Theological Opinions , PART II

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

To a degree, yes. Somethings we can objectively say are right and wrong, for example, murder is wrong. All humanity agrees on that, by which I mean all societies that make up humanity all agree murder is wrong.

Good you make that distinction, because it's plain that many murderers don't agree with you . But isn't there something rather flawed in the logic that, "everyone thinks so, so it is so." And how does everyone thinking it is true (assuming for a moment that they do, though I disagree) make it objective? Doesn't that still leave it in the realm of subjectivity?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

We don't agree on what constitutes murder, and how a murderer should be punished, but we do agree that it is wrong.

I think a lot of people living in Darfur right now would disagree. And a lot of people living in France at the time of the French Revolution. Murder has sometimes been completely acceptable in certain parts of society, like poverty-stricken areas, places with gangs and such.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The subjective aspects would be the aspects that one group or individual believes to be wrong for logical reasons, for example, because it's against their religion, but other groups do not believe to be wrong (also for good reason).

This is strange, to me. I would think that these would be the least subjective parts of morality. If people have reasons, perhaps evidence, and logic as to what is right or wrong, then isn't that objective rather than subjective?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Obviously my own definition falls into the subjective category, but that's the gist of what I believe about rightness and wrongness.

Thanks for sharing it .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What could possibly be worse than slavery? Equally evil, yes, but worse? I can't imagine anything more horrible than slavery.

I'd say death. People who are enslaved can commit suicide (if they think it's ethical), so they have a choice. People who are killed have no choice.

Torture might also be worse.

But the question is kind of relative, for it partly depends on how horrible the slavery conditions are.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That really damages my faith in the Bible. Well, I have plenty of faith in the Bible, but not that much in the people translating it. I have very little confidence that we didn't screw it up somehow.

I don't know what you and Gwaimir were just talking about which drew this response from you, but this response of yours relates strongly to the problem I have with religious liberalism. That problem is this:

Hold it, before I go into the problem, I have one other little comment. There are translations of the New Testament that date from the third and fourth centuries AD. There is a massive number of books of the Bible that date from very close to the time it was written. Those books have only miniscule variations between them. Modern Bible translations can be checked back against these ancient Greek texts. Also, the New Testament is one of the most solidly backed ancient historical records. So there is a lot of evidence that the Bible is handed down to us currently in about its original form. There are going to be a few small translation differences, but no big ones at all.

Now about my problem with religious liberalism:

Your response to Gwaimir's point indicates that you have your own personal standards of morality which for you supersede the Bible's standard of morality. In other words, you trust yourself more than you trust the Bible, and if you and the Bible conflict on something, your views trump the scripture.

Yet human views of morality are very relative. They change from culture to culture and person to person. How are we to know that we personally are correct? It could just as well be some atheist who says morality is a purely human construct, humans are without intrinsic value, everything is meaningless and there is no good or bad, right or wrong, righteousness or wickedness. So if the values we are to rely on come from humans, anyone might be right-Stalin might have been right in starving millions of his people to death for the sake of getting his economy industrialized-who's to say?

If morality is from humanity, it is purely relative. Amorality is the natural result of this, for if morality is relative, all value systems are equal, and as Rana puts it, equally invalid. A verrry scary and dark world is all that's left as the natural consequence of relativism and liberalism, and in it, the only rational conclusion is despair.

So think twice before putting faith in your own judgment higher than faith in the Bible . In doing so, you sever the only lifeline that is left to us.

For right and wrong are not human ideas, and all is not relative. If it comes from humans, or if it comes from God but the Word of God is partly doubtable and hence our views still come down to having their final basis in our own judgment, all moral ideas are equally (in)valid and thus life on Planet Earth is a twisted horror story.

We have to rely on God's Word before we believe ourselves, or all is meaningless. And when he can, God makes clear to us what is right when we won't accept it initially because our own beliefs and biases differ. He makes the true interpretation of his Word clear to his followers through the Counselor he gave us, the Holy Spirit, who gives us true interpretation of God's Word. And listening to the Spirit give us interpretation is not about belief, but about a definite and sometimes astoundingly powerful experience that one knows is real. Just as real as things in the physical.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief

There are translations of the New Testament that date from the third and fourth centuries AD.

Not into English. If you're going to look at translations into, say, the Greek of 300 AD, why not just translate from the original Greek & Aramaic & Hebrew in which the texts survive?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I do not know how it is, Leif, that you so unerringly find my breaking point. It's something I will ponder.

