|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 09/10/2002 : 15:17:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
darwin alogos wrote:
First, if you had checked out anything on "The Dead Sea Scrolls " you would have known one of the most significant finds was The Isaiah Scroll,circa 200BC,and when they compared it to the Massortic text they found it to be within 98% the same.
Your point?
quote:
Of similar importance are the new data about the context of the biblical scrolls, since different texts are recognizable. Some texts reflect precisely the consonantal framework of the medieval MT (Masoretic Text). Others reflect the basic framework of the MT, although their spelling is different. Still others differ in many details from the MT, while agreeing with the Septuagint or Samaritan Pentateuch. Some texts do not agree with any previously known text at all, and should be considered independent textual traditions. Thus, the textual picture presented by the Qumran scrolls represents a textual variety that was probably typical for the period.
- Emanual Tov - The Oxford Companion to the Bible edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, 1993; p.160
quote:
darwin alogos wrote:
Secondly,if you can't figure out why ,if you want a translation from the Hebrew,you should't use The Septuagint(which is a very excellent translation into the Greek language)then i just don't know what to say.
Please provide evidence that LXX and M have the same immediate textual ancestry.
quote:
darwin alogos wrote:
Finally,I recommend you switch to decaf because I haven't a clue where you get the idea that I"m against the Alexandrian text:" what is your reason for choosing the Byzantine rather than the older Alexandrian textual sources?"
Do you support or oppose Byzantine priority?
|
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 10:53:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Please provide evidence that LXX and M have the same immediate textual ancestry.
quote:
First,allof the manuscripts,no matter who prepared them or where they were found,agree to a great extant.Such agreement from texts that come from Palestine,Syria,Egypt suggest that they have a strong original tradition from way back in history...Finally,the Dead Sea Scrolls provide a basis for comparison from 1,000 years before our manuscripts[The Masoretic Text].That comparison shows an astonishing reliabilty in transmission of the text. One scholar observed that the two copies of Isaiah in the Qumran caves,"proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.The 5 percent variation consisted chiely of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling"
Gleason Archer Jr.,A Survey of Old Testament Introduction(Chicago,Moody,1964),p.19. Quoted by Norman l. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks in, WHEN SKEPTICS ASK,VICTOR BOOKS,pp's.158,159. quote:
Do you support or oppose Byzantine priority?
NO!
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 11:54:28 [Permalink]
|
Do you support or oppose Byzantine priority? NO!
No? Lets try a simplier question. Do you have the slightest clue as to what RD just asked you? He's talking about the Byzantine rather than the older Alexandrian textual sources. Which ones do you support the older-closer to the time of Jesus sources or the newer ones? And why?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 09/12/2002 11:55:52 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 12:10:07 [Permalink]
|
So, you neither support nor oppose Byzantine priority. You earlier wrote: "[the] science of textual criticism ... informs as to how we know the text is an accurate copy of the original". What does your understanding of this 'science' tell you about (1) Codex Sinaiticus, (2) Codex Vaticanus, (3) Codex Alexandrinus, and (4) Codex Ephraemi noting, of course, that they differ from one another? Also, you clearly avoided my earlier request: Please provide evidence that LXX and M have the same immediate textual ancestry.
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 22:06:36 [Permalink]
|
while all this ancient source tag is interesting, you're argument will never be stronger than "I read it in a book." You take some scribbling on scrolls as 'the truth.'
I take a science textbook as truth because there is mounds of evidence that what is in the book has been verified. Your evidence is still just a book, made by man, and revised for convienance no small number of times. I prefer the Norse and Celtic mythologies, at least they were interesting.
The bible says Noah and Moses were like 900 years old. Do you believe this is fact? How do you reconcile that with the world around you? The same bible also speaks of seven horned goats and such, do you believe this is truth?
You believe in a mythology book. The fact that alot of people are brainwashed into believing it doesn't make it any less a cult. Every religion is belief in a mythology book. What makes yours any more right than the wingnut Scientology 'bible?' What more evidence, other than your YOUR book, do you have that David Koresh wasn't really the messiah? He even believed in your book! Not even a rival religion!
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2002 : 08:28:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
while all this ancient source tag is interesting, you're argument will never be stronger than "I read it in a book." You take some scribbling on scrolls as 'the truth.'
Then you state: quote:
I take a science textbook as truth because there is mounds of evidence that what is in the book has been verified. Your evidence is still just a book, made by man, and revised for convienance no small number of times.
Are you saying you've found an alien science textbook not made by man ("Your evidence is still just a book, made by man, and revised for convienance no small number of times"),with no revisions dates?
Edited by - darwin alogos on 09/14/2002 08:30:10 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2002 : 10:26:02 [Permalink]
|
darwin alogos, answer the question,
|
|
|
|
andysnape
New Member
United Kingdom
39 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2002 : 04:51:34 [Permalink]
|
PHD, you kepp talking about nouns referring to something that can be mentally represented. So how would you mentally represent a noun such as 'justice'? Surely it is the same as God. There is not collection of atoms that specifically build into something called 'justice', but when do have a concept of what it is, and manifestations of it via courts and barristers (in most cases anyway). Surely this is the same as God through Jesus. Don't you realise that a lot of nouns actually represent something quite intangible but in existence nonetheless?
quote:
quote:
quote:
Could you be more specific? The Bible doesn't define God, it merely outlines his more recent exploits. I'm thinking more along the lines of what thing the noun "God" refers to. When you talk presently about God, you're ostensibly not referring to a character in a book, so I suppose you must be referring to something that can be accurately accommodated by a noun. Please enlighten.
