On a human scale, per our standards, it's a heinously fucked-up thing to even consider, but the problem is the historical, temporal context and, given the relative morality that affords, I can only shake my head and wonder how the fuck that is supposed to jibe with the Ten Commandments. I suppose it's not murder when it's sacrifice, but oh, how it smacks of hypocrisy and smells soooo faulty and human.

(June 30, 2011 at 8:55 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh I get ya. Well using multiple translations is to improve my understanding of the scripture, not to minimize error. There are a couple errors in the KJV and I believe one or two in the NIV but we are well aware of them. Some translations like the NASB and ESV are literal translations they translate everything exactly how it was written in the manuscript. Some translations like the NIV are translated in a way that better suits the English language, they are great for picking up and getting a quick knowledge of what the text meant. It's good to use several versions for this reason. As to your other question, science is never based on consensus but biblical scholarship is far more based on it, although not completely. So it's not really a double standard, just different areas of scholarship. Good discussion.

The thing about the Old and New Testaments is that we have now thousands of manuscripts of both dating back to 150 BCE, which makes the Holy Bible the most well preserved of ancient texts. So the reliability of the Holy Bible in my opinion is a non-issue.

My main issue with particularly the New Testament is that of deliberate editing of the text, which Bart D Ehrman outlined very well in his latest book Forged. Although the alterations of the text Bart D Ehrman outlined are actually quite minor and would not affect the interpretation of the New Testament by Christians. As Ehrman outlined in Forged, these alterations were made by what Ehrman termed the "proto-orthodox" to combat "heretics".

The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) which is the bible I have on my bookshelf is such an excellent translation, because there are footnotes talking about passages which have been either added in or altered.

Well preserved =/= reliable, save as a massive set of documents for the concordance makers.

Your opinion may be that the reliability of the bible is a non-issue. Your opinions unfortunately do not have the power to shape factual reality. The idea that internal consistency (a quality which the bible does not possess, no matter how many times one might say that it does) even implies veracity would make the Twilight series of books an accurate representation of reality. They present us with a consistent narrative, there are millions of "well preserved" copies, all of which match word for word.

quote='Rhythm' pid='150616' dateline='1309484214'] [/quote]

We already had this discussion before you got on here. It didn’t go anywhere. I produced evidence that atheists would not accept for the exodus, they produced evidence against it that I wouldn’t accept. So I am not really going to open up that can of worms again.
Viewing the Bible as historically inaccurate is actually a minority position and really is not one you should hang your hat on.

(June 30, 2011 at 9:39 pm)Epimethean Wrote:

---

Interestingly, though Dawkins has a mixed history in debates, Hitchens tends to do very well indeed against the apologists. I put that down more to personality type than difference in argument.

---

I am a bit shocked you even said this. I put Dawkins way above Hitchens. Sure Hitch is a gifted speaker and can make an occasional funny from time to time but that In no way makes him a good debater. He side steps issues, makes similar arguments in every single debate, and overall is just pretty weak. A classic example would be in his debate with Douglas Wilson where Wilson points out that Hitchens actually has to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it. Wilson made an analogy that it would be similar to stealing a car and driving it into the ditch and then saying, “Look your car is in the ditch!” Rather than addressing his point, Hitchens just made a “funny” with the analogy. “Actually I found the Christian car in the ditch.” The crowd laughed and the debate moved on, but when you actually think about it, did he even address the issue that he was borrowing from the Christian worldview in order to attack it? Of course not, that’s what he does, bobs and weaves. I am looking forward to seeing the debate between Lennox and Hitchens, I love Lennox.

(June 30, 2011 at 9:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

---

(June 29, 2011 at 7:52 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No, Minimalist, the quote you've posted is a cosmological argument, which he has stated is not, in fact, his position. That particular piece of wisdom is just something that fell out of his mouth, not his position.

Every premise he has begins with the assumption that his fucking fairy tales are true. If that isn't a "position" I don't know what is.

---

Every premise you ever put forth begins with the assumption that the Bible is false, so don't pretend that you are some neutral observer.

(June 30, 2011 at 10:39 pm)Epimethean Wrote:

---

On a human scale, per our standards, it's a heinously fucked-up thing to even consider, but the problem is the historical, temporal context and, given the relative morality that affords, I can only shake my head and wonder how the fuck that is supposed to jibe with the Ten Commandments. I suppose it's not murder when it's sacrifice, but oh, how it smacks of hypocrisy and smells soooo faulty and human.

---

What are you referring to?