I'm setting aside, for a minute, the smug racism of this business about Darfur, except to say that no one believes it is all right to kill their friends and loved ones. By that standard, yes, there is universal agreement that murder is wrong.There is, as Nurvingiel points out, difference in how people define "murder" as opposed to "self defence." An ability to objectify 'the other' is essential even to creating a soldier's ability to rationalize his activity as something other than murder.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think a lot of people living in Darfur right now would disagree. And a lot of people living in France at the time of the French Revolution. Murder has sometimes been completely acceptable in certain parts of society, like poverty-stricken areas, places with gangs and such.

But the real emergency is here

Originally Posted by Leif Erikson

Hold it, before I go into the problem, I have one other little comment. There are translations of the New Testament that date from the third and fourth centuries AD. There is a massive number of books of the Bible that date from very close to the time it was written. Those books have only miniscule variations between them. Modern Bible translations can be checked back against these ancient Greek texts. Also, the New Testament is one of the most solidly backed ancient historical records. So there is a lot of evidence that the Bible is handed down to us currently in about its original form. There are going to be a few small translation differences, but no big ones at all.

and here.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Now about my problem with religious liberalism:

Your response to Gwaimir's point indicates that you have your own personal standards of morality which for you supersede the Bible's standard of morality. In other words, you trust yourself more than you trust the Bible, and if you and the Bible conflict on something, your views trump the scripture.

Yet human views of morality are very relative. They change from culture to culture and person to person. How are we to know that we personally are correct? It could just as well be some atheist who says morality is a purely human construct, humans are without intrinsic value, everything is meaningless and there is no good or bad, right or wrong, righteousness or wickedness. So if the values we are to rely on come from humans, anyone might be right-Stalin might have been right in starving millions of his people to death for the sake of getting his economy industrialized-who's to say?

If morality is from humanity, it is purely relative. Amorality is the natural result of this, for if morality is relative, all value systems are equal, and as Rana puts it, equally invalid. A verrry scary and dark world is all that's left as the natural consequence of relativism and liberalism, and in it, the only rational conclusion is despair.

So think twice before putting faith in your own judgment higher than faith in the Bible . In doing so, you sever the only lifeline that is left to us.

For right and wrong are not human ideas, and all is not relative. If it comes from humans, or if it comes from God but the Word of God is partly doubtable and hence our views still come down to having their final basis in our own judgment, all moral ideas are equally (in)valid and thus life on Planet Earth is a twisted horror story.

We have to rely on God's Word before we believe ourselves, or all is meaningless. And when he can, God makes clear to us what is right when we won't accept it initially because our own beliefs and biases differ. He makes the true interpretation of his Word clear to his followers through the Counselor he gave us, the Holy Spirit, who gives us true interpretation of God's Word. And listening to the Spirit give us interpretation is not about belief, but about a definite and sometimes astoundingly powerful experience that one knows is real. Just as real as things in the physical.

There are a "massive number" of works that early church fathers accepted or rejected based on considerations that may have been quite apart from a desire to present a biography of Jesus. This link discusses that a bit, in reference to The Gospel of Thomas. http://home.epix.net/~miser17/faq.html

There's also this. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html#

If you're going to defend the accuracy of the bible based on its antiquity, aren't you going to have to include currently uncanonical writings of equal antiquity? The great proof of the New Testament in contemporary historical records is also non-existant. You can assert it's proven all you like.

This is the essence of the problem. You claim to believe in Jesus Christ, but you don't believe in actual miracles or revelation. God could speak to Gomer, but he can't speak to Nurvingiel, or anyone else you'd like to tar with the universal epithet of "liberal". The set of books you consider the "Word of God" is the Word, and supercedes any information from direct communication with God, as prayer, the works of God-given talents, such as scholarship, or any other pathway. People who identify as Christians use all SORTS of material as their Bible, but all of them are wrong except you.

And your narrowmindedness is the only thing that stands between us and "a verrry scary and dark world (where) the only rational conclusion is despair."

I hope no one here, at least, is such a ninny as to believe that God's Salvation rests on such a narrow plank.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Good you make that distinction, because it's plain that many murderers don't agree with you . But isn't there something rather flawed in the logic that, "everyone thinks so, so it is so." And how does everyone thinking it is true (assuming for a moment that they do, though I disagree) make it objective? Doesn't that still leave it in the realm of subjectivity?