 Phd.I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you mean.The God of the Bible is:1.Creator;2.Triune;3.The source of the Revealation(i.e.The Bible;);4.Revealed in the Person[noun?]of Jesus the Messiah.
Here are the problems I have with your definition:
1) This is something God did rather than what God is. Saying "God is the creator [of the universe]" is the same thing as saying, "God created the universe."
2) This says nothing more than God is three distinct things. Frankly, this raises far more questions than it answers.
3) Again, this is something that God did rather than what God is.
4) This is important. Are you suggesting that Jesus is an accurate representation of God and that we should just picture Jesus when we reference God and be done with it?
I'm no linguist, but it seems that ordinarily, when we use nouns, they are intended to label something that can be ideally represented. That is, if I use the word 'keyboard' in a sentence when I am speaking to you, I take it for granted that you can form a mental representation that at least approximates the mental representation that I have. I know that you can come up with some exceptions, but they are hardly analagous to the concept of the creator of the universe. So I would like to know what mental representation you are trying to convey when you use the word 'God.'
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2002 : 06:16:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
PHD, you kepp talking about nouns referring to something that can be mentally represented. So how would you mentally represent a noun such as 'justice'?
I would say 'justice' is the noun-form of either an adverb, in the sense that a person or an institution can act justly, or an adjective, in the sense that an action can be just. I would deny there is a specific concept that embodies a thing called justice.
quote:
Surely it is the same as God.
Hardly. God is said to possess both qualities of abstractness (non-physicalness, intangibility) and qualities of concreteness (ability to affect physical things). There is no precedent for something being able to exist in this way, and no examples of things that do.
quote:
There is not collection of atoms that specifically build into something called 'justice', but when do have a concept of what it is, and manifestations of it via courts and barristers (in most cases anyway).
Like I said, I would deny there is a single, objective thing called 'justice' which is somehow measured against actions to determine the degree to which those actions fit a standard.
quote:
Surely this is the same as God through Jesus. Don't you realise that a lot of nouns actually represent something quite intangible but in existence nonetheless?
No, I don't realize this. Perhaps you can provide an example?
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
andysnape
New Member
United Kingdom
39 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2002 : 06:25:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Surely this is the same as God through Jesus. Don't you realise that a lot of nouns actually represent something quite intangible but in existence nonetheless?
quote:
No, I don't realize this. Perhaps you can provide an example?
Peace. Liberty.
By the way, what does the Oxford/Websters dictionary say about justice (noun, adverb etc.)? I don't have a copy handy.
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2002 : 06:51:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
andysnape wrote:
There is not collection of atoms that specifically build into something called 'justice', but when do have a concept of what it is, and manifestations of it via courts and barristers (in most cases anyway).
Actually, we have many concepts of justice. It is an abstraction dependent upon the individual, the society, and the historical period. That's why courts and barristers deal instead with issues of law. If you wish to maintain that "God through Jesus" is a wholly subjective and contingent projection, I will not argue. I would, however, suggest that such idealizations rarely run around creating suicidal pigs.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2002 : 08:04:41 [Permalink]
|
andysnap-is god an abstraction like Peace, Liberty, Justice or is he a being? I've heard tell that not only was he a being he was the supreme being.
Or since you only name abstracts (and only positive ones at that) which are workings of the human intellect do you mean to imply that god doesn't exist on his own but only in human thought?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2002 : 10:11:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Peace. Liberty.
These are words that describe states-of-affairs, not entities. 'Peace' is the state-of-affairs whereby people are not shooting at/stabbing/hitting each other. 'Liberty' is the state-of-affairs whereby all people are able to freely exercise their wills.
quote:
By the way, what does the Oxford/Websters dictionary say about justice (noun, adverb etc.)? I don't have a copy handy.
Well, the word 'justice' is a noun, but it is not a person, place or thing. That's why I think it needs qualification. 'Justice' is better expressed, IMO, as an adverb or adjective.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 20:02:29 [Permalink]
|
Besides, I am god.
Man models god after himself, not the other way around. In every mythology the gods have flaws, which proves they are not gods after all. Unless your definition of god includes one that makes mistakes.
So if I am to choose my god, I choose myself. Who can I possibly be more honest and open with. You cannot truly lie to yourself, a thing currently claimed by your god. Therefore you have the same power as god (at least in that most critical way). If I posess the same ability as god, then why am I not a god myself? Especially if I am to infer a definition of god thru my own perceptions. Even if I chose your bible, it is still up to my interpretations of it to define god. There is no one interpretation of even your bible, let alone all the 'bibles' the world has ever seen. So I interpret that god as me. Feel free to try this amongst yourselves.
God is also evil. If 'god is everything' then he must also be evil. If we are to get our basic laws of society (thou shall not kill....) from the divine, then god himself has perpetrated horrendous breaches of this code of conduct. Evil.
If evil is the enemy of god. An abomination. And god creates all things......
the christian god could not have created evil, with all it's disaterous effects on mankind, without wanting that evil. god is supposedly all knowing past, present, and future. So god would have known that evil would pervade the pristine world. Since according to the catholic school I went to, nothing happens without gods will, then he must be responsible for the creation of evil, and since he is everything, he IS evil.
Nothing happens without god's will. Rape, genocide, racism, torture..........
If your god created all things, then he created that too. So fuck him.
Not to mention Disco. Can I get some support here? Can we not abolish this god simply for creating Disco? Help me out folks.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 22:20:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Not to mention Disco. Can I get some support here? Can we not abolish this god simply for creating Disco? Help me out folks.
By Cthulhu, we just might have found the only point of agreement that Solly and I have.
"All things foul and ugly, All creatures short and squat. Putrid, foul and gangrenous, the Lord God made the lot." -Monty Python |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
