he he,
danny, yes, sometimes.
i hope all is well over in your neck of the woods. sometimes i wish i lived over there, for reasons that should be obvious by now.
cheers bud,
TS
The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)
by Shining One 94 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
googlemagoogle
so, shining one (aint that "lucifer"?), what explaination do you have to the "metal temple" (see one of running man's recent topics)?
no matter how much cultural and historical context you add to it, no matter if it's directed by god or by lizard space aliens, no matter if there's someone who looked into that matter more then me: there's just no way to put that much silver and gold into a temple that chiquito.
[edit] here's the link: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/92759/1.ashx -
Shining One
>There's about as much evidence for the resurrection of the Bab as there is for the resurrection of Jesus. So why is one better than the other? Isn't it evident that both claims are spurious?
AlanF
On the resurrection: 25,000 manuscripts that are essentially in agreement isn't enough 'evidence' for you? Hmmm, and not even the undisputed testimony of Paul before the Jewish and Roman authorities where He claimed hundreds were still alive who had seen the risen Christ? How about the fact that the poor, Jewish carpenter made such a impact in three years of ministry that the movement turned the Roman empire upside down...even after the crushing of the revolt in 70 a.d.? There are TEN manuscripts in existence that tell us of the wars of Julius Ceasar and you may accept that as history. 25000 manuscripts aren't enough 'extraordinary evidence' for you to admit that there might be something to the events of Calvary? I already knew what your response would be, Alan.
That's ok, I don't mean anything really harsh toward you personally. You are dealing with the Watchtower scam in your own way and helping others. That's a good thing and you are to be commended. It would be refreshing to see more openmindedness from all of us here. I realize that you have studied in earnest on the several topics that you share with us. I respect your research of the sciences and readily admit your superior knowlege. I just want you to see that there really are two sides to every issue and that 'the jury is still out' when it comes to disproving or proving what the facts really are. You seem to be a naruralist and I am a supernaturalist. I bear no ill will toward you and apologize for my disrespect.
I can even 'break bread' with a liberal like Bishop Spong while contending that he is dead wrong! My hope is that you get that supernatural touch in your life and that the Lord reveals Himself to you in an unmistakable way. I got along real well with Jim Penton though we are diametrically opposed on theology. We got to talk and fellowhip at the Berean Conference in '99 & 2000, which is held every summer at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. -
Shining One
A good question here on the numbers that are often mentioned in scripture...
We all know that the books of the Bible are translated from Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew ino our various languages, hundreds of them in general. Did you know that the Hebrew used letters to represent numbers? This is troublesome for translators. The contention if 'inerrancy' is never cut and dried. There are a lot of variables. The 'inerrancy' claim is a presuppostion, a philisophical point, that is held on the original manuscripts, even amongst conservative scholars. Some do not hold to 'inerrancy' but do hold to 'infallibility'. This is more realistic since we obviously do not have anything close to the originals. You will never have an absolute, 100% inerrancy unless God would choose to reinspire a particular team of translators. God has always worked through man and not around him. That's why you see so many instances where God is described in natural terms. People need to do more looking at the intent behind a passage and its meaning to us personally, instead of fretting over the details.
Rex -
Shining One
>Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy of scripture, is without error: Wow! An admission that the bible contains errors! If the bible is supposed to have been set down by divine inspiration...couldn't an all-powerful god have simply divinely inspired all the copyists through the ages too?
God works through man, His creation, not in spite of him.
>Or are the errors simply to test us mere dumb mortals, who can't possibly understand anyway (#3)?
Obviously, You can't see the forest for the trees. WHAT does the story tell? WHAT does the parable mean?
God obviously did use man to protect His word down through the ages, the evidence within the Dead Sea Scrolls prove this. Now if you simple don't want to believe, why not be honest about it? God does not fit into your lifestyle? So be it.
Rex -
Shining One
>Having skimmed a couple of the links, I find that it's a complete waste of time to read further. Your man James Patrick Holding writes a better defense than you do, but it's still pretty bad.