One could easily argue that all morality is subjective. I wouldn't have a big problem with that. But the closest humanity can come to objectivity is if everyone agrees that it is so; that's why I used murder as an example.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think a lot of people living in Darfur right now would disagree. And a lot of people living in France at the time of the French Revolution. Murder has sometimes been completely acceptable in certain parts of society, like poverty-stricken areas, places with gangs and such.

The Sudanese government would disagree, the people who are the victims would say it is murder.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is strange, to me. I would think that these would be the least subjective parts of morality. If people have reasons, perhaps evidence, and logic as to what is right or wrong, then isn't that objective rather than subjective?

Maybe. But our morals are subject to our beliefs.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Thanks for sharing it .

Always.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'd say death. People who are enslaved can commit suicide (if they think it's ethical), so they have a choice. People who are killed have no choice.

Torture might also be worse.

But the question is kind of relative, for it partly depends on how horrible the slavery conditions are.

I would argue that torture, death, and slavery are equally evil, though you make a point about the conditions.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't know what you and Gwaimir were just talking about which drew this response from you, but this response of yours relates strongly to the problem I have with religious liberalism.

Gwaimir said that new translations of the Bible are done from the previous "edition", not the original text. Like I said, it's not the Bible I lack faith in, it's the ability of humans to avoid screwing stuff up.

I'll address the rest of your post later, it's time to go to karate class.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Not into English. If you're going to look at translations into, say, the Greek of 300 AD, why not just translate from the original Greek & Aramaic & Hebrew in which the texts survive?

That's what our modern English texts do.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I'm setting aside, for a minute, the smug racism of this business about Darfur

Provide evidence, please, for "smug racism" about Darfur on my part, before you accuse.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

except to say that no one believes it is all right to kill their friends and loved ones. By that standard, yes, there is universal agreement that murder is wrong.

This comment also is just an unsupported assertion. In point of fact, King Ivan IV of Russia killed his own son because his son's pregnant wife was naked and exposed to him, and the son got in his way. Ivan wept afterward, because he had loved his son, but in Ivan's view, his son should not have been in his way.

Your claim also ignores all crimes of passion, of which there are many. And your comment ignores many traitors, people who have betrayed friends out of personal gain.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

There is, as Nurvingiel points out, difference in how people define "murder" as opposed to "self defence."

I agree that there is definitely a difference between these two.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

An ability to objectify 'the other' is essential even to creating a soldier's ability to rationalize his activity as something other than murder.

Perhaps you didn't know this, but most of the violence in Darfur is not being caused by soldiers but by rogue bands of Janjaweed militia.

But the real emergency is here




and here.

And your evidence or even your reasoning that contradicts these arguments is where?

You're just making blind assertions again.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

There are a "massive number" of works that early church fathers accepted or rejected based on considerations that may have been quite apart from a desire to present a biography of Jesus. This link discusses that a bit, in reference to The Gospel of Thomas.

The Gospel of Thomas is one of the most acceptable of the texts that were rejected. People try to argue that one more frequently than the others. They don't recognize the fact that one of the reasons for its rejection when being considered was that it did not jive with the most reliable evidence they had, as regards the character of Jesus.

For instance, in the Gospel of Thomas, Peter asks Jesus, "how can Mary, a woman, be allowed admitance into the kingdom of heaven?" And Jesus replies, "she must first be transformed into a man, and then she may attain the kingdom of heaven." This is a grossly mysognistic passage which does not at all tally with the more historically reliable evidence that was available, about Jesus.

Also, I could be wrong on this one, but I believe that it was in the Gospel of Thomas that Jesus made pantheistic statements, saying that he was in the rock, tree and water. This statement would definitely have earned the book a rejection, for Jesus clung closely to the Jewish tradition, being himself a Rabbi, and he believed the Genesis account that God created all that is, rather than that all that is is a part of God.

There are a few issues in the Gospel of Thomas, one of the most strongly heralded texts that was rejected by those deciding on the canon, which ensured it was rejected. Interestingly, their rejection resulting from the passage where Jesus says Mary must be turned into a man shows a far higher respect for women in the Early Church than would have existed in the other cultures that surrounded them, including the Jewish tradition.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

If you're going to defend the accuracy of the bible based on its antiquity, aren't you going to have to include currently uncanonical writings of equal antiquity?

