No changes to meaning to be seen at all.

And the KJV is the one my grandmother swears by. :p

Though many people do agree that it's not the best version, many others do.

(February 25, 2014 at 4:59 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: No changes to meaning to be seen at all.

This is such a red herring.

1. Christians believe the original texts are infallible, not any one particular English translation of them.
2. The King James Bible is not the first translation of the Bible into English.
3. There are numerous English translations today that are based off of older manuscripts written in the original languages.
4. Fragments of John’s gospel actually date to as early as 90AD, not the 4th Century.
5. We could re-construct the entire New Testament just from the quotations of it by the early church fathers.
6. The New Testament is the best attested work we have from antiquity.
7. Did you even bother reading the reference articles for that image? I did and I think it’d be a good idea for you to do so before you post something like this again.

Facts matter.

(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(February 25, 2014 at 4:59 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: No changes to meaning to be seen at all.

This is such a red herring.

1. Christians believe the original texts are infallible, not any one particular English translation of them.

Cool, do you have any original texts to present? Last I checked, the Q source was still missing from all current versions.

(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 2. The King James Bible is not the first translation of the Bible into English.

Yes, and none of them directly translated from original source documents.

(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 3. There are numerous English translations today that are based off of older manuscripts written in the original languages.

Translations of source material translated again, with problematic word translations, like "Virgin".

(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 4. Fragments of John’s gospel actually date to as early as 90AD, not the 4th Century.

The Nag Hamadi scriptures date as early as 2 AD, and yet are not included in contemporary translations of the bible because they don't match the canon of current interpretations of the bible.

(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 5. We could re-construct the entire New Testament just from the quotations of it by the early church fathers.

"Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the John Rylands manuscript, P52; oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century. The vast majority of these manuscripts date after the 10th century. Although there are more manuscripts that preserve the New Testament than there are for any other ancient writing, the exact form of the text preserved in these later, numerous manuscripts may not be identical to the form of the text as it existed in antiquity."

So are you saying that a wide variety of fragment sources of varying dates = Veracity?

(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 6. The New Testament is the best attested work we have from antiquity.

Speaking of Red Herrings, this has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of the text.

(February 25, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 7. Did you even bother reading the reference articles for that image? I did and I think it’d be a good idea for you to do so before you post something like this again.

Facts matter.

You have facts to present? Where are they? All I see is a bunch of righteous indignation and crying over an infographic.

The only red herring here is "Well, a bunch of people back up the New Testament as being copied from earlier versions of the New Testament: So as you can clearly see, the New Testament is in fact the word of God!"

SW Wrote:

BW Wrote:Most available, maybe, but is it the most used? Still, that's not to say that any other version is any less prone to translation errors rife with early revisions and rewrites from times past. If there are no existing, original texts, scrolls, or documents, then why bother claiming that it's perfect/infallible? It's demonstrably changed (even a single translation tends to have that effect), so there's no point in deluding oneself further.

Early Christians created so many copies of scripture and distributed them so quickly and to such a widespread area revisions and tampering would have been impossible. You sound like you’re basing your understanding of the facts off of Dan Brown or something.

That actually sounds like tampering would have been more likely. I've never read Dan Brown nor seen any of his movies; your ad homs fall a bit short this time. I base my understanding off of experience in linguistics. There's no such thing as a perfect translation. What, did god guide the very hands that wrote every word in the Bible, and, afterwards, did he stamp the words in cast iron to stand for all eternity?

From the moment the words were written, the text was doomed. No god could possibly circumvent this fact unless he hand-delivered the message himself to each new generation of people until the end of their days. And even then misinterpretation of that god's words would occur.

(February 25, 2014 at 8:58 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: The only red herring here is "Well, a bunch of people back up the New Testament as being copied from earlier versions of the New Testament: So as you can clearly see, the New Testament is in fact the word of God!"

Much of the NT isn't even the words of some two-bit phony named "Paul."

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Pastorals.htm

Quote:Pseudepigraphic Letters: The three Pastoral Letters, along with three other Deutero-Pauline epistles (Col, Eph, 2 Thess), are attributed to the apostle Paul, but were almost certainly not written by Paul himself. Rather, they are probably pseudepigraphic (i.e., written in Paul's name by one or more of his followers after his death).

But xtians don't care how much of their holy horseshit is fictitious. As long as they have something to believe they are as happy as fucking sheep.

