Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-17-2013, 06:27 PM
 
Location: In a state of Grace
796 posts, read 853,103 times
Reputation: 173

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Personally, I think we've beaten this horse into pulp. If the megapastors on TBN, God Network, and a couple of other money-cranking stations are not representative of the Fundamentalist position then I apologize to plain and simple and to others whom I offended. I reiterate: my position is not to denigrate the Bible as a whole and to place it in the same category as a phone book. My intention is to wake up some of the people in here to the realization that it is not an error-free document that exists as if God Himself picked up a pen and scribbled it out. The apostles who wrote it probably got it right but God chose not to preserve those documents. What we got instead was a book of 50th generation copies filled with inaccuracies but still containing enough of an important, spirit-saving message of Jesus dying to save men from their sins. In the long run, that's all one needs to take away from it in order to be saved.

So, far as this thread goes I'm outta here.
Well as a Christian I feel you have attacked me personally about as low as a person can go. I do not read your worthless post anymore due to your vial attacks on innocent people you know nothing about. While I agree the TV garbage you are talking is about is crap, I am offended that you try and attach it to Christianity. Therefore until you stop your open hatred of God I shall place you on my blocked list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-17-2013, 06:32 PM
 
Location: New England
37,336 posts, read 28,045,767 times
Reputation: 2741
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Personally, I think we've beaten this horse into pulp. If the megapastors on TBN, God Network, and a couple of other money-cranking stations are not representative of the Fundamentalist position then I apologize to plain and simple and to others whom I offended. I reiterate: my position is not to denigrate the Bible as a whole and to place it in the same category as a phone book. My intention is to wake up some of the people in here to the realization that it is not an error-free document that exists as if God Himself picked up a pen and scribbled it out. The apostles who wrote it probably got it right but God chose not to preserve those documents. What we got instead was a book of 50th generation copies filled with inaccuracies but still containing enough of an important, spirit-saving message of Jesus dying to save men from their sins. In the long run, that's all one needs to take away from it in order to be saved.

So, far as this thread goes I'm outta here.
I do not believe TBN with all its faults is the face of christian fundamentalism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 06:41 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
32,890 posts, read 26,112,025 times
Reputation: 16012
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Personally, I think we've beaten this horse into pulp. If the megapastors on TBN, God Network, and a couple of other money-cranking stations are not representative of the Fundamentalist position then I apologize to plain and simple and to others whom I offended. I reiterate: my position is not to denigrate the Bible as a whole and to place it in the same category as a phone book. My intention is to wake up some of the people in here to the realization that it is not an error-free document that exists as if God Himself picked up a pen and scribbled it out. The apostles who wrote it probably got it right but God chose not to preserve those documents. What we got instead was a book of 50th generation copies filled with inaccuracies but still containing an important, spirit-saving message of Jesus dying to save men from their sins. In the long run, that's all one needs to take away from it in order to be saved.

So far as this thread goes I'm outta here.
You can't wake up anyone else when you yourself don't know what you're talking about. Inerrancy refers to the original autographs. Not to the manuscript copies. The original autographs as penned by the human writers of Scripture under the guidance of God the Holy Spirit were without error.

As for the reliability of the Bible as we have it today, I posted the following thread back in May which quotes what top experts in Biblical textual criticism such as F.F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, Dan Wallace, and even Bart D. Ehrman when he's not writing to the general public have to say about it. //www.city-data.com/forum/chris...liability.html The idea that the Bible can't be trusted is a falsehood promoted by people who are ignorant of the facts.

Last edited by Michael Way; 06-17-2013 at 07:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
17,071 posts, read 10,816,815 times
Reputation: 1869
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
You give up what? ... the only thing I see you gave up was answering my question...

What are you trying to do?
What he was trying to do is tell you that the point is not about how much difference the two different presentations make, but about why there should be two different presentations in the first place. This is just one example of likely redaction to fit what the manuscript says to developed theology, and the point is that it was not considered inappropriate to change what was written to match current understanding at that time. That is a modern perception (which also happens to be a great improvement in historical methodology).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
10,688 posts, read 7,646,187 times
Reputation: 4674
Default Liberals and Fundamentalists agree about one thing

Three things I think both sides of the different view of the Scriptures have is that the Bible is worthy of study, that it can lead to a deeper understanding of how God desires us to live our lives, and that for all we may believe about it, it remains a well whose depths we can never completely explore no matter how much or how long we read it.

The OP's attempt to attack Fundamentalists is not something that I support even with my less literal view of the Scriptures. It is, IMO, just an attempt to start a battle instead of providing a platform for measured thinking and appraisal. Not something that a thinking Christian would do, and absolutely something an unbeliever might do to drive a deeper wedge between those who name the name of Christ as Lord and Savior.

The best thing done with this thread by those who claim that "there is something about that name", as the old song goes, is to simply leave it alone and let it go to its grave.

Get thee behind me-----
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 07:04 PM
 
278 posts, read 305,954 times
Reputation: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Lastly, my point is not to discredit the Bible, it's just to show that it is a unique book with flaws that the Fundies are absolutely unwilling to acknowledge.
These minor flaws aren't the biggest problem with this 'unique' book.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Arizona
28,956 posts, read 16,160,537 times
Reputation: 2295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
You can't wake up anyone else when you yourself don't know what you're talking about. Inerrancy refers to the original autographs. Not to the manuscript copies. The original autographs as penned by the human writers of Scripture under the guidance of God the Holy Spirit were without error.