The antiquity of the Bible and number of manuscripts are evidence that the texts we currently have are only going to be different in very, very small ways from the original texts. They are not evidence of accuracy, except on one grounds, which is that their great number and widespread acceptance as opposed to the other texts you mention indicates that the currently canonically accepted scriptures they were considered by the vast majority of the Early Church to have been far more accurate than the other texts. This is not one of the major evidences, though, so I don't need to go there.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The great proof of the New Testament in contemporary historical records is also non-existant.

Actually, contemporary historical records provide a great deal of valuable information. Tacitus and Josephus are primary historians who provide valuable evidence about Jesus and the Early Church which confirms New Testament records. The Talmud, as well as Pliny the Younger, also confirm it with a negative interpretation of these events and people, but nevertheless an interpretation that confirms certain significant parts of Christian teaching as accurate. These corroborating sources don't confirm every detail of the New Testament, but definitely the major storylines. There even is an account from a historian named Thallus, from 52 AD, who, though his own records were lost, was quoted by Julius Africanus at about 221 AD as having said an eclipse occurred in 33 AD, the time Jesus died. So there is even evidence confirming, down to exactly the year of Jesus' death, that the "sky went dark" just as the Bible says.

In addition, here's a quote from Paul Maier about that detail of the New Testament: "This phenomenon, evidently, was visible in Rome, Athens, and other Mediterranean cities. According to Tertullian . . . it was a "cosmic" or "world event." Phlegon, a Greek author from Caria writing a chronology soon after 137 AD, reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 AD) there was "the greatest eclipse of the sun" and that "it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea."

Here is a quote from Professor Yamauchi about what we would know about Jesus from corroborating history texts, sources purely outside of the Bible:

"We would know that first, Jesus was a Jewish teacher; second, many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; third, some people believed he was the Messiah; fourth, he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; fifth, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; sixth, despite his shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by AD 64; and seventh, all kinds of people from the cities and countryside-men and women, slave and free-worshipped him as God."

That is basically a summary of the evidence of Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Talmud and other sources, made by Professor Yamauchi, whose credentials are:

Originally Posted by The Case for Christ

After earning a bachelor's degree in Hebrew and Hellenistics, Yamauchi received master's and doctoral degrees in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University.

He has been awarded eight fellowships, from the Rutgers Research Council, National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Philosophical Society, and others. He has studied twenty-two languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Egyptian, Russian, Syriac, Ugaritic, and even Commanche.

He has delivered seventy-one papers before learned societies; lectured at more than one hundred seminaries, universities and colleges, including Yale, Princeton and Cornell; served as chairman and then president for the Institute for Biblical Research and president of the Conference on Faith and History; and published eighty articles in thirty-seven scholarly journals.

In 1968 he participated in the first excavations of the Herodian temple in Jerusalem, revealing evidence of hte temple's destruction in A.D. 70. Archaelogy has also been the theme of several of his books, including The Stones and the Scriptures; The Scriptures and Archaeology; and The World of the First Christians.

The relevant pages of The Case for Christ are 75, 76 and 87.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

This is the essence of the problem. You claim to believe in Jesus Christ, but you don't believe in actual miracles or revelation.

On the contrary, I do believe in personal revelation and in actual miracles (as Nurvi and others who know me as well on this site can attest). Don't make assumptions about my beliefs, please .

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

God could speak to Gomer, but he can't speak to Nurvingiel, or anyone else you'd like to tar with the universal epithet of "liberal".

Actually, more often than not, I've found that liberals tend to be less credulous of direct hearing from God. God can definitely speak to Nurvi, though.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The set of books you consider the "Word of God" is the Word, and supercedes any information from direct communication with God, as prayer, the works of God-given talents, such as scholarship, or any other pathway. People who identify as Christians use all SORTS of material as their Bible, but all of them are wrong except you.

There are some Christians who are as accepting, or even more accepting, of other texts than the Bible, it is true. However, to the vast majority of Christians, and all the major denominations, the Bible is the revealed Word of God and the canon is not open to any other books.

This doesn't mean that all other books are lies, and neither does it mean that only the Bible has divine inspiration. But none is considered to be infallible, like the Bible. The Bible, we believe, has no larger problems in its accuracy than a handful of tiny translation issues, a few words here and there, but nothing that impacts a major doctrine. This innerancy makes the Bible unique from other texts.

Jesus himself claimed that the Old Testament was entirely true, and Peter said that Paul's writings were scripture, which to them meant the infallible Word of God.

The Gospels are the best historical texts that exist about the life of Jesus, and archaelogical and documentary evidence have repeatedly validated their accounts. The canonical texts were selected with great care and based upon certain criteria, with a policy regarding them of "if in doubt, throw it out" (quote from Josh McDowell). Those selecting the canon weren't willing to take any chances of error with what they claimed was the Word of God.



