The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Tired of wandering the lawless wilds of the AC&A forum? Have a friendly chat in our cozy, velvet-covered civility lounge. Alcohol not permitted, only the Kenny G button works on the jukebox. All undesirable types will be quietly escorted out the back door.

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Simplyme » Sat Jan 16, 2016 10:47 pm

So this suggests that because Genesis was NOT in verse, that it was not originally an oral history. Thank you for pointing that out.


If it was not originally an oral story, then who wrote Genesis and when was it written? Was it written as it happened? That's hard to imagine, nobody could of written about the earth being created...nobody was there. Who wrote about Adam & Eve? I know you are not claiming it was Adam or Eve? Was it Moses, as many believe? How much time passed from the creation of this world to Moses writing Genesis? If he did not get the account orally, how was he able to know these things?
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5953
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Sun Jan 17, 2016 12:26 am

Simplyme wrote:
Science-the-knowledge-base tells us that it is very unlikely in the general case for a man to rise again after being thoroughly and carefully killed. But the claim of Christians is not that any general man may rise from the dead after being thoroughly and completely killed. It is that One Man did so. And because that singular case is so unlikely -- after all, if it happened all the time, then it would be repeatable, wouldn't it? -- we must pay careful attention to it.


See you guys want me to take you serious when I find the above hilarious.

I would say science(have no idea why you would add "the knowledge base") tells us it is "highly" unlikely in any case for a man to rise again after being thoroughly and carefully killed. Then you claim that xtians claim that it was only One man? How easy you xtians forget Matthew 27:52 "The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised". So if it is the xtians claim that it only happened once with one man, I think you should be studying the bible a little more. Lets say it was just one man......Why must we pay special attention to it? Because its in the bible? Do you pay special attention to all unlikely stories? Do you pay special attention to stories abut aliens? Do you pay special attention to stories about big foot? Do you pay special attention to stories about Santa?

Moderators, it is my belief that this post violates the rules of this section. Please take such action as you find appropriate.

Thank you.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Sun Jan 17, 2016 12:27 am

Simplyme wrote:
So this suggests that because Genesis was NOT in verse, that it was not originally an oral history. Thank you for pointing that out.

If it was not originally an oral story, then who wrote Genesis and when was it written? Was it written as it happened? That's hard to imagine, nobody could of written about the earth being created...nobody was there. Who wrote about Adam & Eve? I know you are not claiming it was Adam or Eve? Was it Moses, as many believe? How much time passed from the creation of this world to Moses writing Genesis? If he did not get the account orally, how was he able to know these things?

The very posts you cited answer those questions. I've already told you that I will entertain no more simplistic digressions.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Simplyme » Sun Jan 17, 2016 12:35 pm

Moderators, it is my belief that this post violates the rules of this section. Please take such action as you find appropriate.

Thank you.


How is it violating the rules? :roll:
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5953
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Simplyme » Sun Jan 17, 2016 12:47 pm

Og3 wrote:
Simplyme wrote:
So this suggests that because Genesis was NOT in verse, that it was not originally an oral history. Thank you for pointing that out.

If it was not originally an oral story, then who wrote Genesis and when was it written? Was it written as it happened? That's hard to imagine, nobody could of written about the earth being created...nobody was there. Who wrote about Adam & Eve? I know you are not claiming it was Adam or Eve? Was it Moses, as many believe? How much time passed from the creation of this world to Moses writing Genesis? If he did not get the account orally, how was he able to know these things?

The very posts you cited answer those questions. I've already told you that I will entertain no more simplistic digressions.


I'm confused. You started this post. Why are you now refusing to answer questions that are hard?

I thought they were legit questions. I'm wondering how you never came across these questions in your 50 years of study?

You claim it was not originally an oral story, If it were not originally oral then it was written down somewhere. Who wrote it down? Was the person writing it, there as a firsthand witness? As I stated, that would be hard as nobody was there when god was creating things. Do you believe Moses to have written Genesis? How much time has past from the first creation and Moses time? If he wrote about these accounts without being there and it was not orally told to him. Then where did he read about these accounts?
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5953
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby CL Moderator » Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:44 pm

Og3 wrote:
Simplyme wrote:
Science-the-knowledge-base tells us that it is very unlikely in the general case for a man to rise again after being thoroughly and carefully killed. But the claim of Christians is not that any general man may rise from the dead after being thoroughly and completely killed. It is that One Man did so. And because that singular case is so unlikely -- after all, if it happened all the time, then it would be repeatable, wouldn't it? -- we must pay careful attention to it.