As for the reliability of the Bible as we have it today, I posted the following thread back in May which quotes what top experts in Biblical textual criticism such as F.F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, Dan Wallace, and even Bart D. Ehrman when he's not writing to the general public have to say about it. //www.city-data.com/forum/chris...liability.html The idea that the Bible can't be trusted is a falsehood promoted by people who are ignorant of the facts.
Textual criticism is not applied to the original autographs, but to the copies of copies. If you do not have the originals, then all you are saying is that the copies are a reflection of each other; not the original autographs. And do not forget about the translational errors within the copies themselves, which seems to be the point of contention within this and other forums. The pseudo authorities have a need to protect their profession, least their "higher education" be wasted for naught. But that is just an opinion, much in line with theirs, considering that they themselves are not 100% certain. A doctrine from the mistranslation of one or two words is not minor thing, either. We are not talking about punctuation; but misrepresentation.

I need to get a cold one to wash down this popcorn with extra-butter, while watching doctrines.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 09:04 PM
 
18,189 posts, read 16,756,126 times
Reputation: 7418
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
What he was trying to do is tell you that the point is not about how much difference the two different presentations make, but about why there should be two different presentations in the first place. This is just one example of likely redaction to fit what the manuscript says to developed theology, and the point is that it was not considered inappropriate to change what was written to match current understanding at that time. That is a modern perception (which also happens to be a great improvement in historical methodology).
THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK YOU!!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
Textual criticism is not applied to the original autographs, but to the copies of copies. If you do not have the originals, then all you are saying is that the copies are a reflection of each other; not the original autographs. And do not forget about the translational errors within the copies themselves, which seems to be the point of contention within this and other forums. The pseudo authorities have a need to protect their profession, least their "higher education" be wasted for naught. But that is just an opinion, much in line with theirs, considering that they themselves are not 100% certain. A doctrine from the mistranslation of one or two words is not minor thing, either. We are not talking about punctuation; but misrepresentation.

I need to get a cold one to wash down this popcorn with extra-butter, while watching doctrines.com
THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK YOU!!!

You both said it better than I ever could have!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 09:20 PM
 
63,406 posts, read 39,657,660 times
Reputation: 7780
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
You give up what? ... the only thing I see you gave up was answering my question...
What are you trying to do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
What he was trying to do is tell you that the point is not about how much difference the two different presentations make, but about why there should be two different presentations in the first place. This is just one example of likely redaction to fit what the manuscript says to developed theology, and the point is that it was not considered inappropriate to change what was written to match current understanding at that time. That is a modern perception (which also happens to be a great improvement in historical methodology).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
Textual criticism is not applied to the original autographs, but to the copies of copies. If you do not have the originals, then all you are saying is that the copies are a reflection of each other; not the original autographs. And do not forget about the translational errors within the copies themselves, which seems to be the point of contention within this and other forums. The pseudo authorities have a need to protect their profession, least their "higher education" be wasted for naught. But that is just an opinion, much in line with theirs, considering that they themselves are not 100% certain. A doctrine from the mistranslation of one or two words is not minor thing, either. We are not talking about punctuation; but misrepresentation.
I need to get a cold one to wash down this popcorn with extra-butter, while watching doctrines.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK YOU!!!!
THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK YOU!!!
You both said it better than I ever could have!
Indeed!! Textual criticism and all efforts to interpret written communications across generations, cultures and languages are fraught with almost insurmountable obstacles that must be bridged using extensive knowledge, reason and myriad sources . . . making exegesis of single English translations using Sola Scriptura absurdly myopic and error prone. Certainly mere casual reading by untrained masses is fraught with misunderstanding . . . if they do not ask Jesus (WWJT) when reading to filter out the error. The Roman Catholic Church understood this problem and prevented casual reading of the Bible for centuries. Of course they corrupted Christ's Gospel in their own right and abused their power and control egregiously in so many ways that this tiny bit of wisdom is hardly exculpatory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 10:11 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
32,890 posts, read 26,112,025 times
Reputation: 16012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
Textual criticism is not applied to the original autographs, but to the copies of copies. If you do not have the originals, then all you are saying is that the copies are a reflection of each other; not the original autographs. And do not forget about the translational errors within the copies themselves, which seems to be the point of contention within this and other forums. The pseudo authorities have a need to protect their profession, least their "higher education" be wasted for naught. But that is just an opinion, much in line with theirs, considering that they themselves are not 100% certain. A doctrine from the mistranslation of one or two words is not minor thing, either. We are not talking about punctuation; but misrepresentation.

I need to get a cold one to wash down this popcorn with extra-butter, while watching doctrines.com
You made these same objections in that thread. Your comments reflect your ignorance of the facts and your personal opinion. Your dismissal of the top textual critics as pseudo authorities trying to protect their profession reflects your personal bias.

Of course Textual criticism is not applied to the original autographs. If we had the original autographs there would be no point in using textual criticism. That should be quite obvious.

The purpose of Textual criticism is to compare the extant manuscript copies with the goal of arriving as closely as possible to the content of the original autographs. Through textual criticism those translational errors you refer to are discovered which brings us closer to the original text.

Despite your objections, the simple fact of the matter is that the evidence for the New Testament writings is far greater than the evidence for other ancient works whose authenticity is not questioned.

One of the quotes in my other thread is from F. F. Bruce.

F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England. He stated...
Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice. [The New Testament Documents; Are They Reliable?, F.F. Bruce, pgs. 14-15.]
A quote which I did not use in the other thread is from British paleographer and biblical and classical scholar, Sir Frederic Kenyon (1863 - 1952). He wrote...
The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest exant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. ['The Bible and Archeology' (1940), pp. 288-89; as quoted in 'The New Testament Documents', F.F. Bruce, p. 15]
If the value of textual criticism as applied to the Bible is to be dismissed, then its value as applied to all ancient works must be dismissed as well.

Quite frankly, you simply are not qualified to dismiss the value of textual criticism. Better stick with spouting your dimestore philosophy and fortune cookie sayings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top