(July 1, 2011 at 8:48 am)Ziggystardust Wrote:

---

(June 30, 2011 at 8:55 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh I get ya. Well using multiple translations is to improve my understanding of the scripture, not to minimize error. There are a couple errors in the KJV and I believe one or two in the NIV but we are well aware of them. Some translations like the NASB and ESV are literal translations they translate everything exactly how it was written in the manuscript. Some translations like the NIV are translated in a way that better suits the English language, they are great for picking up and getting a quick knowledge of what the text meant. It's good to use several versions for this reason. As to your other question, science is never based on consensus but biblical scholarship is far more based on it, although not completely. So it's not really a double standard, just different areas of scholarship. Good discussion.

The thing about the Old and New Testaments is that we have now thousands of manuscripts of both dating back to 150 BCE, which makes the Holy Bible the most well preserved of ancient texts. So the reliability of the Holy Bible in my opinion is a non-issue.

My main issue with particularly the New Testament is that of deliberate editing of the text, which Bart D Ehrman outlined very well in his latest book Forged. Although the alterations of the text Bart D Ehrman outlined are actually quite minor and would not affect the interpretation of the New Testament by Christians. As Ehrman outlined in Forged, these alterations were made by what Ehrman termed the "proto-orthodox" to combat "heretics".

The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) which is the bible I have on my bookshelf is such an excellent translation, because there are footnotes talking about passages which have been either added in or altered.

---

Careful with Ehrman though, the guy refuses to debate other Biblical Scholars and Historians on his claims, he acts like a dishonest man to me

(July 1, 2011 at 9:23 am)Rhythm Wrote:

---

Your opinion may be that the reliability of the bible is a non-issue. Your opinions unfortunately do not have the power to shape factual reality. The idea that internal consistency (a quality which the bible does not possess, no matter how many times one might say that it does) even implies veracity would make the Twilight series of books an accurate representation of reality. They present us with a consistent narrative, there are millions of "well preserved" copies, all of which match word for word.

---

.

You harp on someone for giving an opinion (even though he did back it up with facts), but then you proceed to give an opinion which you have never backed up with fact (the that Bible is internally inconsistent)?

You're a troll, end of.

Quote:Every premise you ever put forth begins with the assumption that the Bible is false, so don't pretend that you are some neutral observer.

Archaeology has pretty well trashed your bullshit bible. We have evidence. You have fairy tales.

http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Referenc...ers%29.htm

Quote:That is no longer the case. In the last quarter century or so, archaeologists have seen one settled assumption after another concerning who the ancient Israelites were and where they came from proved false. Rather than a band of invaders who fought their way into the Holy Land, the Israelites are now thought to have been an 'indigenous culture that developed west of the Jordan River around 1200 B.C. Abraham, Isaac, and the other patriarchs appear to have been spliced together out of various pieces of local lore.

But, of course, as a useless bible fanatic I would expect you to reject anything which upsets your carefully crafted world of fantasy. This is why I consider you an idiot. You might be able to help yourself but first you have to accept that you need help.

The fact is, you won't do that because you prefer fantasy to reality.

Reality is out there if you'd stop reading your stupid fucking bible long enough to find it.

But you won't.

(July 1, 2011 at 4:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You're a troll, end of.

I think the same thing about you, we will see how long you sitck around.

---

(July 1, 2011 at 4:44 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

---

Quote:Every premise you ever put forth begins with the assumption that the Bible is false, so don't pretend that you are some neutral observer.

Archaeology has pretty well trashed your bullshit bible. We have evidence. You have fairy tales.

http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Referenc...ers%29.htm

Quote:That is no longer the case. In the last quarter century or so, archaeologists have seen one settled assumption after another concerning who the ancient Israelites were and where they came from proved false. Rather than a band of invaders who fought their way into the Holy Land, the Israelites are now thought to have been an 'indigenous culture that developed west of the Jordan River around 1200 B.C. Abraham, Isaac, and the other patriarchs appear to have been spliced together out of various pieces of local lore.

But, of course, as a useless bible fanatic I would expect you to reject anything which upsets your carefully crafted world of fantasy. This is why I consider you an idiot. You might be able to help yourself but first you have to accept that you need help.

The fact is, you won't do that because you prefer fantasy to reality.

Reality is out there if you'd stop reading your stupid fucking bible long enough to find it.

But you won't.

---

You live under the delusion that there are not Archeologists who believe in the Bible, you also seem to ignore the fact that National Geographic had an entire series a few years ago supporting the historical accounts in the Bible, they are hardly a Christian organization. So you just resort to calling me names, which is one reason I was so shocked to find out you were so old. Act like it for once.

The bible. The book that skips the middle of the hero's life.

Will never make a good movie.

(July 1, 2011 at 4:56 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: The bible. The book that skips the middle of the hero's life.

Will never make a good movie.

It gets his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. That's all we need.