon the philistine and took his sword, the philistine is the last male refered to in the passage, its just poor english.

Swiftspear · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Sep 26 2004, 06:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Sep 26 2004, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [edit] realisticly, I should be able to quote the fact that there are any consitansies at all in the bible as proof positive that God exists. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ummmm, WHAT?

So if I write a book that says I am the all-knowing all-powerful God and you must pay me 90% of your income, then I can justify it by saying that 1+ 1 = 2?

1 consistency in a book does not prove the entire thing. It's the opposite. 1 inconsistency or error DISPROVES the entire theory/book. For something to be true, ALL of it needs to be true. Not just one sentence... you need to go back to Logic 101 <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
A gramatical error in the writing of a theory does not disprove the theory, one case in which the theory is not true disproves the theory. I have yet to see a case that can disprove that God does exist, nor that God is not the God of the bible, I really don't know if the issue can even be experimented on.

Nadagast · September 2004

The burden of proof lies upon you... Sorry. If you claim that God exists it's up to you to prove it <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

Marine0I · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>2 Sam.21:12
"the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa"
1 Sam.31:4-6
"so Saul took his own sword and fell on it."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I classify this one as one of the most inane charges of contradiction in the Bible. Here's our passages:

1 Samuel 31:4-6 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him. So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.

2 Samuel 1:8-10 And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. [Saul] said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me. So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.

So what's the issue? The issue is, who killed Saul -- did he kill himself, or did the Amalekite do it?

The answer to this one is so obvious that everyone who cites it should be ashamed themselves. Here's the solution. Ready?

The Amalekite was
Lying.

He found Saul's dead body, then came in to David's camp with his made-up story thinking, "Hey, maybe if I say I saved Saul from humiliation, I'll get a big, fat reward from David!" On a personal note, I find it interesting that while so many self-proclaimed intelligent and sensible people miss the solution entirely, people they would call "less sensible and intelligent" don't see a problem at all. Back when I was working for the prison system, I asked an inmate (who was himself a sometimes-vociferous critic of the Bible) to read the passages in question. Our dialogue (colloquialisms included) went like this:

JPH: Is there a contradiction between the passages?

IM: Nope.

JPH: So who killed Saul?

IM: He killed hisself, man.

JPH: But what about the Amalekite?

IM: Man, that %$#*@$ was a LYING %^$#^*%**!

So it took someone with a criminal mindset to see through the criminal intentions of the Amalekite! It seems that some critics can be too intelligent! (That this should be cited as a contradiction is even more ludicrous when we realize that the two books of Samuel were originally one volume!)

"Not so fast, Holding! There's a third version here -- 2 Samuel 21:12 says, 'And David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabeshgilead, which had stolen them from the street of Bethshan, where the Philistines had hanged them, when the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa' -- so was it the Philistines after all and not a suicide?"

This objection needs to check back in the Hebrew a bit -- the word here is nakah, an all-purpose word that can mean to strike, beat, wound, kill, and so on. It's obviously being used here is a primarily figurative sense of "defeat" in battle (as in, one football team "beat" the other one).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The issue this time is a three-way affair:

Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. - Genesis 25:1-2

Abraham had two sons; one by a bonds-maid, the other by a free woman. - Galatians 4:22

By faith, Abraham when he was tried offered up Isaac... his only begotten son. - Hebrews 11:17

So how many kids for Abe -- 8 (per Genesis), 2 (per Galatians) or 1 (per Hebrews)?

Galatians isn't too hard to deal with, since it isn't saying that Abe had only two kids -- it's just picking two out of the lot (the two most important for the context) and using them as examples. Only our modern obssesion with details requires the added thought, "He had six others by another women, but that doesn't come into this story."