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You just conceded that our understanding of the evidence is never certain and it could all drastically change in a matter of years like it has done hundreds of times before in the past; so why would this be a problem?

Because "could" is not the same as "will." Your view of this seems to be that if science can be wrong, then it automatically is wrong whenever it conflicts with something you want to believe/comes from a source that claims to never be wrong. That's so spurious, I shouldn't even have to point out why.

Quote: Secondly, I do not believe we are both using the term faith in the same sense. I have logically sound reasons for believing that the Bible’s claims about history are true, and logically sound arguments should never be abandoned simply because of our current understanding of science.

It is logical, looking at the landscape around you, to conclude that the earth is flat. Our current understanding of science says otherwise; are you still going to stick to this "don't abandon logical sounding arguments in favor of evidence," schtick?

Quote: I said that if you start with an anti-Biblical perspective you will interpret the evidence to mean the Earth is billions of years old; I think it’s a misconception to say the evidence points one way or the other without requiring a priori assumptions in order to be interpreted.

So when our radiometric dating suite concludes that parts of the earth are older than the young earthers say the planet is, it's merely bias that leads us to conclude that's what the radiometric evidence says?

Quote:Both children could be lying, that is true. However, I cannot use the second child’s testimony to prove the first child is lying because he keeps altering his testimony and therefore contradicting himself. The only way I can prove the first child is in fact lying is by finding some sort of internal logical contradiction in his story.

The second child would only be contradicting himself if he insisted that no changes in his story had occurred. If he simply alters his story to fit additional information coming in, what he's doing is "correcting himself." Meanwhile, in keeping with our comparisons here, the first child's story is physically impossible according to everything we do know. You're saying to accept the first child sight unseen because we don't know everything, and at least his story is consistent(ly impossible) while ignoring the second child because he accepts where he is wrong and amends his story to fit the new record. How crazy is that?

If I'm relating directions to you, and a person next to me corrects me on the name of a single street, and I then change my directions to fit that and continue on, do you then conclude that the entirety of my directions are wrong because I've changed my answer?

Quote:Yes and all Christians should do this if they truly believe what they claim to believe about scripture. Now this does not actually happen very often, I was able to get science degrees and now work in a scientific field just fine because the Bible is very friendly to the operational sciences.

I think that says a lot about you, that a claim of infallibility means more to you than honest corrections. By the way, how did you confirm that the bible is indeed infallible, especially when it actually, demonstrably isn't, on some respects? Isn't just one incorrect statement enough to disallow infallibility?

Or is this just a matter of accepting claims that you want to believe, in spite of reality?

Quote:
On the contrary, I think I am being very intellectually honest and rather logical. I think true dishonesty occurs when someone quietly assumes beforehand that the Bible is wrong in order to interpret the evidence and then uses this interpretation to argue that the Bible is indeed wrong. Secondly, you’re doing the very same thing I am doing but without any rational justification for doing so. When current scientific understandings contradict the Bible I will always side with scripture because I believe it is infallible. When the Bible contradicts your understanding of current science you will always accept current science even though you know science is fallible-which makes no sense whatsoever. At least I have a very good reason for what I am doing.

No Stat, you don't have a good reason: what you have is a claim of infallibility that you're preferencing for no good reason. Because the bible is not infallible:just off the top of my head, rabbits do not chew cud. I have a rabbit, so I can demonstrate this to be true. Therefore, the bible is not infallible, it just claims it is.

There. Now they're on equal footing again, only one source- the bible- is lying about being infallible, and the other has evidence for it.

Quote:Properly identify your axioms= young earth. Hide under the dishonest pretense that you have no axioms = old Earth. I’ll take the former.

Oh? When did I ever say I didn't have axioms? I just don't feel the need to invent an imaginary layer of existence which has no justification at all in order to paradoxically support my axioms.

Quote:That’s too bad you look at it that way but whether or not you find something insulting is irrelevant in regards to its truth. We’ve played this game before; you cannot make sense of your assumptions in a manner consistent with your materialism and I can make sense of mine consistently with the Bible. This means you’re using borrowed capital.

Stat, just rushing in and claiming "first," on reality and epistemology doesn't mean that you actually own them.

Quote:I have to disregard none of it because the evidence is very friendly to the Bible when using that conceptual scheme.

And what does that biblical conceptual scheme have you do with evidence for an old earth?