Think about it this way. Jesus said, "A student is not above his master, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher" (Luke 6:40). What you propose, that personal prayer experiences and miracles be the judge, is the proposal of a student wanting to be above his teacher.

Jesus is the teacher, and if we distrust the Bible, which is the most reliable textual source available about him, and which, in the words of Christ's closest disciple, is an infallible source (and Jesus claimed that the OT was infallible), then we are setting our judgment higher than Jesus' judgment. Higher than our God's judgment, for if we are Christian, we must accept that he is God.

Hence, by putting ourselves higher than the scriptures Jesus, his disciples and the Early Church fathers claimed was the Word of God, rather than accepting training by this very Word of God, we place ourselves higher than God's Word and thus higher than God.

In short, abandoning the teachings of Jesus, the disciples and the Early Church means abandoning Christianity and making up one's own religion, or maybe receiving one's religion from a non-Christian spirit. Either way, it's not Christianity.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

One could easily argue that all morality is subjective. I wouldn't have a big problem with that. But the closest humanity can come to objectivity is if everyone agrees that it is so; that's why I used murder as an example.

I'll save responding to this till you respond to the rest of my post.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The Sudanese government would disagree, the people who are the victims would say it is murder.

Well of course. And many murderers would say that their "murders" were necessity, or justice, or whatever, and wouldn't call them "murders" either. What the perpetrator calls an act shouldn't determine for us what it is .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Maybe. But our morals are subject to our beliefs.

Yes. But if those beliefs come from logic or evidence, then they're founded on objectivity rather than subjectivity, right?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I would argue that torture, death, and slavery are equally evil, though you make a point about the conditions.

Yeah, that one is really very relative. It depends what torture, what slavery treatment, perhaps how you die (and what you experience after death).

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Gwaimir said that new translations of the Bible are done from the previous "edition", not the original text.

Huh. Well, that's not the case with the NIV. Here's a quote from its preface: "The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts."

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'll address the rest of your post later, it's time to go to karate class.

And I'll respond to it when you get to it . If I have the time . Which I might be able to force myself to have .

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Different Christians have different Bibles.

http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox...ible-books.htm

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm

Of course there are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints on the Bible http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Bible.shtml

and also 7th Day Adventists, who rely on the Bible. http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch...0Authority.htm

Good thing that the absolute Word of God is so easy to come by.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

From Homosexual marriage II

Haha, well, be nice to them too, but I meant Christians who only go to church on Christmas and Easter. (The Church of England is CofE anyway. )

Yeah, that's why I was a bit confused. I get what you mean, though.

That all makes sense.

It's true, we don't have centralised leadership. I like that. This gives the Anglican church to have a quite significant group of liberal Anglicans. Of course, there is a very significant group of conservative Anglicans too. We also don't have the parameters you make reference too, I know what you mean, and I don't think the same thing exists within the Anglican church.

Well, some of them were written after the fact. But I do think they were written about things that happened.

Eyewitness accounts doesn't mean at the time it happened; just "by an eyewitness".

Oh yeah, good point. Though, the Greeks and Romans didn't write any of the Bible, so their attitudes on homosexuality would not have entered into it.

What do you think Luke was? Persian? Lukas, my dear! I feel like Mark may have been at least partly Greek, too, though I'm not sure. I may be confusing him with Timothy.

No, that's all I was going to write.

Heh. Actually, that was you telling me that I was going to write more; I must have bungled the code.

I agree.

What could possibly be worse than slavery? Equally evil, yes, but worse? I can't imagine anything more horrible than slavery.

Civil war; I'm taking about ills of a society, here. War is bad enough, but when it's brother against brother, father against son, cousin against cousin, friend against friend, it just makes it all the worse.

In many ways, absolutely. But some stories in the Bible totally reflect the society at the time. Like Esau (?) who had tricked his younger brother out of his inheritance, then later in life he wants to make it up to him and assembles a great deal of wealth, sheep and such, and sends a message to his brother, but when his brother comes (with 400 men for some reason), his brother says "I have enough" and doesn't take what Esau had to offer.

Stories, yes, but a) the stories also have a deeper meaning for those who will delve into them, and b) there is a big difference between stories and moral instruction/doctrine.

We're we talking about the "use of women" passage?

Yep.