That leaves Hebrews (which should not mention the other 6, which were born after the time described) -- did the writer of Hebrews forget Ishmael? Hebrews is here making use of the LXX version of Genesis 22:2, with one exception: where Hebrews says "only begotten" the LXX says "beloved." On the other hand, a variant tradition of the LXX, used by Aquila and Josephus, also says "only begotten." Why? Both words derive from the Hebrew yahid, which can carry both meanings. This is the sense in which "only begotten" should be understood.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is perhaps not as convincing as I'd like, so I'll have to find out more about it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>2 Samuel 18
18 During his lifetime Absalom had taken a pillar and erected it in the King's Valley as a monument to himself, for he thought, "I have no son to carry on the memory of my name." He named the pillar after himself, and it is called Absalom's Monument to this day.
2 Samuel 14
27 Three sons and a daughter were born to Absalom. The daughter's name was Tamar, and she became a beautiful woman. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The first verse says Absalom had three sons; the second, none. Contradiction? Not technically, since it only records what Absalom said of himself at sone point in his "lifetime". Given that the three sons are not named, but the daughter is (which is unusual, for usually the opposite is true) it is likely that these three sons died in the interim, either of natural causes or as a result of Absalom's attempts to take over Israel.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1 Chronicles 19
18 But they fled before Israel, and David killed seven thousand of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers. He also killed Shophach the commander of their army.
2 Samuel 10
18 But they fled before Israel, and David killed seven hundred of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers. [1] He also struck down Shobach the commander of their army, and he died there. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Copyist error: Let us handle the first alleged discrepancy, that of 1700 vs. 7000. The most probable solution is the standard one given: a transmissional corruption in the numbers. More likely the 7000 figure in 1 Chr is correct. But is it reasonable to assume a textual corruption in 2 Sam? Gleason Archer on page 60 of the Zondervan book Inerrancy states the well-known fact that "It is very easy to leave off or inadvertently add a `zero' when copying down a number in round figures. The ancient systems of numerical notation were susceptible to this kind of mistake, for they too used decimal notations that were as easily confused as Arabic or Roman numerals.

Copyist errors in the Bible

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Many critics are completely indifferent to the principles of textual criticism. They reject all explanations involving copyist error, even though they are of the same type used by textual critics in secular studies to resolve difficulties. And this being the case, we may expose the absurdity of their arguments by seeing what they would result in if carried to their logical conclusion.

The works of Tacitus contain a known numerical error which has been faulted to a copyist mistake. Two geographic locations are described as being 25 miles apart. But we know that the locations are actually 125 miles apart, not 25. Hence Tacitean and classical scholars deduce that a copyist error changed the original CXXV to XXV.

Now using this example, consider what one skeptic's objections do to the science of textual criticism.

The common apologetic defense that somebody copied something incorrectly, is wholly unsupportable in light of the fact that the originals no longer exist. How do they know it was copied wrong?

Likewise, the originals of Tacitus no longer exist. How do we know it was copied wrong?

If the conflict exists in the copies, then it is logical to assume it is present in the originals as well, absent evidence to the contrary.

A notion like this would bring all textual criticism to a screeching halt. So then: It is logical to assume that the error in Tacitus was in the original? We have no evidence to the contrary --- not even a variant or other document with another number, as we have in the Bible in most cases.

...the apologists can hardly argue copyist errors to explain contradictions, then assert inerrancy in all other parts of the Bible.

So we can not use a copyist error to explain Tacitus, then assert his reliability elsewhere? the argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Our writer says more on this subject which is highly repetitive and simply polemical --- i.e., calling such explanations a "gimmick" or an "excuse" --- but the bottom line is that there are certified textual-critical methods for resolving such problems in any ancient text, and our subject is not even remotely informed of these. As further proof, let's look at these statements from the Biblical Errancy newsletter, first from issue #105. The author quotes a Christian author as saying, "...there are only 10,000 places where variants occur and most of them those are matters of spelling and word order. There are less than 40 places in the NT where we are really not certain which reading is original, but not one of these has any effect on a central doctrine of faith. Note the problem is not that we don't know what the text is, but that we are not certain which text has the right reading." To this, he replies that the authors:

...admit that there are at least 10,000 places in which manuscripts supposedly duplicating the alleged originals contradict one another. That's a lot of conflict for what is supposed to be God's perfect word.