If it is so bad why not take his debate challenge?
Rex -
Leolaia
On the resurrection: 25,000 manuscripts that are essentially in agreement isn't enough 'evidence' for you? Hmmm, and not even the undisputed testimony of Paul before the Jewish and Roman authorities where He claimed hundreds were still alive who had seen the risen Christ? How about the fact that the poor, Jewish carpenter made such a impact in three years of ministry that the movement turned the Roman empire upside down...even after the crushing of the revolt in 70 a.d.? There are TEN manuscripts in existence that tell us of the wars of Julius Ceasar and you may accept that as history. 25000 manuscripts aren't enough 'extraordinary evidence' for you to admit that there might be something to the events of Calvary? I already knew what your response would be, Alan.
Be careful here. If this is your criterion of "evidence" (the total number of copies of copies of manuscripts), then there is far more evidence of the revelation of Allah to the Prophet Mohammad. The Egyptian library of Caliph Aziz alone contained 24,000 copies of the Quran. The total number of manuscripts is unknown today but to give some sort of idea the Astan-i Quds-i Razavi Library in Mashhad Iran has 11,000 manuscripts of the Quran. The total number of manuscripts may well be in the hundreds of thousands. BTW, most of these are in the original language of Arabic. Only 5,600 or so manuscripts of the 25,000 you mentioned are in Greek (and most represent the defective Majority Text).
It is also quite misleading to compare the compilation of the NT (containing 27 separate books) and compare its total number of manuscripts with an individual Classical Greek or Latin work. Pick 27 classical works and add together the number of total manuscripts for a better comparison. Or pick a single NT book and compare its attestation to that of classical works. The attestation of the NT is still superior, but not by as large a margin as it initially seemed.
More on this:
-
Rod P
Leolaia,
Just to be clear here:
* Never compare scripture with scripture to find the meaning of difficult texts
This is exactly what Bible critics do.
I think what you mean is that Bible critics DO compare scripture with scripture to find the meaning of difficult texts. The way it's worded makes it sound like "Bible critics never compare scripture with scripture............" If that is what you mean, then I agree with you.
And again:
* Never use different bible versions, never check out the Greek or Hebrew.
This is exactly what Bible critics do.
I think you are saying "Bible critics DO use different bible versions, and DO check out the Greek or Hebrew. If that is what you mean, then I agree with you.
Rod P.
-
Leolaia
LOL, yes indeed that is what I meant....isn't the English language wonderful?
-
AlanF
Shining One (YECsy Rexy) wrote:
:: There's about as much evidence for the resurrection of the Bab as there is for the resurrection of Jesus. So why is one better than the other? Isn't it evident that both claims are spurious?
: On the resurrection: 25,000 manuscripts that are essentially in agreement isn't enough 'evidence' for you?
Of course not. Here's why:
There were more than 100 million copies (modern "manuscripts") of the 1968 version of the Watchtower Society's book The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life put in circulation. There are probably ten million or more of those still around, all "essentially in agreement". Isn't that enough evidence for you that everything it says is true?
Of course not. Even you can figure out why.
By the same token, those 25,000 manuscripts are not independent evidence of Jesus' resurrection. At best there exist a few manuscripts written at least 100 years after the supposed miraculous event. And no one has any real evidence of who wrote any of the original NT manuscripts or when.
On the other hand, the Bahai's have thousands of manuscripts written within a few years of The Bab's death, testifying to his resurrection and the "miracles" he performed. Why are they less reliable than a few manuscripts written a hundred years after Jesus' death? Why are the massive number of ancient Muslim writings any less reliable than NT writings?
: Hmmm, and not even the undisputed testimony of Paul before the Jewish and Roman authorities where He claimed hundreds were still alive who had seen the risen Christ?
You're using the Bible to prove the Bible. Not legit.
: How about the fact that the poor, Jewish carpenter made such a impact in three years of ministry that the movement turned the Roman empire upside down...even after the crushing of the revolt in 70 a.d.?