That really damages my faith in the Bible. Well, I have plenty of faith in the Bible, but not that much in the people translating it. I have very little confidence that we didn't screw it up somehow.

No need to worry about the Bible, just the Douay. There are still plenty of translations from the original languages.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Not into English. If you're going to look at translations into, say, the Greek of 300 AD, why not just translate from the original Greek & Aramaic & Hebrew in which the texts survive?

What? Isn't the KJV from the first century?

Originally Posted by Nurvi

Gwaimir said that new translations of the Bible are done from the previous "edition", not the original text. Like I said, it's not the Bible I lack faith in, it's the ability of humans to avoid screwing stuff up.

Correction: I said the Douay is translated from the Vulgate, which is itself a translation. Your average run of the mill translation/paraphrase is done from the original languages.

[Lief Erikson]

First of all, sisterandcousinandaunt, I'd mention that you still have not responded to much of my post at all. I recognize, though, that it's definitely long, so you can definitely take your time. I'm very busy too, anyway. Or should be . But I'm interested in hearing your response to my points.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Different Christians have different Bibles.

http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox...ible-books.htm

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm

Of course there are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints on the Bible http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Bible.shtml

and also 7th Day Adventists, who rely on the Bible. http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch...0Authority.htm

Good thing that the absolute Word of God is so easy to come by.

You are mistaken about the Seventh Day Adventists. They believe in the same Bible the vast majority of Christians do.

Mormons are not considered to be Christians by any of the major Christian denominations, so your pointing out their claim at having another divinely inspired book in addition to the Bible is irrelevant.

Most of the other links you have provided refer to only a tiny handful of off-shoot Christian groups. They are far from mainstream Christianity.

The differences between Catholics and other Christians over the Apocrypha are the only serious difference of views you've mentioned, because Catholics are a major Christian denomination. This is not a difference over translation though, of course- serious differences between translations is still something you haven't provided evidence for.

Also, I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. Are you saying that because there are differences between Catholics and other Christians over the Apocrypha, the Bible is not reliable as the Word of God? How exactly does that follow? It's like saying that because two people disagree over a math formula, the math formula is wrong. That's absurd. I'd say discernment, prayer, thought and research, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will provide new insight and understanding as to which way is right. That's one of the beauties of following God- he reveals truth to us. He says himself, "I am the truth."

Also, when you sarcastically say, "good thing the absolute Word of God is so easy to come by," you imply that if it isn't easy to come by something, that thing is not worth having. That's just lazy. Though I think you're also making a big deal over something that isn't actually a huge issue.

In point of fact, among the Christian denominations, there is very widespread agreement as to which books of the Bible are in fact scripture. You can point at a disagreement between Catholics and Protestants over the Apocrypha, and can point to major disagreements between Christians and non-Christians (like Mormons) or small Christian offshoot groups that are far from mainstream in their beliefs, but that comes down to mere quibbling and your evidence consists of groups that are either not Christian or are far from mainstream Christian groups/denominations, with the single exception of the Apocrypha debate.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In point of fact, among the Christian denominations, there is very widespread agreement as to which books of the Bible are in fact scripture. You can point at a disagreement between Catholics and Protestants over the Apocrypha, and can point to major disagreements between Christians and non-Christians (like Mormons) or small Christian offshoot groups that are far from mainstream in their beliefs, but that comes down to mere quibbling and your evidence consists of groups that are either not Christian or are far from mainstream Christian groups/denominations, with the single exception of the Apocrypha debate.

If one is to take the stance that each and every word in the bible is the literal word of god then "quibbling" takes on a whole new meaning.

The fact that there are so many denominations of christianity is proof that 99% agreement is not enough. Each and every sect requires 100%, but what they ask for is not the same.

If you look at history, it's always been all about the points of disagreement, no matter how small.

[Nurvingiel]

Amazingly, I agree with Lief and what he just said about the Bible.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Yeah, that's why I was a bit confused. I get what you mean, though.

That all makes sense.

We actually agree on most things, just not on a few fairly important details.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Eyewitness accounts doesn't mean at the time it happened; just "by an eyewitness".

Maybe some of the events were told to the authors by eyewitnesses, or some were preserved through oral history before being written down, but generally yes, I do think the Bible is a collection of eyewitness accounts, among other things (such as Psalms and teachings).

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What do you think Luke was? Persian? Lukas, my dear! I feel like Mark may have been at least partly Greek, too, though I'm not sure. I may be confusing him with Timothy.