Hold the phone! This says nothing about places where the 10,000 manuscripts contradict "each other" -- this speaks of 10,000 variants. A variant is counted as any place where any manuscript differs from any other manuscript. This means that if the same exact spelling error is found in 100 manuscripts at the same exact place that counts as 100 variants. This is the same illicit counting of variants that we have found in the likes of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Continuing:

Secondly, since the alleged originals no longer exist and with so much disagreement among the allegedly accurate copies, there is no way scholars can ever know for sure what the originals actually said. Any version on the market must be a product of educated guesses, consensus, and weighing the validity of manscripts.

Secular textual critics, who operate under the same basic rules as biblical ones, would be very surprised to hear that there is "no way" to know "for sure" what original said. Of course, one might wildly speculate that a given work by Tacitus on history was once a guide for dental hygiene practices, but the level of certainty for recovery is far, far higher than the implication above insists.

And so, how do we discover a copyist error? An overriding supposition in textual criticism assumes error in copying before assuming error in the original --- this is simply good manners. It is arrogant and presumptuous to assume error upon the creator of a work, as it is far more likely, given the time and the number of hands an ancient document has usually passe through, that a copyist erred. This is so whether we have corroborating evidence or not.

The second factor is, indeed if there is corroborating evidence supporting what appears to be a more correct reading. For Tacitus, all we have is the mere fact that the 2 locations referenced are known to be about 125 miles apart. But we have better evidence for most Biblical problems of this sort. Take these verses from the KJV, where they have not been corrected with text-critical principles:

1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2 Chron. 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Which is correct? Textual critics have determined that the second is correct, and 1 Kings has been hit by a copyist error, citing as support:

* The reading found in 2 Chronicles.
* Archaeological data indicating that 4000 would be an appropriate number of stalls for a nation the size of ancient Israel, whereas 40,000 would be very excessive.
* 4000 comports better with the number of horsemen.
* There is sufficient explanation for a change. Tekton associate Eric Vestrup notes that there is a reasonable probability that a scribe copied incorrectly, for "40" is spelled aleph-resh-bet-ayin-yodh-mem with "4" being spelled aleph-resh-bet-ayin-heh , the only difference being the plural "-im" ending in "40" while "4" has the singular feminine ending.

Compare this now with our skeptic's own commentary in the 127th issue of the BE newsletter when a fellow skeptic pointed out the high probability of a copyist error in this instance:

First, although the alleged originals no longer exist, there are thousands of manuscripts claiming to be accurate copies of the alleged originals. When scholars decided to write the following versions--KJ, RS, ML, AS, NASB, MT, LV, JB, NIV, TEV, NWT, and etc.--they went through either some, many, most, or all of the manuscripts, compared what was said in each, reached a common consensus, and chose to use 40,000 in 1 Kings 4:26 and 4,000 in 2 Chron. 9:25. In order for there to have been a copyist error, the same incorrect figure had to have been copied in scores if not hundreds and thousands of manuscripts, certainly not one or two. Are you saying hundreds, if not thousands, of copyists made precisely the same error when they copied 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chron. 9:25 from the autographs? They not only copied incorrectly but made the same erroneous change?...What do you think are the odds of that happening?...The attempt by biblicists to pawn this problem off on one lone copyist or scribe in some monastery somewhere who happened to make one simple mistake is rather amusing, in light of the fact that thousands of manuscripts are involved with the same verse.