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Person 1: “Hey Statler, how was your party?”
SW: “It was great, everyone had a great time, except for Pocaracas because he could not make it.”
Person 2: “Hey Statler, how was your party?”
SW: “It was great, everyone had a great time.”

Come on, man!!!
Why me?!?!?!?!?!

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Ever heard of the project to domesticate foxes in Siberia?

No I have not, those Russians…always scheming. I doubt they’re sequencing the Foxes’ genomes in order to monitor the filtering of mutations. Cool video though.

As I read about it, they just keep the foxes which are more friendly to humans and release the others into the wild.
In time, it shouldn't be difficult to sequence the genome of wild fixes and compare it to the domesticated ones.

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Why?
It makes 80 generations go by much faster, thus eliminating deleterious genetic mutations chronologically faster.

You’re eliminating the ones that are selectable yes but you are compiling the others at a much faster rate; thus bringing on the advent of error catastrophe much more quickly.

Faster rate? really?

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Considering that you're working your way to near-neutral mutations, then I'd have to say no.
Sometimes, what seems like deleterious is really not.
Like color blindness... not really impairing the ability to survive and breed, is it?

No it’s not, but that’s not really the issue. The issue is whether or not it is degrading the overall functionality of the genome; which it is. Undergoing this sort of entropy is not viable over a deep time model.

Stat, old boy... maybe that's how new species arise within the same genus.

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: There are animals which adapt to life in near darkness... and lose the ability to see.... some even lose their eyes altogether.
Apparently deleterious, right?.... but didn't affect their ability to survive and breed, so it's good.

I would not necessarily call it good, but you’re right that it’s not as deleterious as an animal that lives out in broad daylight losing its vision.

See? It's possible to have a seemingly deleterious mutation which, in fact, isn't deleterious.
It's deleterious in a given context, but not in another context. It may even be beneficial in the case of living your whole life in complete darkness, as no energy is wasted with a visual system and all the complexity it entails.

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: The concept of deleterious should pertain only to mutations that actually impair the ability to survive and breed.

I would disagree, a mutation that does not harm me now but could harm humans later on would still have a certain level of deleterious value to it now.

Aye... still... we are surrounded by such mutations.
Think about it.
Africans have curly hair for a purpose, it creates air pathways which help to prevent overheating of the brain.... in a hot environment.
Also, dark skin prevents melanoma.
Dark irises prevent glare in very bright scenarios.

Some humans developed straight hair, light skin and some lost all pigmentation in their irises (blue eyes)... all deleterious mutations, all could harm your chances of survival... in a sunny environment, like Africa.
But not in higher latitudes... which is where we find individuals with these deleterious mutations.
Why are these mutations allowed to persist?
Well, as far as skin pigmentation is concerned, higher latitudes mean colder environments, rendering the usage of clothes mandatory, so you no longer need pigmentation to protect from the sun's harmful rays.
Colder environment also means you're not at risk of brain overheating, in fact, you end up needing a nice flat hair that insulates your head.
etc...

Contrary to what some people would like, these mutated populations still belong to the same species that came out of Africa.

My point is... near-neutral deleterious mutations are not really deleterious, even if you compound several of them.
Some are only deleterious for life in a particular environment, but not so in another environment.

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Yes, it does exist... like cancer exists...
Compile enough of these mutations?... and you may become a different species! like those cave animals I was telling you above.

That’s debatable, I am not sure that a group of people who’d lost their ability to see would be considered a new species.

I did say "compile enough of there mutations", didn't I?
Not just one.
We've seen that, in humans, it is quite common to have at least 3 mutations, but still remain in the same species.

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: You only die when you get an actual deleterious mutation.

Or enough near-neutral mutations in order to cause your genome to cease functioning properly.

That happens when you get the final one which is indeed deleterious.
All others allowed the individual to survive and breed... that last one is the one that fails to provide this mechanism... hence it is not "near neutral" it is downright deleterious.

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Thou art forgiven.

Like I said above, these near-neutrals are only seemingly deleterious. And, if they accumulate enough to become actual deleterious, then the 80 generations rule takes over.... is the species can survive for 80 generations with that mutation...
If not, then yes... it's goodbye time.

We’re not talking about one single mutation here though; we are talking about hundreds upon hundres of copying errors that overtime can cause the entire genome to breakdown.