Haha, I didn't know that.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Heh. Actually, that was you telling me that I was going to write more; I must have bungled the code.

I agree.

No, my precious code!

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Civil war; I'm taking about ills of a society, here. War is bad enough, but when it's brother against brother, father against son, cousin against cousin, friend against friend, it just makes it all the worse.

I think that once something evil reaches a certain amount of evil, it's hard to say which one is worse. Generally, I would say that civil war is worse than being invaded.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Stories, yes, but a) the stories also have a deeper meaning for those who will delve into them, and b) there is a big difference between stories and moral instruction/doctrine.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No need to worry about the Bible, just the Douay. There are still plenty of translations from the original languages.

Oh, good. That's what I had thought before. Man, you got me all worked up there.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Correction: I said the Douay is translated from the Vulgate, which is itself a translation. Your average run of the mill translation/paraphrase is done from the original languages.

*whew*

That means the Good News Bible is still Good News.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If one is to take the stance that each and every word in the bible is the literal word of god then "quibbling" takes on a whole new meaning.

What I was saying was that sisterandcousinandaunt was quibbling by arguing that because there are some little denominations that believe differently about the Bible from mainstream Christianity, the Bible itself can't be trusted. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise any more than it follows that because a few people nowadays might still think the world is flat, the evidence of science on the matter should be considered inconclusive or unreliable. If a handful of smaller denominations disagree with the main religious body on an issue, that doesn't mean that the evidence on the issue is unreliable.

I agree with you that the fact that this is the literal word of God we're talking about makes the issue very important. My argument still stands, however. Just because a few small denominations disagree about parts of the Bible, and the Catholics and Protestants disagree about the Apocrypha, that doesn't mean the Bible itself is unreliable. Someone's always going to disagree about something. The issue of the Apocrypha is the sole example I know of where major denominations conflict about the actual texts in the scripture, rather than about interpretation.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The fact that there are so many denominations of christianity is proof that 99% agreement is not enough. Each and every sect requires 100%, but what they ask for is not the same.

The differences you refer to between passages are minute, and are not the causes for the differences between the denominations of Christianity. The differences between Christian denominations are largely the result of differences of scripture interpretation, not differences between Bibles.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If you look at history, it's always been all about the points of disagreement, no matter how small.

Yes, unfortunately that is often very true.

[Falagar]

It's interesting to note, though, that along the way there have been major revisions of the testaments. Of the 5700 'versions' of the greek New Testament written/copied from earlier times (until the printing press in the 16th century, iirc), only 10 contain the entire NT, and only 4 of these are from before the 10th century (all of these are missing pages or have other defects). Between all the different manuscripts, including the latin and other translations, there are said to have been between as many as 200 000 and 400 000 'variants' of the Bible (including copying errors, additions, omissions, various compositions of the different texts, etc). Also, some verses (like the story in John 7:53-8:11 and the last verses in Mark) are not found in the earliest versions or are believed to have been added later (often placed differently than in the Bible of today, in some manuscripts the story of the adulteress can even be found in Luke).

Most of the available material in greek consists of only short texts, fragments, only one of the gospels, or small collections of the gospels or the Pauline letters.

On an unrelated note, I found a movie called Jesus Camp (which was, until recently, available on the net - there are still a few trailers around on google-video). Thought-provoking, and on some levels, a bit frightening.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

That made enough sense to debate. That leaves my task relatively small.

If you want to prove the historicity of the Bible by saying, "There's an eclipse mentioned in the Bible, other people mention the eclipse, therefore the Bible is true." there isn't much I can do but laugh. 200 years from now I hope my enterprising descendants are selling goods based on "This happened during a big snowstorm in Upstate New York, you can see contemporary news footage of snow in Upstate New York, therefore this happened as we say."

But here's your quote from 721. But isn't there something rather flawed in the logic that, "everyone thinks so, so it is so." And how does everyone thinking it is true (assuming for a moment that they do, though I disagree) make it objective? Doesn't that still leave it in the realm of subjectivity?
And here's your quote from your last post.

Quote:
You are mistaken about the Seventh Day Adventists. They believe in the same Bible the vast majority of Christians do.

Mormons are not considered to be Christians by any of the major Christian denominations, so your pointing out their claim at having another divinely inspired book in addition to the Bible is irrelevant.