Our skeptic here displays incredible indifference to the actual process of textual composition in ancient times and the matter of textual "families". He has envisioned a single original which was the source of all copies, when in fact the lack of materials and skilled scribes in ancient times dictates that there were very few copies made to begin with, so that there is no instance of a single scribe transcribing the same error into hundreds, thousands, etc. manuscripts. What there would be is a single scribe making the error once, an error which is then preserved as successive single manuscripts are transcribed, until such time as mass copying procedures and schools existed -- and then, the error is preserved in thousands of manuscripts. It happened with Tacitus, and it happened with the Bible.

Second, even if there were a copyist mistake, you could never be sure which figure was copied incorrectly. Was it the 40,000 figure that should have been 4,000 or the 4,000 figure that should have been 40,000? Because you could never know for sure, you might just as well expunge these two parts of the Bible. One is definitely incorrect, and you'll never know which.

This is of course nonsense, as we have seen above. Beyond that, should we expunge that part of Tacitus that contains the numerical error?

Third, and very important, is the fact that the manuscripts contradict one another, and until the original is produced, the contradiction stands. Biblicists are asking us to ignore a contradiction staring us in the face, in favor of a theory that can in no way be substantiated. The fact is that the contradiction stands, and will continue standing until evidence is produced to the contrary. The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. Because the contradiction is clear and obvious, I am under no obligation to prove a contradiction exists in manuscripts which biblicists can't even prove existed. Biblicists, on the other hand, are obligated to prove there was no contradiction in the original writings, which they are wholly incapable of doing.

So, likewise, the error "stands" in Tacitus -- and I could say: "Greco-Roman historians are asking us to ignore an error staring us in the face, in favor of a theory that can in no way be substantiated. The fact is that the error stands, and will continue standing until evidence is produced to the contrary. The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. Because the error is clear and obvious, I am under no obligation to prove an error exists in manuscripts which Greco-Roman historians and textual critics can't even prove existed. Greco-Roman historians and textual critics, on the other hand, are obligated to prove there was no error in the original writings, which they are wholly incapable of doing." It would be amusing to see our skeptic reel out this spiel before an audience of professional historians and textual critics.

These things said, we can now look a bit further at some related statements in issue #66 of the BE newsletter which further show how little our skeptic knows about the processes of textual criticism. In addition to repeating some of the same errors as alluded to above, our subject writes:

In addressing the first question in prior issues we noted that although there are thousands of manuscripts with similar and nearly identical texts, there were also thousands of variations. Because of the great number of differences, one would not be wise to assume there must have been a common source.

This glittering generality is derived, clearly, quite uncritically from skeptical sources like Stanton who refer to tens of thousands of "blunders" in the received text -- without any analysis of what these "blunders" consist of, whether or not they are obvious, whether they appear in one manuscript over and against several hundred that offer a more sensible and clearly correct reading, etc. It is an "in the air" objection and nothing more.

...(E)ncyclopedias and cookbooks also bear a remarkable resemblance and one might assume they, too, had a common source. Although it is correct to say that the degree of similarity between biblical manuscripts is significantly higher than that between most encyclopedias and cookbooks, the difference is one of degree, not kind.

The difference is much greater than this, of course, and it is the height of incompetence to compare modern books in reference to ancient documents conceived prior to the advent of today's communication and exchange processes. This, too, is merely an "in the air" objection designed to convince our subject's more gullible readers that he has some relevant knowledge of the subject. (One wonders, is our subject suggesting that each different manuscript, rather than being derived from a common source, was, like a cookbook or an encyclopedia, each derived from an independent source that went out and did its own research and composition? The comparison implies a host of questions about what it is exactly he is trying to argue here. It is well enough that he goes no further into specifics; it would badly upset the apple cart!)