Indeed, sometimes the evolutionary branch ends... sometimes they just cause the emergence of a new species.

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Could it be because it was purposefully constructed to be internally consistent? You ever considered that?
The problem with that starting point is the initial connection with the observable reality... the actual existence of a divine entity.

It’d be impossible to contrive an internally consistent view of reality and have any part of it being true without the entire thing being true. If any part of the Christian view of reality is true then the entire thing is true because it is so internally consistent.

So... if Jerusalem exists, then Jesus and the apostles and the miracles and the ark and Abraham existed, too?
Is that how it works?

But I digress... It is possible to contrive a consistent view of reality and have a part of it being true without the entire thing being true: Newtonian physics.

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Mighty big IF you got there, don't you think?
Besides, why do you accept the claims of what those people wrote?
- The claim that they ware divinely inspired when writing...
- The claim that every pen stroke was ordained by god...
- The claim that it is infallible...

Why have faith in the contents of these writings... why accept them at face value?

I think my response above addresses this. It must be true.

Just because it's consistent?
My dear boy... The Lord of the Rings is internally consistent. At the end, the elves go to valinor, the wizards are no longer required and fade into myth, hobbits mingle with humans, orcs and trolls die out. Humans are the sole remaining intelligent species on (Middle) Earth... I look around me and that looks about right!
Does that make it true?
Why not?
Because we know it to be a work of fiction? What if we didn't have that information?
What if it had been presented as an accurate account of antiquity?

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: The people who follow the others will claim the same about all schemes that are not theirs...
Are they wrong?

I am actually not aware of any other religion that takes this sort of approach but yes they’d be demonstrably wrong because their views of reality are self-refuting whereas the Christian one is not.

hmm... I seem to remember a few of this site's fine muslim posters claim something of the sorts... let me search...

Here's a nice one from sleepy:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-21965.html

Another

(November 13, 2013 at 12:12 am)Sleepy Wrote: You're asking exactly the wrong questions. Why is Islam the religion of God? Because it is the most logical. I don't know what type of answer you're looking for but I can tell you it's the wrong answer as it is not unjustified to say there is one God because God is the Most Supreme Being in the Universe and there are none like Him.

(November 12, 2013 at 11:35 pm)Sleepy Wrote: The concept of God in Islam is truly the pure essence of philosophy of God. Everything else is against the purest Philosophy of God. In Christianity, God has limits. Jesus has to eat, sleep, poop. God knows no slumber. He has no needs.

You also have Muslim Scholar... he should know about these things... after all, he IS a scholar

(June 2, 2013 at 5:03 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: That is Islam; like or not it doesn't matter and it doesn't affect its validity as well because it is consistent.

Can't find any more... I'm sure there's loads more in this forum alone...

(February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How do we know something ought to produce the results we want? How are you choosing what you want?

These are interesting, if abstract, philosophical questions. Why do we like pleasure over pain, health over sickness, life over death? Of course, they're red herrings to distract from the point that science works and faith doesn't. The reasoning is quite clear and, as far as I can see, not circular as you maintain:

1. Approach A yields results X
2. Approach B yields results Y
3. X is preferred over Y
4. Approach A gets us the results we like
5. Approach A is preferred

To reduce this to "it works because it works" is a distortion.

Quote:We know that is a later addition because it does not show up until later on so it does not affect the original text any.

This is a significant alteration of an extraordinary event which, if in fact recorded by a reliable eye-witness, should have gotten it right the first time. This is just one example.

Quote:Nice! I ask how you know your understanding of the evidence is not in error and you respond with, “evidence”. You truly are the king of circularity.

Again, you fail to understand what circularity is.

You can use some sources of evidence to prove other independent sources of evidence. It's kind of like how you might write a book and footnote another book. It's not "circularity" to use a book to prove the assertions of your book.

Quote:That’s funny; most people become pro-life because of the advancements in science (even the late Hitchens struggled with reconciling a pro-choice ideology with science and ethics). Is there an issue that you are actually consistent on?

Show me that "scientific evidence" and I'll certainly consider it.

Quote:I’d prefer to have believed the Universe had a beginning the whole time rather than changing back and forth.

Reality doesn't care about your preference. It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you can prove.

Quote:Depends on what you mean by right. I’d take the student who identifies his axioms and operates consistently within them over the first one who operates under the delusion (and ironically enough, axiom) that he does not have any axioms.