Most of the other links you have provided refer to only a tiny handful of off-shoot Christian groups. They are far from mainstream Christianity.The differences between Catholics and other Christians over the Apocrypha are the only serious difference of views you've mentioned, because Catholics are a major Christian denomination. This is not a difference over translation though, of course- serious differences between translations is still something you haven't provided evidence for.

Also, I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. Are you saying that because there are differences between Catholics and other Christians over the Apocrypha, the Bible is not reliable as the Word of God? :confused: end quote

I think it's nice, btw, that you're willing to view Catholics as "Christian." The folks in my first link don't, you notice. That's why they're able to "prove" that the Apocrypha is not really part of the Bible.

The link from those wild women at the United Methodist Women is even more *gasp*"liberal." See, I had the impression that they actually considered Samaritan and Ethioptic Christians "Christian", despite the differences in text. Shocking. Drop their men a line, I'm sure they'll straighten those girls out.

The Mormon link includes translation differences, btw. I'm looking forward to your explaining to a roomful of Mormons, perhaps including Mitt Romney, why they aren't "Christian." I'm sure you have all the authority they'll need to change their letterhead.

But, back to your "reasoning."
How exactly does that follow? It's like saying that because two people disagree over a math formula, the math formula is wrong.

No, actually it's like saying, "If half the instructions are in yards and half the instructions are in meters, you can't tell me that using these infaillible instructions is a substitute for checking your math." Nasa tried that, you probably don't recall.


Also, when you sarcastically say, "good thing the absolute Word of God is so easy to come by," you imply that if it isn't easy to come by something, that thing is not worth having.

No. Actually, I'd say that God is very accessible, and I'm not therefore reliant on YOUR ability to select a set of instructions for Him. But in science, or logic, or mathematics, you can't randomly exclude data from your sample because it doesn't fit with your theory. That's considered cheating, and it's bad form. Therefore, if you wish The Word of God to be represented by The Bible (WoG=Bible) you have to define your terms so that (Bible) includes the set of all Bibles Christians use, OR you have to give a better reason for excluding material than this "majority rules" business, which you so cleverly abandoned in 721.

To be clear, I've helpfully edited this conclusion for more accuracy. You're welcome.

In point of fact, among the Christian denominations whom I chose to consider for the purposes of this argument, there is very widespread agreement except between mainstream Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church as to which books of the Bible are in fact scripture. You can point at a disagreement between Catholics and Protestants over the Apocrypha, and can point to major disagreements between Christians and non-Christians (like Mormons, who are just too weird and different from my premise for me to include) or small Christian offshoot groups, in which I am including Greek Orthodox and other people with unusual outfits that are far from mainstream in their beliefs, but that comes down to mere quibbling and your evidence consists of groups that are either not Christian or are far from mainstream Christian groups/denominations, as I understand them, and because my personal experience of Christian belief is the determining factor in any discussion of canonical orthodoxy , with the single exception of the Apocrypha debate.[/QUOTE]

See? It's so much better to just say what you mean.

[hectorberlioz]

Greek Orthodox, nor any Orthodox in general...are "offshoot". Together with Catholics, they were "THE Church". Read history, BEFORE Martin Luther.


Talking about Mormons, and Mitt Romney had to figure into it

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You are mistaken about the Seventh Day Adventists. They believe in the same Bible the vast majority of Christians do.

Not so, Lief. The Catholic Church is by far the largest Christian ecclesial community, and their Bible differs from that of the SDA's, as does the Orthodox, as noted above. You seem to think that Protestants are the "vast majority of Christians".

Also, sister, the Samaritans are not Christians, but Jewish, and when I say that, I mean they wouldn't call themselves Christian. That is the reason they only have Old Testament books in their canon.

[hectorberlioz]

Also SisAunt, it might be better for you to put Lief's quotes in the usual brackets, because I was confused the whole way through...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

correction noted.

And sorry, Hector. I struggled mightily with the formatting of my reply, because I was trying to use format change to highlight the targeting of my response, since Leif didn't see the relevence of my earlier responses.

I got some pretty multi-color posts in preview! LOL

But I couldn't manage those orange boxes and stay consistant, and, also, it annoys me how they drop out in later posts.

I'll keep working on it. I'm confusing enough without typeface help.
Brooke

[hectorberlioz]

11 posts to go before you hit the famous 100, btw...

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by sistercousinandaunt

No, actually it's like saying, "If half the instructions are in yards and half the instructions are in meters, you can't tell me that using these infaillible instructions is a substitute for checking your math." Nasa tried that, you probably don't recall.

I remember that. The shuttle exploded.

Oops!