See you guys want me to take you serious when I find the above hilarious.

I would say science(have no idea why you would add "the knowledge base") tells us it is "highly" unlikely in any case for a man to rise again after being thoroughly and carefully killed. Then you claim that xtians claim that it was only One man? How easy you xtians forget Matthew 27:52 "The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised". So if it is the xtians claim that it only happened once with one man, I think you should be studying the bible a little more. Lets say it was just one man......Why must we pay special attention to it? Because its in the bible? Do you pay special attention to all unlikely stories? Do you pay special attention to stories abut aliens? Do you pay special attention to stories about big foot? Do you pay special attention to stories about Santa?

Moderators, it is my belief that this post violates the rules of this section. Please take such action as you find appropriate.

Thank you.

We have had our eye on the thread, and we will confer and get back to you shortly.

Remember that you may use the "Report this Post" button to share your concerns with us. This typically avoids a back-and-forth on the thread about whether or not the post is problematic.
User avatar
CL Moderator
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:55 pm

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:36 am

Og3 wrote:Now, as to Josephus, and the Jewish Wars:

There is a lot of data available, because this was a very popular book. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe, many Christian households might have contained only one or two books. If one, that one was almost without exception the Bible, and if two, that second book was almost without exception The Jewish Wars. Why? Because it provides the best extra-biblical source of information about first century Judea.

As a result, to search for details about Josephus means winnowing a lot of chaff from wheat, but I rely here on Gary J. Goldberg, PhD., a scholar specializing in the works of Josephus as historical documents. One of his papers on the subject of Josephus may be found here:
http://www.academia.edu/11901637/The_Coincidences_of_the_Emmaus_Narrative_of_Luke_and_the_Testimonium_of_Josephus

The Earliest Greek texts of Josephus -- the mss. copies like we've been talking about with Gallic Wars and the Iliad, date from around the tenth and eleventh centuries -- yes, once again, the closest copies to the autographs are 1000 years later. We do have some good luck here, though, because there is a Latin translation of Josephus dating as early as the fifth century. We also have "reflected works," that is, portions quoted by other ancient writers, such as Eusebius (fourth century).

One possible source for further information about the provenance of Josephus' Jewish Wars may be found here: http://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL203/1927/pb_LCL203.xxiii.xml -- The reader is asked to note, incidentally, that the King Agrippa whom we meet in Acts may likely have served as an editor and advisor to Josephus in the earliest Aramaic and Greek editions.

So we add Josephus to the table:

TITLE ............ MSS. Copies ......................... Autograph to Oldest Copies .................... Events to Autograph ..........

Gallic Wars ....... 12 ........................................ 950 years ....................................... 0 - 20 years ...................
Iliad ............... 643 ...................................... 1000 years ...................................... 400 years ......................
Jewish Wars ..... 200? ...................................... 1000 years ...................................... 0 - 40 years ...................
TJW, Latin ....... N/A ...................................... 500 years ....................................... " ... " ... " ...................
TJW, reflected ... N/A ..................................... 400 years ....................................... " .... " ... " ....................

Anyone have any inkling where the New Testament will land, on this table?

Here is an image from one of the copies of the New Testament, in Greek:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Codex_Vaticanus_B%2C_2Thess._3%2C11-18%2C_Hebr._1%2C1-2%2C2.jpg

The table is complete when we add the NEw Testament:

TITLE ............ MSS. Copies ......................... Autograph to Oldest Copies .................... Events to Autograph ..........

Gallic Wars ....... 12 ........................................ 950 years ....................................... 0 - 20 years ...................
Iliad ............... 643 ...................................... 1000 years ...................................... 400 years ......................
Jewish Wars ..... 200? ...................................... 1000 years ...................................... 0 - 40 years ...................
TJW, Latin ....... N/A ...................................... 500 years ....................................... " ... " ... " ...................
TJW, reflected ... N/A ..................................... 400 years ....................................... " .... " ... " ....................

New Testament ... 20,000 ................................. 40 -80 years ................................... 20 - 50 years. .................
NT Fragments ..... 12,000 .................................... " . " . " . " ...................................... " . " . " . " .....................
NT (Reflected) .................................................. <100 - 400 years .................................................................