So? The Bahai's are today the most widespread of all religions, except for the various forms of Christianity. They've had about 160 years to grow to about 6 million. That's a lot more than there were Christians 160 years after Jesus came on the scene. Who knows how much more they'll grow?
Growth and influence are no indicators of truth. I'm sure you'd argue that strongly in the case of the Catholic Church. If you wouldn't, you wouldn't be a Fundamentalist -- you'd be a Catholic.
: There are TEN manuscripts in existence that tell us of the wars of Julius Ceasar and you may accept that as history. 25000 manuscripts aren't enough 'extraordinary evidence' for you to admit that there might be something to the events of Calvary? I already knew what your response would be, Alan.
Only in general. Obviously, if a bunch of people made a million copies of those manuscripts about Julius Caesar's wars, they wouldn't be any more reliable than the ten you mention. Again, those 25,000 NT manuscripts are no more reliable than the originals they were made from.
Also, you're comparing apples and oranges -- normal secular events with miracles. Miracles require extraordinary evidence for reasonable people to believe.
You'll obviously refuse to believe the testimony of the huge number of Bahai manuscripts testifying to The Bab's resurrection, yet you accept what's really a tiny number of manuscripts claiming the same thing for Jesus. Why?
: That's ok, I don't mean anything really harsh toward you personally. You are dealing with the Watchtower scam in your own way and helping others. That's a good thing and you are to be commended. It would be refreshing to see more openmindedness from all of us here.
There seems to be a confusion by many people about open-mindedness. When you've thoroughly investigated a subject and come to definite conclusions about it, you're not being closed-minded to stick with those conclusions. Unless, of course, new evidence crops up which you choose to ignore. I've thoroughly investigatd the roots of Christianity, and especially of the various forms of creationism, and have concluded that I want no part of them because they go against a great many facts. I see no new evidence that would influence me to change my mind. I constantly see new evidence that reinforces my conclusions.
On the other hand, I see a great deal of closed-mindedness on the part of many Christians, because they refuse to investigate anything outside the narrow scope of Christian apologetics. They refuse to engage in substantive argumentation with informed critics, except perhaps in settings specifically designed to "win" debates before audiences largely comprised of people ignorant of most of the relvant facts, such as the farces put on by Duane Gish and company. You yourself, as I and other posters have pointed out, are a very good example of this aversion to real debate.
: I realize that you have studied in earnest on the several topics that you share with us. I respect your research of the sciences and readily admit your superior knowlege. I just want you to see that there really are two sides to every issue and that 'the jury is still out' when it comes to disproving or proving what the facts really are. You seem to be a naruralist and I am a supernaturalist. I bear no ill will toward you and apologize for my disrespect.
Ok.
: I can even 'break bread' with a liberal like Bishop Spong while contending that he is dead wrong! My hope is that you get that supernatural touch in your life and that the Lord reveals Himself to you in an unmistakable way.
Been there, done that, didn't work.
: I got along real well with Jim Penton though we are diametrically opposed on theology. We got to talk and fellowhip at the Berean Conference in '99 & 2000, which is held every summer at Grove City College in Pennsylvania.
I get along fine with Penton, although we certainly don't see eye to eye on some topics. But he at least is very open to serious debate and discussion, and doesn't shrink back from dealing with difficult topics. He also admits when he has no answer to a serious problem, which is more than I can say for Fundamentalist Christians.
:: Having skimmed a couple of the links, I find that it's a complete waste of time to read further. Your man James Patrick Holding writes a better defense than you do, but it's still pretty bad.
: If it is so bad why not take his debate challenge?
Because it is so bad. And life is too short to waste time on people like that. Others have already done a far better job than I could in dealing with the basics of his claims.
You yourself could actually make a start in substantive debate by going back to your recent posts and doing the research to actually answer the challenges I put to you. But based on your history, I know you won't dare do that.
AlanF