We therefore conclude that our subject's arguments in this arena are profound nonsense, not worthy of further attention. Tekton associate Eric Vestrup adds this comment on our subject's methodology:

Our subject makes several snide comments about those who resort to textual problems to harmonize conflicting texts. And the student must indeed be careful not to wash real problems in Scripture away by the plastic elastic "copyist's error" solution. Yet, skepticism of our subject's flavour might do itself a favour and investigate the reasonableness of the hypothesis that a transcriptional error has in fact occurred. It is easy in any field to throw questions around and it is quite easy to make one's opinions so forceful that the reader somehow excuses the one with the forceful opinion from having to investigate whether the opinion is actually well-founded. We students of these problems should not be rattled by emotional ejaculations that have no basis in facts. As there are good problems in Scripture to take our lifetimes up, we should realize that skeptical bluster will froth and foam in large quantities over other passages, even if this one gets solved eventually. Right now, as stated, there seem to be two somewhat reasonable conjectures for this difference in accounting, the oft-attacked "copyist error" being in my opinion the better of the two. The student can be reasonably satisfied [without further facts] at these conjectural solutions. But, if these solutions are not correct, I am personally at a loss to explain the difference.

Now an additional note, however, on approximations. No Tacitean scholar would assert that Tacitus was in error because the distance between the locations was 123.5, or 124.7, or 126.2 miles apart, rather than precisely 125. The capability of precision measurement devices is a relatively recent development, so that approximations and round-offs can not be regarded as errors. A general comment should be made about many Biblical enemies' approach to numerical discrepancies such as these. It is irresponsible to take the standards of accountancy that demand an exact agreement to the penny and apply them arbitrarily to ancient documents, many millennia old. This is not the right way in which to understand a document. Instead, harping on small differences between two slightly different numbers in parallel accounts is nothing but cultural and chronological chauvinism. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Here's a question for you, if the Bible has been warped, changed and altered since forever, then why did no one edit out really small details like that? Why didn't they change the small stuff that no one would notice, like numbers?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>COME ON BABY I can spew these out all day</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If you genuinely want to know if they are contradictions, and are not just bringing them out to attack other beliefs, then check <a href='http://www.tektonics.org' target='_blank'>www.tektonics.org</a> before posting them. Given that some of the pairs of verses you have quoted to me as contradictions are blatantly misleading, have you no concerns that the guy who complied them was on a campaign to discredit the Bible, and has no problem with attempting to decieve his readers?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And the Earth is the center of the universe because God is all powerful? What? We KNOW for a FACT that the Earth ISN'T the center of the universe, and the Sun doesn't rotate around the Earth. You're saying we're wrong? The Earth is flat because God says so? Are you kidding?
The only one of those that could <b>possibly</b> be God is creating the universe in 7 days. But that requires you to believe that the universe is less than a million/billion years old, when we clearly know it to be around 15 billion years old. I'm sorry, but saying 'God is all-powerful' is not a convincing argument. You have to prove that these FACTS are wrong... which you obviously cannot.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Show me where God said that the Earth is the centre of the universe. The Catholic church inferred that from a verse in Joshua I believe, but no one believes that now.

EDIT

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The burden of proof lies upon you... Sorry. If you claim that God exists it's up to you to prove it </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It is a religion based on faith, which means that you will never get 100% physical confirmation. However, as I said before, if it makes any claims that turn out in reality to be not true, then its probably bs.

Nadagast · September 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 26 2004, 05:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It is a religion based on faith, which means that you will never get 100% physical confirmation. However, as I said before, if it makes any claims that turn out in reality to be not true, then its probably bs. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You just made my argument for me <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

Doesn't the bible say that the Earth is only 2000 (or some odd) years old?

We know for a fact that it's 15 billion years old.

I find it hard to believe that every single error in the bible can be attributed to language errors... that's a pretty lame copout for THE WORD OF GOD.
Why would he intentionally make it vague/misleading/contradictory? Oh right to test our faith! ::ROLLEYES::

DarkATi · September 2004

I love you Nadagast, just like Camo. I'll pray for ya.

If you're really looking, then I know you'll find the truth someday. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

<b>::LAST POST IN HERE::</b>

~ DarkATi

A Christian Prespective...

Comments