Yes, that's correct; The New Testament Provenance stands on THOUSANDS, tens of thousands, of manuscript copies, and THOUSANDS of fragments. For every manuscript copy of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, there are at least 1000 fragments and 1000 copies. The second column is also not a typo: There are mss. and fragments dating from the second century. One fragment of John dates as early as 120 AD, which, if we use the date of 70 as the autograph date, means 50 years -- Compare against the Jewish Wars 400 years, or Caesar's 950 years! ... and if we use 80 (the latest date scholars use for the completion of the NT, see F.F. Bruce) ... then the earliest fragment is 40 years after the autograph.

That's like picking up a book printed in 1976. Remember 1976? Not very long ago, was it?

And on the final point, event to autograph, the NT scores well within the curve for the others. So the award for the ancient document with the best provenance? Without any question at all, by orders of magnitude, the New Testament wins. To say that the New Testament is NOT an accurate transmission of the original intent of the writers is to throw out the reliability of every other ancient document, without exception.

If the words of the Greek New Testament as we have it today are not highly accurate and precise renditions of the words in the autographs, then we cannot trust anything that has ever been written longer ago than 1950.

Does this prove that the Bible is true? No. But it puts paid once for all to the claim that the New Testament as we have it today is a "Telephone Game" result, coming to us through uncertain transmission after uncertain transmission. No, we have the words of Christ as the apostles intended to transmit them; and we have those words accurately.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:44 am

The more astute among you will have noticed the last line in the table, "NT Reflected."

For Josephus we discussed how there are citations of his works which actually predate the oldest mss. that we have, and that this bolsters our confidence in Josephus. Please note that we have similar reflected provenance for the New Testament in the writings of early church leaders, such as Irenaeaus, Eusebius, Origen, and Tertullian. It is claimed by McDowell and by F.F. Bruce that researchers have been able to reconstruct the entire New Testament, with the except of a score of verses, solely from the writings of second and third century Church leaders.

Even if we had no mss. copies at all, and no fragments, we still would not have lost the New Testament -- In addition to provenance orders of magnitude better than any other ancient document bar none, we ALSO have powerful reflected provenance.

So let's hear no more of the NT having changed over the ages. The SCIENCE of ancient provenance has closed that door forever.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:46 am

Simplyme wrote:
Og3 wrote:
Simplyme wrote:If it was not originally an oral story, then who wrote Genesis and when was it written? Was it written as it happened? That's hard to imagine, nobody could of written about the earth being created...nobody was there. Who wrote about Adam & Eve? I know you are not claiming it was Adam or Eve? Was it Moses, as many believe? How much time passed from the creation of this world to Moses writing Genesis? If he did not get the account orally, how was he able to know these things?

The very posts you cited answer those questions. I've already told you that I will entertain no more simplistic digressions.


I'm confused. You started this post. Why are you now refusing to answer questions that are hard?

I thought they were legit questions. I'm wondering how you never came across these questions in your 50 years of study?

You claim it was not originally an oral story, If it were not originally oral then it was written down somewhere. Who wrote it down? Was the person writing it, there as a firsthand witness? As I stated, that would be hard as nobody was there when god was creating things. Do you believe Moses to have written Genesis? How much time has past from the first creation and Moses time? If he wrote about these accounts without being there and it was not orally told to him. Then where did he read about these accounts?

I am refusing to answer the same question repeatedly. Read the prior page, and your questions will be answered.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:48 am

Simplyme wrote:
Moderators, it is my belief that this post violates the rules of this section. Please take such action as you find appropriate.

Thank you.


How is it violating the rules? :roll:

Because it is not civil discussion. It is the yapping of a toothless Chiahuahua. I cautioned you that I would not tolerate endless digressions.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:51 am

Having covered provenance rather thoroughly, we can now move on (unless there are questions on point) to a discussion of content.

Before we do, are there questions on the provenance?
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:30 pm

Now then...

When examining the truth value of a document -- that is, once we are satisfied that the writer intended to send us the words we see -- we have two scientific tools for examining a document:

Internal Consistency:
External consistency:

Internal consistency means that the document agrees with itself. For example, I was reading a novella recently, where two men are sitting at a table eating, one of them suddenly does something rude, and the other turns to see why. The novella is called The Bitter End and was written by Rex Stout in 1940. The (c) is held by the Rex Stout Literary Works, whose CEO is Rebecca Stout Bradbury. I cite it here under the fair use provision for literary criticism.

It was lunchtime Tuesday. Wolfe and I were at the dining table. I was doing alright with a can of beans I had got at the delicatessen. Wolfe ... took a spoonful of stuff from a little glass jar ... dabbed it onto the end of a roll, bit it off, and chewed. All of a sudden, there was an explosion ... Instinctively I dropped my sandwich and put up my hands to protect my face ...