My point is that you are quick to slap the label "axiom" on a bare assertion to hide the fact that it's a bare assertion.

Quote:No. It’s a proposition that is regarded as true a priori and used to reason from. “The exterior world is knowable” is a great example of an axiom I am sure you possess.

Even if the exterior world is not knowable, such as the hypothesis that we are just brains in a vat and all our surroundings are just a programmed illusion, this world is still all we experience and all we can study. The unknowable world may exist but can't be studied in any way and so pursuit of that study would be fruitless.

By contrast, the bare assertion "the Bible is True" is not a valuable axiom because it neither helps us understand the world outside the Bible nor is it necessary because there is a world outside the Bible that can be studied.

To try to defend your bare assertions as "axioms" by saying "you have axioms too" is the Tu Quoque defense with a heavy does of false comparison.

Quote:It’s impossible to interpret any data without first possessing a conceptual scheme that is inherently axiomatic.

Again, you try to create the false comparison between basil assumptions in science with the sweeping bare assertions of Biblical truth.

The basis assumptions of science are essential for any study at all. We must begin with the assumption "reality is real and not just an illusion" or else there's no point in studying anything at all. The justification for the basis assumptions comes in the validation from gaining the desired results (see the first point above). If you wish to indulge in post modern solipsism, feel free from the comfort of your living room, but don't expect to find the cure for cancer by this means.

By contrast, to begin with your assumptions of the desired conclusion followed by the search for any supporting data will surely contaminate your research by the process of cherry picking, confirmation bias and other logical pitfalls.

Quote:Actually that one is not axiomatic; it’s supported by the fact that you cannot make sense of any of your axioms consistently with your espoused views of reality. The Christian on the other hand has no problem doing so.

I'm still fuzzy on where my "worldview" is problematic. I believe I have provided justifications on why I believe reality is real or the world is knowable as well as why I believe that science is preferable as an approach to knowing things than faith.

The Christian, or more specifically, the presuppositional justification for their assumptions usually are variations on the themes of "God-Verb-It". These three word flippant assertions are neither elucidating nor are they needed to justify anything.

Quote:Regulating something does not equal morally condoning something.

If does when you say, "if you do X then you're OK."

Quote:Why did you arbitrarily choose from Abraham to Solomon?

Because Abraham is considered the prophet that started Judaism and its branch faiths, Christianity and Islam. Hence "Abrahamic religions".

Quote:No it doesn’t. It says David did not turn aside from anything that Yahweh commanded of him save for the one instance. There are sins that are not part of the Ten Commandments. We know that David sinned when he numbered his people, but this sin did not explicitly violate any of God’s commandments to His people.

"Sin" is defined as acting contrary to the will of Yahweh. If David always did the will of Yahweh, he never sinned. Yahweh certainly never saw fit to tell what is arguably the biggest icon of the Jewish faith to knock off his polygamy.

Quote:He didn’t change His mind; polygamy was a sin from creation onward, that is why Jesus says, “In the Beginning…”.

The NT is after the OT.

Quote:One says "never" and the other says "except in the case of...". I think this qualifies as a contradiction.

Quote:Moreover, this is not even a contradiction, it’s merely an issue of elaboration.

Your social evaluation is not applicable. We're talking about rules here, not social perceptions. Here's a hypothetical example that relates to my point:

Q. "Is preaching allowed on atheism forums?"
A. "No, it's never allowed."
Q. "Is preaching allowed on atheism forums?"
A. "Only in the 'religions' sections." *

This is a contradiction analogous to the rules on divorce in Mark and Matthew respectively.

*Not really. Just a hypothetical (wrong) answer.

Quote:You did not answer my question so I will ask it again, why does the verse say wife and not wives? According to you the Israelites did not start practicing monogamy until later on, so this verse should say wives, why does it only say wife?

Probably because most Isrealites would only have one wife, despite the practice of polygamy. After all, there are only so many women to go around and in such societies, one only married as many women as you could financially support. Polygamy is for the rich and powerful, in such societies.

Quote:Polygamy led men to ruin in all of the cases I can think of, so yes.

Not with Abraham, David, Solomon, to think of three off the top of my head.
[/quote]

(February 26, 2014 at 9:25 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Again, you try to create the false comparison between basil assumptions in science with the sweeping bare assertions of Biblical truth.

Did someone say Basil?!