The explosion is that Wolfe has spit out the liver pate that he was eating because it was bitter, and in his mind poisoned. But note what Archie is eating: He states that he is eating a can of beans, and then he states that he dropped his sandwich. This statement as written is not internally consistent. It gives us two inconsistent facts: That Archie's lunch is a sandwich, and that it is a can of beans.

We can derive any of four possibilities from this:
1.) That Archie ate beans for lunch on Tuesday.
2.) That Archie ate a sandwich for lunch on Tuesday.
3.) That Archie ate both a sandwich and beans for lunch on Tuesday.
4.) That Archie ate neither.

The last two possibilities are called "The unexcluded middle," that is, we are not constrained to believe that he ate beans with no sandwich nor a sandwich with no beans. We can also consider "Both" or "Neither."

Contrast this with the question of whether a cat is alive or dead: There the middle is excluded (except in special opaque and soundproof boxes made in 1935).

Now we should also note a subcategory under 4.) -- three, in fact, to follow the pattern properly: 4a.) that Archie did not eat lunch, 4b.) that Archie ate something else for lunch, or 4c.) that Archie is a fictional construct made up by Rex Stout. In general we assert 4c.) to be true, in part because of internal inconsistencies such as this one.

In considering the idea of a paradoxical passage in the Bible, we should keep Archie's lunch in mind. For assertions x and y, is it true that x, !y, or !x, y, or x+y, or !x, !y ? * and by reaching a reasonable conclusion on that point, then we can decide whether the Bible is "internally consistent," that is, whether it tells one complete story.

Obviously, we don't care what Archie had for lunch in 1940 in a novella. It didn't matter to that story line, nor does it matter to us in considering the Bible. It is merely an example of how we should consider conflicting data in a logical manner. So, let us turn our attention to the Bible. Many have accused the Bible of containing internal inconsistencies -- "Contradictions," if you will.

With your collective sufferance, I will open the floor for examples...
____________________
! is used here as shorthand for "not."
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:50 pm

And one small digression at this point:

When we speak of something being "reasonably demonstrated" there are several standards that we may use, and several "degrees of proof."

In mathematics, we speak of something being proven within its givens; for example we can prove that a line segment XY crosses parallel line segments AB and CD at the same angle, GIVEN that we are using Euclidian Geometry. For a non-plane surface, this might not hold true, and so forth. But if we accept the givens, we may say that it is absolutely true.

We may use the colloquial term "Beyond a shadow of a doubt," meaning that a thing is so strongly proven that the individual considering the matter cannot conceive of doubting it.

We may use the Legal Term, "Beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the standard in America in a criminal case, i.e., that any reasonable person, having considered the evidence, would believe the assertion [of guilt].

We may use the legal term "Clear and Convincing evidence" which can be used as a standard in some civil and some criminal cases, where a different standard would unfairly prejudice the case: For example, if a prisoner presents a Habeus Corpus for relief from the death penalty, proving factual innocence beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a standard, and "Preponderance of Evidence" too low a standard. Thus the middle road, "Clear and Convincing" evidence, that is, evidence making it probable that the assertion is true.

We may use the Legal Term, "By a preponderance of evidence," which is the the second and most common standard in America in a civil case, i.e., that the majority of the evidence tends to suggest strongly that the assertion is true.

We may use the subjective standard, "Sufficient to convince me."

All of these -- and there may be more degrees of proof standards -- are things we may mean by "It is proven that X."

Based on the evidence already supported, I believe that we have reached the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for the provenance of the New Testament, as an example of how this applies to our discussion. I do not think that any reasonable person could examine that evidence, above in this thread, and conclude that the New Testament is not what the authors intended it to be. Now to consider the truth value: Let's see what standard of proof we can reach in considering that matter.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Simplyme » Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:40 pm

Og3 wrote:
Simplyme wrote:
Moderators, it is my belief that this post violates the rules of this section. Please take such action as you find appropriate.

Thank you.


How is it violating the rules? :roll:

Because it is not civil discussion. It is the yapping of a toothless Chiahuahua. I cautioned you that I would not tolerate endless digressions.


See I stopped after the moderators comment. Yet you continue, by calling me names. Who is breaking the rules now?
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5953
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:49 pm

Any questions on point?

Provenance? You're not challenging that there are 20,000 mss. of the NT to 12 of TGW, or 643 of the Iliad?

Questions about standards of proof or about Internal consistency? Surely there's a seeming contradiction in the New Testament that you'd like to explore?
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

PreviousNext

Return to The Civility Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest